mM

California High­Speed Rail Authority

San Jose to Merced

Project Section

Final Federal General Conformity

Determination

April 2022

O Sacramento

CALIFORNIA

High‐Speed Rail Authority

The environm ental  review,  consultation,  and othe r actions  required  by applicab

federal environm ental laws fo r this project are being  or  have  been carried out 

the State o f California pursuant to 23 U.S.C.  327  and  a Memorandum of 

Understanding  dated July 23, 2019,  and  executed by the  Federal  Railroad 

Adm inistration and the State of California.

RCC­220321­001
California High-Speed Rail System, San Jose to Merced Section

Final General Conformity Determination

Prepared by: 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

This Final General Conformity Determination has been prepared by the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA), pursuant to Section 176(c) of the Federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7506(c)(1), and its 

implementing regulations (“General Conformity Rule”). Specifically, this Final General Conformity 

Determination documents FRA’s finding that the California High-Speed Rail System, San Jose to Merced

Section will comply with the General Conformity Rule, provided that any construction emissions 

exceeding de minimis levels will be offset though agreements between the California High-Speed Rail 

Authority and the applicable air districts.

Date of Approval Marlys Osterhues 

Chief of Environment and Project Engineering Division

Federal Railroad Administration 

For further information, please contact: 

Andréa E. Martin

Senior Environmental Protection Specialist

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration 

Environment & Project Engineering Division

1200 New Jersey Ave., SE

Washington, D.C. 20590

(202) 493-6201 

RCC­220321­001
Executive Summary

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The California High-Speed Rail (HSR) system, proposed by the California High-Speed Rail 

Authority (Authority), will provide intercity, high-speed service on more than 800 miles of 

guideway throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San 

Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and 

San Diego. The San Jose to Central Valley Wye Project Extent (Project)1, which is the focus of 

this General Conformity Determination, is a critical link connecting San Jose to the Central Valley 

portion of the HSR system at the Central Valley Wye in Merced County, which in turn connects to 

the portion of the system running north to Merced and south to Fresno and southern California.2 

The General Conformity Rule, as codified in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 93, 

Subpart B, establishes the process by which federal agencies determine conformance of 

proposed projects that are federally funded or require federal approval with applicable air quality 

standards. This determination must demonstrate that a project would not cause or contribute to 

new violations of air quality standards, exacerbate existing violations, or interfere with timely 

attainment or required interim emissions reductions towards attainment. 

FRA prepared a Draft General Conformity Determination, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. part 93, subpart 

B, which establishes the process for complying with the General Conformity requirements of the 

Clean Air Act. FRA published a notice in the Federal Register on November 26, 2021 advising the 

public of the availability of the Draft Conformity Determination for a 30-day review and comment 

period. The draft Conformity Determination was published at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket 

No. FRA-2021-0100. The comment period of the Draft Conformity Determination closed on 

December 27, 2021. FRA received two comments expressing support for the project.

This Final General Conformity Determination documents the FRA’s finding that the Project

complies with the General Conformity Rule and that it conforms to the purposes of the area’s 

approved State Implementation Plan and is consistent with all applicable requirements. The Final 

General Conformity Determination is available at http://www.regulations.gov, Docket No. FRA2021-0100, and on FRA’s website at https://railroads.dot.gov/environment/environmentalreviews/clean-air-act-california-general-conformity-determinations. This Final General Conformity 

Determination is based on the impact avoidance and minimization features and mitigation 

measures described in Appendix 2-E and Section 3.3.7, respectively, of the San Jose to Merced 

Project Section Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (Authority 

2022) and that will be implemented for the Project. This compliance is demonstrated as follows: 

• Operations of the Project would result in a reduction of regional emissions of all applicable air 

pollutants and would not cause a localized exceedance of an air quality standard. 

• While emissions generated during construction of the Project would exceed the General 

Conformity thresholds for nitrogen oxides in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin and San 

Joaquin Valley Air Basin, these emission increases would be offset through a new agreement 

with BAAQMD and an existing Memorandum of Understanding and Voluntary Emission 

Reduction Agreement with the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, respectively. 

1 The Project Section has been evaluated in three extents: from San Jose to the western limit of the Central Valley Wye; 

the Central Valley Wye itself; and from the northern limit of the Central Valley Wye to Merced (i.e., the northern portion of 

the Merced to Fresno Project Section). 

2 As part of its first phase, the California HSR System is planned as seven distinct sections from San Francisco in the 

north to Los Angeles and Anaheim in the south. 

RCC­220321­001
Table of Contents

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... I 

1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................... 1-7 

1.1 Regulatory Status of Resource Study Area 1-7 ..................................................

1.2 General Conformity Regulations 1-2 ..................................................................

2 CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECT ........................................................ 2-1 

2.1 California High-Speed Rail System 2-1 ..............................................................

2.2 California High-Speed Rail System—San Jose to Central Valley Wye 

Project Extent 2-1 ...............................................................................................

3 AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS IN THE RESOURCE STUDY AREA........................ 3-1 

3.1 Meteorology and Climate.............................................................................. 3-1 

3.2 Ambient Air Quality in the Resource Study Area.......................................... 3-1 

3.3 Resource Study Area Emissions .................................................................. 3-1 

4 RELATIONSHIP TO NEPA 4-1 .....................................................................................

5 PROJECT FEATURES TO REDUCE EMISSIONS................................................ 5-1 

6 REGULATORY PROCEDURES............................................................................. 6-1 

6.1 Use of Latest Planning Assumptions............................................................ 6-1 

6.2 Use of Latest Emission Estimation Techniques ........................................... 6-1 

6.3 Major Construction-Phase Activities............................................................. 6-2 

6.4 Emission Scenarios ...................................................................................... 6-2 

7 APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 7-1 

7.1 Attainment Status of Resource Study Area .................................................. 7-1 

7.2 Exemptions from General Conformity Requirements ................................... 7-2 

7.3 Applicability for Project ................................................................................. 7-2 

7.4 De Minimis Emission Rates..........................................................................7-2 

8 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES CONSIDERED...................................................... 8-1 

8.1 Models and Methods for Emissions Modeling .............................................. 8-1 

8.2 Ballast and Subballast Hauling..................................................................... 8-2 

8.3 Annual Emissions Estimates ........................................................................ 8-3 

8.4 Emissions by Air Basin................................................................................. 8-3 

8.5 Project Design Features ............................................................................... 8-5 

9 ESTIMATED EMISSION RATES AND COMPARISON TO DE MINIMIS

THRESHOLDS........................................................................................................ 9-1 

10 REGIONAL EFFECTS ..........................................................................................10-1 

11 GENERAL CONFORMITY EVALUATION ............................................................11-1 

11.1 Conformity Requirements of Project...........................................................11-1 

11.2 Compliance with Conformity Requirements ...............................................11-1 

11.3 Consistency with Requirements and Milestones in Applicable SIP............11-3 

11.3.1 Applicable Requirements from U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency ........................................................................11-3 

11.3.2 Applicable Requirements from California Air Resources 

Board ...........................................................................................11-3

RCC­220321­001
Table of Contents

11.3.3 Applicable Requirements from Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District .............................................................................11-4 

11.3.4 Consistency with Applicable Requirements for the California 

High-Speed Rail Authority ...........................................................11-4 

12 ESTIMATED EMISSION RATES AND COMPARISON TO DE MINIMIS

THRESHOLDS—CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS........................................................12-1 

13 REPORTING AND PUBLIC COMMENTS............................................................13-1 

14 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS.........................................................................14-1 

15 REFERENCES .....................................................................................................15-1 

Tables

Table 1 Planning Documents Relevant to the Resource Study Area ............................ 1-1 

Table 2 Ambient Criteria Pollutant Concentration Data at Air Quality Monitoring 

Stations along the Project Extent............................................................................. 3-3 

Table 3 Estimated Annual Average Emissions for Santa Clara, San Benito, and 

Merced Counties (2012 data published in 2017) (tons per day) .............................. 3-5 

Table 4 Federal Attainment Status of the SFBAAB, NCCAB, and SJVAB ....................7-1 

Table 5 De Minimis Rates for Determining Applicability of General Conformity 

Requirements to Federal Actions............................................................................. 7-3 

Table 6 Track Miles and Construction Scaling Factors by Air Basin .............................8-4 

Table 7 San Jose to Central Valley Wye Annual Construction Emissions in the 

SFBAAB (tons per year)1 ......................................................................................... 9-2 

Table 8 San Jose to Central Valley Wye Annual Construction Emissions in the 

SJVAB (tons per year)1 ............................................................................................ 9-3 

Table 9 Overlapping HSR System Construction Emissions in the SFBAAB (tons 

per year).................................................................................................................12-2 

Table 10 Overlapping HSR System Construction Emissions in the SJVAB (tons 

per year).................................................................................................................12-1 

Figures

Figure 1 Resource Study Area Air Basins ..................................................................... 1-8 

Attachments

Attachment A: Letters of Agreement with BAAQMD

RCC­220321­001
 Chapter 1 Introduction

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

v | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AP-42 USEPA’s AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors

APCD air pollution control district 

Authority California High-Speed Rail Authority 

BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

Bay Area San Francisco Bay Area

C.F.R. Code of Federal Regulations 

CAA Clean Air Act 

CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model 

CARB California Air Resources Board 

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act 

CO carbon monoxide 

EIR environmental impact report

EIS environmental impact statement

EMFAC2017 EMission FACtors 2017 

EMMA Environmental Mitigation Management and Assessment system 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration’s 

Fresno to Bakersfield Final EIR/EIS Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS 

g/L grams per liter 

GHG greenhouse gas

HSIPR High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail 

HSR High-Speed Rail 

I- Interstate 

IAMF impact avoidance and minimization feature

MBARD Monterey Bay Air Resources District

Merced to Fresno Final EIR/EIS Merced to Fresno Section Final EIR/EIS 

MOU memorandum of understanding 

mph miles per hour

MPO metropolitan planning organizations 

NAAQS national ambient air quality standards 

NCCAB North Central Coast Air Basin 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide 

NOX nitrogen oxide 

O3 ozone

PM particulate matter 

RCC­220321­001
Acronyms and Abbreviations

PM10 particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter

PM2.5 particulate matter less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter 

Project San Jose to Central Valley Wye Project Extent 

Project Section San Jose to Merced Project Section 

ROD record of decision 

RSA resource study area 

SAFE Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient

SFBAAB San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin 

SIP State Implementation Plan 

SJVAB San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 

SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

SOX sulfur oxide 

SR State Route 

Statewide Program EIR/EIS Final Program EIR/EIS for the Proposed California High-Speed Train 

System 

tpy tons per year 

U.S.C. United States Code

USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

VERA Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement 

VMT vehicle miles traveled

VOC volatile organic compound

RCC­220321­001
 Chapter 1 Introduction

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

1-7 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

1 INTRODUCTION

This Final General Conformity Determination for the San Jose to Central Valley Wye Section of the 

California High-Speed Rail (HSR) System (Project) (a portion of the San Jose to Merced Project Section 

[Project Section]) and was prepared consistent with the implementing regulations of Section 176 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). Section 176(c)(1) of the CAA prohibits federal agencies from engaging in, 

supporting, or providing financial assistance for licensing, permitting or approving any activities that do 

not conform to an approved CAA implementation plan. That approved plan may be a federal, state, or 

tribal implementation plan. 

The CAA defines nonattainment areas as geographic regions that have been designated as not meeting 

one or more of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)The CAA requires that each state 

prepare a State Implementation Plan (SIP) A maintenance plan must be prepared for each former 

nonattainment area that subsequently demonstrated compliance with the standards. The SIP is a state’s 

plan for how it will meet the NAAQS by the CAA deadlines established by the CAA. 

The General Conformity Rule is codified in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.)Conformity is 

defined as “upholding an implementation plan’s purpose of eliminating or reducing the severity and 

number of violations of the NAAQS and achieving expeditious attainment of such standards.” 40 C.F.R. 

Part 93 also establishes the process by which federal agencies determine conformity. This determination 

must demonstrate that the Project would not cause or contribute to new violations of air quality standards, 

exacerbate existing violations, or interfere with timely attainment or required interim emissions reductions 

towards attainment. Since the Project is receiving federal funds through grants from the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), it is an action that may be subject to the General Conformity Rule. 

FRA prepared this Final General Conformity Determination after the release of the San Jose to Merced 

Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (FEIR/FEIS), which complies with 

the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Because the analysis used for the EIR/EIS also generated the information necessary for the General 

Conformity Determination, specific analysis may be incorporated herein by reference.

1.1 Regulatory Status of Resource Study Area

In November 1993, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) two sets of regulations to 

implement section 176(c) of the CAA. The final transportation conformity regulations were approved on 

November 24, 1993 to address transportation plans, programs, and projects developed, funded, or 

approved under title 23 United States Code (U.S.C.) or the Federal Transit Act, 49 U.S.C Section 1601 et 

seq. (40 C.F.R. § 93 Subpart A). These regulations have been revised several times since they were first 

issued. While the Transportation Conformity regulations do not apply to the Project, many of the 

transportation planning documents developed under those regulations are helpful in understanding the 

regional air quality and planning status of the resource study area (RSA). The final general conformity 

regulations were approved on November 30, 1993. Because of the federal funding and potential safety 

and other approvals, the Project is subject to the general conformity regulations. The final general 

conformity regulations were approved on November 30, 1993. Because of the federal funding and 

potential safety and other approvals, the Project is subject to the general conformity regulations.

The RSA for the Project is the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin (SFBAAB) San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 

(SJVAB), and the North Central Coast Air Basin (NCCAB). Figure 1 shows the Project footprint as it is 

situated in the three air basins. Planning documents for pollutants for which the RSA is classified as 

federal nonattainment or maintenance are developed by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

(BAAQMD), Monterey Bay Air Resources District (MBARD), San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control 

District (SJVAPCD), and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) and approved by the USEPA. Table 

1 lists the planning documents relevant to the Project’s RSA.

RCC­220321­001
Section 1 Introduction

Source: Authority 2019a, CARB 2012

Figure 1 Resource Study Area Air Basins

RCC­220321­001
 Chapter 1 Introduction

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 1-1 

Table 1 Planning Documents Relevant to the Resource Study Area

Plan Status

San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin 

2001 San Francisco Bay Area 

Ozone Attainment Plan for the 1-

Hour National Ozone Standard

In a March 30, 2001, Federal Register notice (66 Fed. Reg. 17379), the 

USEPA proposed to make a finding that the Bay Area has not attained the 

national 1-hour O3 standard. The USEPA proposed partial approval and partial 

disapproval of the 1999 Ozone Attainment Plan. On August 28, 2001, the 

USEPA took final action on its March 2001 notice, triggering a CAA 

requirement that a new plan be submitted within 1 year of the effective date of 

the USEPA’s final action.

The revised 2001 Ozone Attainment Plan included the necessary changes to 

address the USEPA’s disapproval of the prior plan. In addition, to address the 

requirements triggered by the USEPA’s finding of failure to attain, the plan 

included a new emissions inventory and commitments to adopt and implement 

additional control measures to attain the standard by 2006, the attainment 

deadline. It also included additional contingency measures in the event the 

Bay Area did not attain the standard by 2006.

2017 Clean Air Plan Although not a federal planning document, the Bay Area 2017 Spare the Air, 

Cool the Climate (Clean Air Plan) provided a comprehensive plan to improve 

Bay Area air quality and protect public health. The Clean Air Plan defined a 

control strategy that the BAAQMD and its partners is implementing to: (1) 

attain all state and national ambient air quality standards; (2) eliminate 

disparities among Bay Area communities in cancer health risk from toxic air 

contaminants; and (3) reduce GHG emissions to protect the climate.

North Central Coast Air Basin 

2005 Report on Attainment of the 

California Particulate Matter 

Standards in the Monterey Bay 

Region

Although not a federal planning document, the plan fulfilled the requirements 

of Senate Bill 656 to reduce public exposure to PM. The plan outlines readily 

available, feasible, and cost-effective control measures for PM within the 

MBARD. 

2007 Federal Maintenance Plan 

for Maintaining the National 

Ozone Standard in the Monterey 

Bay Region

This plan presents the strategy for maintaining the NAAQS for O3 in the 

NCCAB. The NCCAB attained the 8-hour NAAQS in 2014. 

2012–2015 Air Quality 

Management Plan

Although not a federal planning document, the Air Quality Management Plan is 

prepared triennially by the MBARD to document the region’s continued 

progress toward meeting the state 8-hour O3 standard. 

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 

2007 PM10 Maintenance Plan and 

Request for Redesignation

On September 25, 2008, the USEPA redesignated the San Joaquin Valley to 

attainment for the PM10 NAAQS and approved the 2007 PM10 Maintenance 

Plan.

2007 8-Hour Ozone Plan On May 5, 2010, the USEPA reclassified the 8-hour O3 nonattainment status 

of the San Joaquin Valley from “serious” to “extreme.” The reclassification 

required the state to incorporate more stringent requirements, such as lower 

permitting thresholds, and implement reasonably available control 

technologies at more sources.

The 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan contained a comprehensive and exhaustive list 

of regulatory and incentive-based measures to reduce emissions of O3 and PM 

precursors throughout the San Joaquin Valley. On December 18, 2007, the 

SJVAPCD Governing Board adopted the plan with an amendment to extend 

RCC­220321­001
Section 1 Introduction

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

1-2 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

Plan Status

the rule adoption schedule for organic waste operations. On January 8, 2009, 

the USEPA found that the motor vehicle budgets for 2008, 2020, and 2030 

from the 2007 8-hour Ozone Plan were not adequate for transportation 

conformity purposes. The next plan will address the USEPA’s 2008 8-hour O3

standard of 75 parts per billion. 

2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-

Hour Ozone Standard

On September 19, 2013, the USEPA approved the San Joaquin Valley’s 2013 

Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard. Effective June 15, 2005, the 

USEPA revoked the federal 1-hour O3 standard for areas including the SJVAB.

2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5

Standard

On April 30, 2008, the SJVAPCD adopted the 2008 PM2.5 Plan satisfying all 

federal implementation requirements for the 1997 federal PM2.5 standard. Per 

guidance from the USEPA, the plan addressed the 1997 PM2.5 standard under 

Subpart 1 of federal CAA Title 1, Part D (Subpart 1). Subsequently, in 2013, 

the D.C. Circuit Court ruled that the USEPA erred by solely using CAA Subpart 

1 in establishing its PM2.5 implementation rule, without consideration of the 

PM-specific provisions in CAA Title 1, Part D, Subpart 4 (Subpart 4). In June 

2014, the USEPA classified the SJVAB as a “moderate” nonattainment area 

under Subpart 4. The USEPA recently reclassified the Valley as “serious” 

nonattainment effective May 7, 2015. The 2015 PM2.5 Plan addresses the 

federal mandates for a “serious” nonattainment area related to the 1997 PM2.5

standard.

2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 

2012 PM2.5 Standard

The 2016 Moderate Area Plan addresses the federal mandates for areas 

classified as “moderate” nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 federal annual air 

quality standard of 12 micrograms per cubic meter

2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour 

Ozone Standard1 

The District adopted the 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard in 

June 2016. This plan satisfies CAA requirements and ensures expeditious 

attainment of the 75 parts per billion 8-hour O3 standard. 

2018 PM2.5 Plan The 2018 PM2.5 Plan provides a single integrated plan to attain the federal 

health-based 1997, 2006, and 2012 NAAQS. The plan builds upon 

comprehensive strategies already in place from previously adopted SJVAPCD 

attainment plans and measures. 

Sources: BAAQMD 2001, 2017; MBUAPCD 2005, 2007, 2017; SJVAPCD 2007a, 2007b, 2013, 2015, 2016a, 2016b, 2018 

BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District

Bay Area = San Francisco Bay Area

CAA = Clean Air Act

CARB = California Air Resources Board

CO = carbon monoxide

GHG = greenhouse gases

MBARD = Monterey Bay Air Resources District

NAAQS = national ambient air quality standards

NCCAB = North Central Coast Air Basin

O3 = ozone

PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter

PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns or less in diameter

SFBAAB = San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin

SIP = State Implementation Plan

SJVAB = San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

1.2 General Conformity Regulations

On November 30, 1993, the USEPA promulgated final General Conformity regulations at 40 

C.F.R. Part 93 Subpart B for all federal activities except highways and transit programs covered 

by Transportation Conformity. The regulations in Subpart B were subsequently amended in 

March 2010. Because the Project will not be funded or require approval(s) under Title 23 U.S.C. 

or the Federal Transit Act, 49 U.S.C Section 1601 et seq., the General Conformity requirements 

are applicable, rather than Transportation Conformity. In general terms, unless a project is 

exempt under 40 C.F.R. Section 93.153(c) or is not on the agency’s presumed-to-conform list 

pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Section 93.153(f), a General Conformity Determination is required where a 

federal action in a nonattainment or maintenance area causes an increase in the total of direct 

RCC­220321­001
 Chapter 1 Introduction

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 1-3 

and indirect emissions of the relevant criteria pollutants and precursor pollutants that are equal to 

or exceed certain de minimis rates.

During the applicability analysis, the federal agency determines the following: 

• Whether the action will occur in a nonattainment or maintenance area

• Whether one or more of the specific exemptions apply to the action

• Whether the federal agency has included the action on its list of presumed-to-conform actions

• Whether the total direct and indirect emissions are below or above the de minimis levels

• Where a facility has an emissions budget approved by the state or tribe as part of the SIP or 

Tribal Implementation Plan, the federal agency determines that the emissions from the 

Project are within the budget 

The USEPA Guidance states that the applicability analysis can be, but is not required to be, 

completed concurrently with any analysis required under NEPA. The applicability analysis for this 

Project is described in Section 8, Applicability Analysis. If after the applicability analysis, the 

Federal agency concludes it should conduct a conformity determination, it may demonstrate 

conformity by one or more of several prescribed methods. These methods include: 

• Demonstrating that the direct and indirect emissions are specifically identified in the relevant 

implementation plan

• Obtaining a written statement from the entity responsible for the implementation plan that the 

total indirect and direct emissions from the action, along with other emissions in the area, will 

not exceed the total implementation plan emission budget

• Fully offsetting the total direct and indirect emissions by reducing emissions of the same 

pollutant in the same nonattainment or maintenance area

 

RCC­220321­001
Section 1 Introduction

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

1-4 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

RCC­220321­001
 Chapter 2 California High-Speed Rail Project

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 2-1 

2 CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL PROJECT 

2.1 California High-Speed Rail System

The Authority, is responsible for planning, designing, constructing, and operating the HSR 

system. Its mandate is to develop an HSR system connecting the state’s major population 

centers and coordinate with the state’s existing transportation network, which includes intercity 

rail and bus lines, regional commuter rail lines, urban rail and bus transit lines, highways, and 

airports.

The HSR system will provide intercity, high-speed service on more than 800 miles of railroad 

throughout California, connecting the major population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco 

Bay Area (Bay Area), the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland Empire, Orange County, and 

San Diego. It would use state-of-the-art, electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steelrail technology, including contemporary safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, 

with trains capable of operating up to 220 miles per hour (mph) over a grade-separated, 

dedicated guideway alignment. 

The FRA is responsible for oversight and regulation of railroad safety and implementation of the 

High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR). As part of the HSIPR Program, the FRA is 

providing partial funding for the environmental analysis and documentation required under NEPA, 

CEQA, and other related environmental laws. Pursuant to U.S. Code Title 23 Section 327, under 

the NEPA Assignment Memorandum of Understanding between the FRA and the State of 

California, effective July 23, 2019, the Authority is the federal lead agency for environmental 

reviews for all Authority Phase 1 and Phase 2 California HSR System projects. The FRA 

performs Clean Air Act Conformity determinations and other federal approvals retained by the 

FRA under the NEPA Assignment Memorandum of Understanding. 

In April 2012 and May 2014, respectively, the FRA and the Authority published the Merced to 

Fresno Section Final EIR/EIS (Merced to Fresno Final EIR/EIS) (Authority and FRA 2012) and 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Fresno to Bakersfield Final EIR/EIS) (Authority and 

FRA 2014). The FRA issued the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Fresno to Bakersfield Project

in June 2014. Both projects are within the SJVAB, and a General Conformity Determination was 

prepared as part of the environmental processes to comply with the CAA. The Merced to Fresno 

and Fresno to Bakersfield General Conformity Determinations include the Authority’s commitment 

to offset all emissions to net zero through a Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement (VERA)

between the Authority and the SJVAPCD. Although the San Jose to Merced Project Section of 

the HSR system is independent of the other HSR system project sections for purposes of NEPA 

and CEQA analysis, certain construction activities may occur concurrently with construction 

activities for other project sections within the SFBAAB and SJVAB. Therefore, estimates of 

cumulative emissions, where available, have been presented in Section 13, Estimated Emission 

Rates and Comparison to de minimis Thresholds—Cumulative Analysis, of this document. These 

future emissions estimates have been included in this document in the interest of full disclosure of 

future construction emissions that may occur in the SFBAAB and SJVAB from other sections of 

the HSR system; each of these sections would undergo separate conformity determinations later. 

2.2 California High-Speed Rail System—San Jose to Central Valley Wye 

Project Extent

The Project will provide HSR service between San Jose Diridon Station in downtown San Jose, 

with a Gilroy station in either downtown Gilroy or east Gilroy, and a station in downtown Merced. 

It will connect San Jose to the Central Valley portion of the HSR system at the Central Valley 

Wye in Merced County, which in turn would connect to the portion of the system running north to 

Merced and south to Fresno and southern California. 

The Project is designed to allow trains to and from the Bay Area to transition smoothly from northsouth to east-west travel with a minimum reduction in speed to achieve the Proposition 1A travel 

time requirement. Proposition 1A requires that the HSR system be designed to achieve a nonstop 

RCC­220321­001
Section 2 California High-Speed Rail Project

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

2-2 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

service travel time of 2 hours and 10 minutes between San Jose and Los Angeles Union Station.3

The Project follows existing transportation corridors to the extent feasible, as directed by 

Proposition 1A.4 

The Project corridor is between Scott Boulevard and Carlucci Road and constitutes approximately 

91 miles of the approximately 145-mile-long Project Section, which includes dedicated HSR track 

and systems, and station locations at San Jose Diridon and Gilroy; an MOWF in the Gilroy area, 

and an MOWS near Turner Island Road in the Central Valley. HSR stations at San Jose Diridon 

and Gilroy would support transit-oriented development, provide an interface with regional and 

local mass transit services, and provide connectivity to the South Bay and Central Valley highway 

network.5 The Project begins at Scott Boulevard in Santa Clara. The HSR infrastructure and 

operations transition from the blended system between San Francisco and Santa Clara to a fully 

dedicated system north of the San Jose Diridon Station, either at Scott Boulevard in Santa Clara 

or near I-880; or, in the case of Alternative 4, the blended system extends to downtown Gilroy. 

The Project continues south and east from Gilroy, continuing east through the Pacheco Pass to 

the Central Valley to its end at Carlucci Road, the western limit of the Central Valley Wye. 

The Project comprises the following five subsections:

• San Jose Diridon Station Approach—Extends approximately 6 miles from north of the San 

Jose Diridon Station at I-880 in San Jose or Scott Boulevard in Santa Clara to West Alma 

Avenue in San Jose. This subsection includes San Jose Diridon Station and overlaps the 

southern portion of the San Francisco to San Jose Project Section.

• Monterey Corridor—Extends approximately 9 miles from West Alma Avenue to Bernal Way 

in the community of South San Jose. This subsection is entirely within the city of San Jose.

• Morgan Hill and Gilroy—Extends 30–32 miles from Bernal Way in the community of South 

San Jose to Casa de Fruta Parkway/State Route (SR) 152 in the community of Casa de 

Fruta in Santa Clara County.

• Pacheco Pass—Extends approximately 25 miles from Casa de Fruta Parkway/SR 152 to I-5 

in Merced County.

• San Joaquin Valley—Extends approximately 18 miles from I-5 to Carlucci Road in 

unincorporated Merced County.

The Authority has developed four end-to-end alternatives for the Project: Alternative 1, Alternative 

2, Alternative 3, and Alternative 4. Each alternative consists of a variety of alignment and station 

options. It is estimated that construction of the Project would take approximately 7 years, with 

initiation of construction in 2022 and completion in 2028. 

3 Proposition 1A requires that the HSR system be designed to achieve a nonstop service travel time of 2 hours and 40 

minutes between San Francisco and Los Angeles Union Station, including a 30-minute ride between San Francisco and 

San Jose (§ 2704.09(b)(4)). 

4 Proposition 1A requires that the HSR system be designed to operate on an alignment that follows existing transportation 

and utility corridors to the extent feasible (§ 2704.09(g)). 

5 South Bay refers to Santa Clara County. 

RCC­220321­001
 Chapter 3 Air Quality Conditions in the Resource Study Area

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 3-1 

3 AIR QUALITY CONDITIONS IN THE RESOURCE STUDY AREA

3.1 Meteorology and Climate

Air quality is affected by the rate and location of pollutant emissions and by meteorological 

conditions that influence movement and dispersal of pollutants in the atmosphere. Atmospheric 

conditions, such as wind speed, wind direction, and air temperature gradients, along with local 

topography, provide the link between air pollutant emissions and local air quality levels.

Elevation and topography can affect localized air quality. The Project extent crosses the 

SFBAAB, NCCAB, and SJVAB. Within the SFBAAB, temperatures in the Santa Clara Valley are 

warm on summer days and cool on summer nights, and winter temperatures are mild. Winds in 

the valley are greatly influenced by the terrain, resulting in a prevailing flow that roughly parallels 

the valley's northwest-southeast axis. Within the NCCAB, the semi-permanent high-pressure cell 

in the eastern Pacific, known as the Pacific High, is the basic controlling factor in the climate. The 

generally northwest-southeast orientation of mountainous ridges tends to restrict and channel the 

summer onshore air currents. In the fall and winter, the surface winds become weak, which can 

lead to pollutant transport from the SFBAAB and SJVAPCD into the NCAAB. Within the SJVAB, 

summer temperatures often exceed 100 degrees Fahrenheit, and the surrounding mountain 

ranges restrict air movement through and out of the valley. Air pollutants often tend to collect, 

leading to higher concentrations of emitted pollutants. 

3.2 Ambient Air Quality in the Resource Study Area

The CARB maintains ambient air monitoring stations for criteria pollutants throughout California. 

There are three monitoring stations in the vicinity of the HSR alignment alternatives in Santa 

Clara County, and one relevant monitoring station in both San Benito and Merced Counties. 

These stations provide representative ambient criteria pollutant concentrations. The addresses 

and distances of the stations to the HSR alignment are summarized below. 

• San Jose—Jackson Street (156B Jackson Street, San Jose, CA 95110): Approximately 1

mile northeast.

• San Martin—Murphy Avenue (13030 Murphy Ave., San Martin, CA 95046): 

Approximately 0.25 mile east.

• Gilroy—9th Street (9th and Princeville, Gilroy, CA 95020): Approximately 0.5 mile west.

• Hollister—Fairview Road (1979 Fairview Rd., Hollister, CA 95023): Approximately 9 miles 

south.

• Merced—S. Coffee Avenue (385 S. Coffee Avenue, Merced, CA 95340): Approximately 

18 miles northeast.

Table 2 summarizes the results of ambient monitoring at these stations for the most recent 3 

years of available data. Some stations only monitor ozone (O3), whereas others monitor carbon 

monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in 

diameter (PM10)and PM less than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5). 

Between 2016 and 2018, monitored CO, sulfur dioxide (SO2) NO2 concentrations did not exceed 

any federal or state standards at any of the stations that reported monitoring data for these 

pollutants. However, the state and federal standards for O3, PM10, and PM2.5 were exceeded at 

one or more stations that reported monitoring data for these pollutants. Using violations of the 

ambient air quality standards as a proxy for air quality, O3 and PM conditions tend to be poorest 

in the vicinity of the eastern portion of the Project in Merced County, with air quality improving

westward toward the SFBAAB.

3.3 Resource Study Area Emissions

The CARB maintains an annual emission inventory for each county and air basin in the state. The 

inventories for Santa Clara, San Benito, and Merced Counties consist of data submitted to CARB 

RCC­220321­001
Section 3 Air Quality Conditions in the Resource Study Area

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3-2 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

by the local air districts plus estimates for certain source categories, which are provided by CARB 

staff. 

The most recent published inventory data for Santa Clara, San Benito, and Merced Counties is 

summarized in Table 3. Based on the 2012 air pollutant inventory data, except for San Benito 

County, mobile source emissions represent most of the volatile organic compounds (VOC), NOX, 

and CO emissions. In San Benito County, area sources represent most VOC emissions, and 

mobile source emissions represent the majority of NOX and CO. Area sources represent the 

majority of PM10 and PM2.5 emissions in all three counties.

RCC­220321­001
Chapter 3 Air Quality Conditions in the Resource Study Area

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 3-3 

Table 2 Ambient Criteria Pollutant Concentration Data at Air Quality Monitoring Stations along the Project Extent

Pollutant and Standards

San Jose—Jackson Street San Martin—Murphy Avenue Gilroy—9th Street Hollister—Fairview Road Merced—S. Coffee Avenue

2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018

Ozone (O3) a

Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.087 0.121 0.078 0.096 0.096 0.092 0.079 0.096 0.097 0.073 0.078 0.077 0.097 0.093 0.104

Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 0.066 0.098 0.061 0.071 0.086 0.080 0.070 0.084 0.065 0.060 0.072 0.063 0.086 0.084 0.082

Number of days standard exceeded1

CAAQS 1-hour (>0.09 ppm) 0 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 0 4 

NAAQS 8-hour (>0.070 ppm) 0 4 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 28 16 21

CAAQS 8-hour (>0.070 ppm) 0 4 0 1 3 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 29 17 23

Carbon Monoxide (CO) b

Maximum 8-hour concentration (ppm) 1.4 1.8 2.1

Station does not monitor CO Station does not monitor CO Station does not monitor CO Station does not monitor CO

Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 1.9 2.1 2.5

Number of days standard exceeded1

NAAQS 8-hour (>9 ppm) 0 0 0 

CAAQS 8-hour (>9.0 ppm) 0 0 0 

NAAQS 1-hour (>35 ppm) 0 0 0 

CAAQS 1-hour (>20 ppm) 0 0 0 

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) a

National maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 51.1 67.5 86.1

Station does not monitor NO2 Station does not monitor NO2 Station does not monitor NO2

35.4 38.9 45.8

State maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 51 67 86 35 38 45

State annual average concentration (ppm) 11 N/A 12 6 7 7 

Number of days standard exceeded

NAAQS 1-hour (98th Percentile>0.100 ppm) 0 0 0 0 0 0 

CAAQS 1-hour (0.18 ppm) 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Annual standard exceeded?

NAAQS annual (>0.053 ppm) No No No No No No

CAAQS annual (>0.030 ppm) No No No No No No

Particulate Matter (PM10)2, a

National maximum 24-hour concentration (mg/m3) 3 40.0 69.4 155.8

Station does not monitor PM10 Station does not monitor PM10

44.3 80.9 95.9

Station does not monitor PM10

National3 second-highest 24-hour concentration (mg/m3) 35.2 67.3 115.4 43.2 74.7 84.1

State4 maximum 24-hour concentration (mg/m3) 41.0 69.8 121.8 N/A N/A N/A 

State4 second-highest 24-hour concentration (mg/m3) 37.5 67.6 118.5 N/A N/A N/A 

National annual average concentration (mg/m3) 17.5 20.7 23.0 16.5 19.6 20.4

State annual average concentration (mg/m3)5 18.3 21.3 23.1 N/A N/A N/A 

RCC­220321­001
Section 3 Air Quality Conditions in the Resource Study Area

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3-4 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

Pollutant and Standards

San Jose—Jackson Street San Martin—Murphy Avenue Gilroy—9th Street Hollister—Fairview Road Merced—S. Coffee Avenue

2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018 2016 2017 2018

Number of days standard exceeded1

NAAQS 24-hour (>150 mg/m3)6 0 0 3 0 0 0 

CAAQS 24-hour (>50 mg/m3)6 0 19 12 N/A N/A N/A 

Annual standard exceeded?

CAAQS annual (>20 mg/m3) No Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A 

Particulate Matter (PM2.5) a

National3 maximum 24-hour concentration (mg/m3) 22.6 49.7 133.9

Station does not monitor PM2.5

16.0 48.4 97.5 20.4 42.0 52.7 43.0 69.3 88.2

National3 second-highest 24-hour concentration (mg/m3) 21.8 46.5 130.5 15.8 40.7 84.0 17.2 34.3 49.4 43.0 60.6 81.7

State4 maximum 24-hour concentration (mg/m3) 22.7 49.7 133.9 16.0 48.4 97.5 20.4 42.0 52.7 43.0 69.3 88.2

State4 second-highest 24-hour concentration (mg/m3) 21.8 46.5 130.5 15.3 40.7 84.0 17.2 34.3 49.4 43.0 60.6 81.7

National annual average concentration (mg/m3) 8.3 9.5 12.7 5.6 5.4 7.7 4.3 5.0 7.1 11.9 13.2 15.1

State annual average concentration (mg/m3)5 8.4 N/A 12.9 N/A N/A 7.9 N/A 5.1 7.2 11.9 13.2 15.1

Number of days standard exceeded1

NAAQS 24-hour (>35 mg/m3) 0 6 16 0 2 13 0 1 11 5 19 21

Annual standard exceeded?

NAAQS annual (>12.0 mg/m3) No No Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes

CAAQS annual (>12 mg/m3) No No Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes

Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)

Maximum 1-hour concentration (ppm) 0.0018 0.0036 0.0069

Station does not monitor SO2 Station does not monitor SO2 Station does not monitor SO2 Station does not monitor SO2

Number of days standard exceeded1

NAAQS 1-hour (>0.0075 ppm) 0 0 0 

CAAQS 1-hour (>0.25 ppb) 0 0 0 

Sources: a CARB 2020b USEPA 2020 1 An exceedance of a standard is not necessarily a violation because of the regulatory definition of a violation.

2 National statistics are based on standard conditions data. In addition, national statistics are based on samplers using federal reference or equivalent methods.

3 State statistics are based on local conditions data, except in the South Coast Air Basin, for which statistics are based on standard conditions data. In addition, state statistics are based on California-approved samplers. 4 Measurements usually are collected every 6 days.

5 State criteria for ensuring that data are sufficiently complete for calculating valid annual averages are more stringent than national criteria. 6 Mathematical estimate of how many days’ concentrations would have been measured as higher than the level of the standard had each day been monitored. Values have been rounded.

CAAQS = California ambient air quality standards 

mg/m3 = milligrams per cubic meter

NAAQS = national ambient air quality standards

ppm = parts per million

> = greater than

N/A = not applicable or there was insufficient or no data available to determine the value

RCC­220321­001
 Chapter 3 Air Quality Conditions in the Resource Study Area

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 3-5 

Table 3 Estimated Annual Average Emissions for Santa Clara, San Benito, and Merced Counties (2012 data published in 2017) (tons per 

day)

Source Category

Santa Clara County San Benito County Merced County

VOC CO NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5 VOC CO NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5 VOC CO NOX SOX PM10 PM2.5

Stationary Sources

Fuel Combustion 1 7 10 3 1 1 <1 <1 1 0 <1 <1 <1 2 2 <1 <1 <1 

Waste Disposal 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 0 0 0 0 0 2 <1 <1 <1 0 0 

Cleaning and Surface 

Coatings

7 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0 0 <1 <1 1 0 0 0 <1 <1 

Petroleum Production 

& Marketing

2 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 <1 0 0 0 0 0 

Industrial Processes 2 <1 1 <1 1 1 <1 <1 <1 0 1 <1 2 <1 <1 <1 1 <1 

Area-Wide Sources

Solvent Evaporation 15 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 

Miscellaneous 

Processes

2 15 3 <1 14 4 1 2 <1 <1 6 1 18 5 1 <1 26 5 

Mobile Sources

On-Road Motor 

Vehicles

17 133 34 <1 3 1 1 8 5 0 <1 <1 4 30 18 <1 1 1 

Other Mobile Sources 9 81 12 <1 1 1 <1 3 1 0 <1 <1 2 12 8 <1 <1 <1 

Grand Total (all 

sources)

55 238 61 3 20 7 4 13 6 0 8 1 32 48 29 <1 29 6

Source: CARB 2017

CO = carbon monoxide

NOX = nitrogen oxide

PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter

VOC = violate organic compounds

SOX = sulfur oxide

RCC­220321­001
Section 3 Air Quality Conditions in the Resource Study Area

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

3-6 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

RCC­220321­001
 Chapter 4 Relationship to NEPA

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 4-1 

4 RELATIONSHIP TO NEPA

The San Jose to Merced Section Final EIR/EIS identifies potential environmental impacts of the 

Project, both adverse and beneficial, identifies appropriate measures to mitigate adverse impacts, 

and identifies the agencies’ preferred alternative. The EIR/EIS was prepared to comply with both 

NEPA and CEQA.

The General Conformity regulations establish certain procedural requirements that must be 

followed when preparing a General Conformity evaluation and are similar, but not identical, to 

those for conducting an air quality impact analysis under NEPA regulations. NEPA requires that 

the air quality impacts of the Project’s implementation be analyzed and disclosed. For purposes 

of NEPA, the air quality impacts of the Project were determined by identifying the Project’s 

associated incremental emissions and air pollutant concentrations and comparing them, 

respectively, to emissions thresholds and to the CAAQS and NAAQS. The air quality impacts of 

the Project under future Plus Project conditions were also compared in the Final EIR/EIS to the 

future No Project conditions for NEPA purposes, and they were compared to existing conditions. 

The General Conformity Determination process and proposed general findings are discussed in 

Sections 3.3.4.4, 3.3.6.1, and 3.3.8 of the EIR/EIS. 

To appropriately document the identification and offset, where necessary, of the emissions 

resulting from the Project, the FRA is issuing this Final General Conformity Determination. The 

Authority has entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the SJVAPCD that 

establishes the framework for fully mitigating to net-zero construction emissions of NOx, volatile 

organic compounds (VOC), PM10, and PM2.5. For the SFBAAB and in coordination with the 

BAAQMD, the Authority will commit to purchase of additional offsets to net all criteria pollutant 

emissions to levels that are below the General Conformity de minimis level for each calendar year 

that exceedances occur. Refer to Section 11.2, Compliance with Conformity Requirements, for 

details on the Authority’s commitments.

 

RCC­220321­001
Section 4 Relationship to NEPA

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

4-2 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

RCC­220321­001
 Chapter 5 Project Features to Reduce Emissions

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 5-1 

5 PROJECT FEATURES TO REDUCE EMISSIONS 

To reduce impacts on the environment, the construction of the Project will include Project 

features to avoid and minimize impacts on air quality. These Project features will be included in 

the Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Program, which would be issued concurrently with the 

Final EIR/EIS and ROD for the Project and are enforceable commitments undertaken by the 

Authority. Construction of the Project is anticipated to occur through contract. The Authority will

include all Project features in the construction contract, which would create binding and 

enforceable commitments to implement. 

The Authority would be responsible for implementing and overseeing a mitigation monitoring 

program so the contractor meets all air quality design features. 

Project design features as part of the Project include the following:

AQ-IAMF#1: Fugitive Dust Emissions

During construction, the Contractor shall employ the following measures to minimize and control 

fugitive dust emissions. The Contractor shall prepare a fugitive dust control plan for each distinct 

construction segment. At a minimum, the plan shall describe how each measure will be employed 

and identify an individual responsible for ensuring implementation. At a minimum, the plan shall 

address the following components unless alternative measures are approved by the applicable air 

quality management district.

• Cover all vehicle loads transported on public roads to limit visible dust emissions, and

maintain at least 6 inches of freeboard space from the top of the container or truck bed.

• Clean all trucks and equipment before exiting the construction site using an appropriate 

cleaning station that does not allow runoff to leave the site or mud to be carried on tires off 

the site.

• Water exposed surfaces and unpaved roads at a minimum three times daily with adequate 

volume to result in wetting the top 1 inch of soil while avoiding overland flow. Rain events 

may sufficiently wet the top 1 inch of soil to alleviate the need to manually apply water.

• Limit vehicle travel speed on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph).

• Suspend any dust-generating activities when average wind speed exceeds 25 mph.

• Stabilize all disturbed areas, including storage piles that are not being used on a daily basis 

for construction purposes, by using water, a chemical stabilizer/suppressant, or hydro mulch 

or by covering with a tarp or other suitable cover or vegetative ground cover. In areas 

adjacent to organic farms, the Authority will use nonchemical means of dust suppression.

• Stabilize all on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads using water or a 

chemical stabilizer/suppressant. In areas adjacent to organic farms, the Authority will use 

nonchemical means of dust suppression.

• Apply water to or presoak all areas where land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land 

leveling, grading, cut-and-fill, and demolition activities are carried out. 

• For buildings up to six stories tall, wet all exterior surfaces of buildings during demolition.

• Limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at 

a minimum of once daily, using a vacuum type sweeper. 

• After the addition of materials to or the removal of materials from the surface or outdoor 

storage piles, apply sufficient water or a chemical stabilizer/suppressant.

RCC­220321­001
Section 5 Project Features to Reduce Emissions

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

5-2 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

AQ-IAMF#2: Selection of Coatings

During construction, the contractor will use:

• Low–volatile organic compound (VOC) paint that contains less than 10 percent of VOC 

contents (VOC, 10%).

• Super-compliant or Clean Air paint that has a lower VOC content than that required by Bay 

Area Air Quality Management District Regulation 8, Rule 3, Monterey Bay Unified Air 

Pollution Control District Rule 426, and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District Rule 4601, when available. If not available, the contractor will document the lack of 

availability, recommend alternative measure(s) to comply with Regulation 8, Rule 3, Rule 

426, and Rule 4601 or disclose absence of measure(s) for full compliance, and obtain 

concurrence from the Authority.

AQ-IAMF#3: Renewable Diesel

During construction, the Contractor will use renewable diesel fuel to minimize and control exhaust 

emissions from all heavy-duty diesel-fueled construction diesel equipment and on-road diesel 

trucks. Renewable diesel must meet the most recent ASTM D975 specification for Ultra Low 

Sulfur Diesel and have a carbon intensity no greater than 50% of diesel with the lowest carbon 

intensity among petroleum fuels sold in California. The Contractor will provide the Authority with 

monthly and annual reports, through the Environmental Mitigation Management and Application 

(EMMA) system, of renewable diesel purchase records and equipment and vehicle fuel 

consumption. Exemptions to use traditional diesel can be made where renewable diesel is not 

available from suppliers within 200 miles of the project site. The construction contract must 

identify the quantity of traditional diesel purchased and fully document the availability and price of 

renewable diesel to meet project demand.

AQ-IAMF#4: Reduce Criteria Exhaust Emissions from Construction Equipment

Prior to issuance of construction contracts, the Authority will incorporate the following construction 

equipment exhaust emissions requirements into the contract specifications:

• All heavy-duty off-road construction diesel equipment used during the construction phase will

meet Tier 4 engine requirements. 

• A copy of each unit’s certified tier specification and any required CARB or air pollution control 

district operating permit will be made available to the Authority at the time of mobilization of 

each piece of equipment. 

• The contractor will keep a written record (supported by equipment-hour meters where 

available) of equipment usage during project construction for each piece of equipment. 

• The contractor will provide the Authority with monthly reports of equipment operating hours 

(through the Environmental Mitigation Management and Assessment [EMMA] system) and 

annual reports documenting compliance.

AQ-IAMF#5: Reduce Criteria Exhaust Emissions from On-Road Construction Equipment

Prior to issuance of construction contracts, the Authority will incorporate the following materialhauling truck fleet mix requirements into the contract specifications:

• All diesel on-road trucks used to haul construction materials, including fill, ballast, rail ties, 

and steel, shall use a model year 2010 or newer engine. 

• The contractor will provide documentation to the Authority of efforts to secure such a fleet 

mix. 

• The contractor will keep a written record of equipment usage during Project construction for 

each piece of equipment and provide the Authority with monthly reports of vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT) (through EMMA) and annual reports documenting compliance.

RCC­220321­001
 Chapter 5 Project Features to Reduce Emissions

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 5-3 

AQ-IAMF#6: Reduce the Potential Impact of Concrete Batch Plants 

Prior to construction of any concrete batch plant, the contractor will provide the Authority with a 

technical memorandum documenting consistency with the Authority’s concrete batch plant siting 

criteria and utilization of typical control measures. Concrete batch plants will be sited at least 

1,000 feet from sensitive receptors, including places such as daycare centers, hospitals, senior 

care facilities, residences, parks, and other areas where people may congregate. The concrete 

batch plant will implement typical control measures to reduce fugitive dust such as water sprays, 

enclosures, hoods, curtains, shrouds, movable and telescoping chutes, central dust collection 

systems, and other suitable technology, to reduce emissions to be equivalent to the USEPA AP42 controlled emission factors for concrete batch plants. The contractor will provide to the 

Authority documentation that each batch plant meets this standard during operation.

RCC­220321­001
Section 5 Project Features to Reduce Emissions

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

5-4 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

RCC­220321­001
 Chapter 6 Regulatory Procedures

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 6-1 

6 REGULATORY PROCEDURES 

The General Conformity regulations establish certain procedural requirements that must be 

followed when preparing a General Conformity evaluation. The procedures required for the 

General Conformity evaluation are similar, but not identical, to those for conducting an air quality 

impact analysis pursuant to NEPA. The draft General Conformity Determination was released for 

public and agency review pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Section 93.156, and this Final General 

Conformity Determination is being published concurrently with the ROD for the Project. 

The Authority identified the appropriate emission estimation techniques and planning 

assumptions in close consultation with the state entities charged with regulating air pollution in 

the SFBAAB, NCCAB, and SJVAB. 

6.1 Use of Latest Planning Assumptions 

The General Conformity regulations require the use of the latest planning assumptions for the 

area encompassing the Project, derived from the estimates of population, employment, travel, 

and congestion most recently approved by the area’s metropolitan planning organizations 

(MPO)C.F.R. § 93.159(a)). 

The emission estimation techniques, which were slightly different from those used in establishing 

the applicable SIP emissions budgets, have been approved by the BAAQMD, MBARD, and 

SJVAPCD. The traffic data used in the air quality analysis are based on the level of ridership as 

presented in Connecting and Transforming California, 2016 Business Plan (2016 Business Plan)

(Authority 2016).6 Further, the traffic data are consistent with the most recent estimates made by 

the MPOs for traffic volume growth rates, including forecast changes in VMT and vehicle hours 

traveled. The MPO developed these estimates from their traffic assignment models based on 

current and future population, employment, and travel and congestion information. These 

assumptions are consistent with those in the current conformity determinations for the regional 

transportation plans and transportation improvement programs. 

6.2 Use of Latest Emission Estimation Techniques 

The General Conformity regulations require the use of the latest and most accurate emission 

estimation techniques available, unless such techniques are inappropriate (40 C.F.R. § 

93.159(b)). Emissions from construction activities were calculated using a combination of 

emission factors and methodologies from the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod2, 

the CARB’s EMFAC2017 model, and the USEPA’s AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission 

Factors (AP-42) based on Project-specific construction data (e.g., schedule, equipment, truck 

volumes) provided by the Project design team (Scholz pers. comm.). CalEEMod provides the 

latest emission factors for construction off-road equipment. It accounts for lower fleet population 

and growth factors because of the economic recession and updated load factors based on 

feedback from engine manufacturers. The use of emission rates from CalEEMod reflects the 

recommendation of the CARB to capture the latest off-road construction assumptions. CalEEMod

default load factors (the ratio of average equipment horsepower utilized to maximum equipment 

horsepower) and useful life parameters were used for emission estimates. CalEEMod default 

load factors (the ratio of average equipment horsepower utilized to maximum equipment 

horsepower) and useful life parameters were used for emission estimates. 

Construction exhaust emissions from equipment; fugitive dust emissions from earthmoving 

activities; and emissions from worker trips, deliveries, and material hauling were calculated and 

6 As described in Volume 2, Appendix 3.3-C, Changes to Project Benefits Based on 2018 Business Plan of the EIR/EIS, 

the Authority Board adopted the 2018 Business Plan on May 15, 2018. The 2018 Business Plan assumes an opening 

year of 2033 for Phase 1 and presents different ridership forecasts for 2029 and 2040 than were assumed in this EIR/EIS. 

Under the 2018 Business Plan ridership forecasts, the HSR project would achieve the same benefits described in this 

section, but they would occur at different times and may be less than those presented in Section 3.3.6, Environmental 

Consequences. Nonetheless, HSR would ultimately afford a more energy-efficient choice for personal travel that would 

help alleviate highway congestion, provide greater capacity for goods movement, and reduce criteria pollutant and GHG 

emissions. 

RCC­220321­001
Section 6 Regulatory Procedures

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

6-2 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

compiled in a spreadsheet tool specific to the Project for each year of construction. Mobile source 

emission burdens from worker trips and truck trips were calculated using VMT estimates and 

appropriate emission factors from EMFAC2017. Fugitive dust from re-entrained road dust was 

calculated using emission factors from USEPA’s AP-42, Sections 13.2.1 and 13.2.2. Refer to 

Chapter 9, Construction Activities Considered, for further detail on the emissions estimation 

techniques.

6.3 Major Construction-Phase Activities 

Project-specific data, including construction equipment lists and the construction schedule, were 

used for the analysis. Calculations were performed for each year of construction for the Project 

using default emission factors, as described further in Section 9, Construction Activities 

Considered. 

Major activities were grouped into the following categories:

• Viaduct 

• Embankment 

• At grade 

• Trench 

• Tunnel

• Cut and fill

Construction activities associated with each component included demolition, excavation, utilities, 

roadwork, concrete forming, and other rail work. Each of these activities was considered to 

evaluate the regional and localized air quality effects during the construction phase. Analysts also 

quantified emissions from reconductoring approximately 11.1 miles of the existing single-circuit 

Spring to Llagas and Green Valley to Llagas 115-kilovolt power lines. Refer to Section 9, 

Construction Activities Considered, for further detail on the construction schedule. 

6.4 Emission Scenarios 

The General Conformity regulations require that the evaluation reflect certain emission scenarios 

(40 C.F.R. § 93.159(d)). Specifically, these scenarios generally include the evaluation of direct

and indirect emissions from the Project for the following years: (1) for nonattainment areas, the 

attainment year specified in the SIP, or if the SIP does not specify an attainment year, the latest 

attainment year possible under the CAA, and for maintenance areas, the farthest year for which 

emissions are projected in the approved maintenance plan; (2) the year during which the total of 

direct and indirect emissions for the Project are projected to be the greatest on an annual basis; 

and (3) any year for which the applicable SIP specifies an emissions budget. Both the operational 

and construction phases of the Project must be analyzed, and the following applies to the Project: 

• Emissions generated during the operational phase of the Project would meet the emission 

requirements for the years associated with Items 1 and 3 because the emissions generated 

during the operational phase would be less than those emitted in the No Project scenario. In 

addition, microscale analyses conducted for the EIR/EIS demonstrate that the operational 

phase of the Project would not cause or exacerbate a violation of the NAAQS for all 

applicable pollutants (see Final EIR/EIS, Section 3.3.6.1). 

• Emissions generated during the Project’s construction phase, which would include the year 

with the greatest amount of total direct and indirect emissions (2025, as identified in Item 2), 

may be subject to General Conformity regulations because they would increase regional 

emission rates and, as such, have the potential to cause or exacerbate an exceedance of the 

NAAQS. Therefore, analyses were conducted to estimate the amounts of emissions that 

would be generated during the construction phase (for comparison with the General 

Conformity applicability rates) and the potential impacts of these emissions on local air quality 

levels. Emissions generated at the construction sites (e.g., tailpipe emissions from the on-site

heavy-duty diesel equipment and fugitive dust emissions generated by vehicles traveling 

within the construction sites) and on the area’s roadways by vehicles traveling to and from 

RCC­220321­001
 Chapter 6 Regulatory Procedures

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 6-3 

these sites (by vehicles transporting materials and the workers traveling to and from work) 

were considered.

• Air quality dispersion modeling would be required for this conformity analysis to estimate the 

Project’s localized impacts on PM concentrations if the annual emissions of the pollutants 

generated during construction were to exceed the General Conformity de minimis thresholds.

Annual emissions were estimated for each year of the Project’s construction period. These 

emissions, which are the maximum values for the Project, are described in more detail in Section 

10, Estimated Emission Rates and Comparison to de minimis Thresholds, of this report. 

 

RCC­220321­001
Section 6 Regulatory Procedures

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

6-4 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

RCC­220321­001
 Chapter 7 Applicability Analysis

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 7-1 

7 APPLICABILITY ANALYSIS 

The first step in a General Conformity evaluation is an analysis of whether the requirements apply 

to a proposed federal action in a nonattainment or a maintenance area. Unless exempted by the 

regulations or otherwise presumed to conform, a Federal action requires a General Conformity 

Determination for each pollutant where the total of direct and indirect emissions caused by the 

Project would equal or exceed an annual de minimis emission rate. 

7.1 Attainment Status of Resource Study Area 

The USEPA designates each county (or portions of counties) within California as attainment, 

maintenance, or nonattainment based on the area's ability to maintain ambient air concentrations 

below the air quality standards. Areas are designated as attainment if ambient air concentrations 

of a criteria pollutant are below the ambient standards. Areas are designated as nonattainment if 

ambient air concentrations are above the ambient standards. Areas previously designated as 

nonattainment that subsequently demonstrated compliance with the standards are designated as 

maintenance. Table 4 summarizes the attainment status of the SFBAAB, NCCAB, and SJVAB 

with regard to the NAAQS and CAAQS. 

Table 4 Federal Attainment Status of the SFBAAB, NCCAB, and SJVAB

Pollutant SFBAAB NCCAB SJVAB

O3 Marginal Nonattainment Attainment Extreme Nonattainment

PM10 Attainment Attainment Serious Maintenance

PM2.5 Moderate Nonattainment Attainment Serious/Moderate Nonattainment1 

CO Attainment Attainment Attainment

NO2 Attainment Attainment Attainment

SO2 Attainment Attainment Attainment

Source: USEPA 2018 

CO = carbon monoxide

NCCAB = North Central Coast Air Basin

NO2 = nitrogen dioxide

O3 = ozone

PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter

PM10 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter

SFBAAB = San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin

SJVAB = San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

SO2 = sulfur dioxide 1 The SJVAB is serious nonattainment for the 2006 PM2.5 standard and moderate nonattainment for the 2012 PM2.5 standard. 

Under federal designations, the RSA is currently designated as extreme and marginal 

nonattainment for 8-hour O37 in the SJVAB and SFBAAB, respectively; moderate/serious

nonattainment for PM2.5 in the SFBAAB and SJVAB; and maintenance for PM10 in the SJVAB. As 

such, the FRA is required to demonstrate project-level compliance with the General Conformity

Rule for NOX and VOCs (O3 precursors), PM2.5, PM10, and SO2 (PM2.5 precursor8), if Projectrelated emissions of these pollutants in the SFBAAB or SJVAB would exceed the General 

Conformity de minimis thresholds.

7 It should be noted that because O3 is a secondary pollutant (i.e., it is not emitted directly into the atmosphere, but is 

formed in the atmosphere from the photochemical reactions of VOCs and NOX in the presence of sunlight), its de minimis

threshold is based on primary emissions of its precursor pollutants, NOX and VOCs. If the net emissions of either NOX or 

VOCs exceeds the de minimis applicability thresholds (USEPA 1994), the Project is subject to a general conformity 

evaluation for O3. 

8 Ammonia is also a precursor to PM2.5. However, neither construction nor operation of the Project would result in material 

emissions of ammonia. 

RCC­220321­001
Section 7 Applicability Analysis

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

7-2 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

As shown in Table 4, the portion of the RSA in the NCCAB is in attainment for all criteria 

pollutants. As outlined in Section III.A of the General Conformity Rule, “only actions which cause 

emissions in designated nonattainment and maintenance areas are subject to the regulations.” As 

such, a General Conformity analysis is not required for the portion of the Project within the 

NCCAB. There are no applicable de minimis thresholds, and no further discussion of Project 

activities in the NCCAB is provided in this General Conformity Determination. 

7.2 Exemptions from General Conformity Requirements 

As noted previously, the General Conformity requirements apply to a federal action if the net 

Project emissions equal or exceed certain de minimis emission rates. The only exceptions to this 

applicability criterion are if the activity is on the federal agency’s presumed-to-conform list (40 

C.F.R. § 93.153(f)), meets the narrow exemption for federal actions in response to an emergency 

or disaster (40 C.F.R. § 93.153(e)), or is one of the following topical exemptions: 

• Actions that would result in no emissions increase or an increase in emissions that is clearly 

below the de minimis levels (40 C.F.R. § 93.153(c)(2)). Examples include administrative 

actions and routine maintenance and repair. 

• Actions where the emissions are not reasonably foreseeable (40 C.F.R. § 93.153(c)(3))

• Actions which implement a decision to conduct or carry out a conforming program (40 C.F.R. 

§ 93.153 (c)(4))

• Actions which include major new or modified sources requiring a permit under the New 

Source Review program (40 C.F.R. § 93.153(d)(1))

• Actions in response to emergencies or natural disasters (40 C.F.R. § 93.153(d)(2))

• Actions which include air quality research not harming the environment (40 C.F.R. § 

93.153(d)(3))

• Actions which include modifications to existing sources to enable compliance with applicable 

environmental requirements (40 C.F.R. § 93.153(d)(4))

• Actions which include emissions from remedial measures carried out under the 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act that comply with 

other applicable requirements (40 C.F.R. § 93.153(d)(5)).

However, the Project does not meet any of the exemption categories described above. In 

addition, the FRA has not established a presumed-to-conform list of activities at the time of this 

evaluation, and the Project does not meet the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Section 93.153(e). 

7.3 Applicability for Project 

After determining that the Project is not otherwise exempt, the applicability of the General 

Conformity requirements to the Project is evaluated by comparing the total of direct and indirect 

emissions for the calendar year of greatest emissions to the General Conformity de minimis

thresholds. Where the total of direct and indirect emissions attributable to the Project is found to 

be below the de minimis emission rates for a pollutant, that pollutant is excluded from General 

Conformity requirements, and no further analysis is required. However, when the emissions of an 

applicable pollutant are at or above a de minimis threshold, that pollutant must undergo a General 

Conformity evaluation. 

7.4 De Minimis Emission Rates 

The General Conformity requirements would apply to the Project for each pollutant for which the 

total of direct and indirect emissions caused by the Project equal or exceed the de minimis

emission rates shown in Table 5. These emission rates are expressed in units of tons per year 

(tpy) for the Project in each air basin for the calendar year. The applicable threshold levels for the 

pollutants for which General Conformity is required in the RSA are shown in Table 5. 

RCC­220321­001
Chapter 7 Applicability Analysis

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 7-3 

Table 5 De Minimis Rates for Determining Applicability of General Conformity 

Requirements to Federal Actions

Air Basin

Annual Air Pollutant Emissions in Tons per Year

VOC NOX CO PM10 PM2.5 SO2

San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin1 100 100 None None 100 100

San Joaquin Valley Air Basin2 10 10 None 100 70 70

North Central Coast Air Basin3 None None None None None None

Source: 40 C.F.R. Section 93.153

CO = carbon monoxide

NOX = oxides of nitrogen

O3 = ozone

PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less

PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less

VOC = violate organic compounds

SO2 = sulfur dioxide 1 The General Conformity de minimis thresholds for criteria pollutants are based on the federal attainment status of the RSA in the SFBAAB. The 

RSA is considered a marginal nonattainment area for the O3 NAAQS and a moderate nonattainment area for the PM2.5 NAAQS. Although the RSA is 

in attainment for SO2, because SO2 is a precursor for PM2.5, the PM2.5 General Conformity de minimis thresholds are used. 2 The General Conformity de minimis thresholds for criteria pollutants are based on the federal attainment status of the RSA in the SJVAB. The RSA 

is considered an extreme nonattainment area for the O3 NAAQS, a serious/moderate nonattainment area for the PM2.5 NAAQS, and a serious 

maintenance area for the PM10 NAAQS. Although the RSA is in attainment for SO2, because SO2 is a precursor for PM2.5, the PM2.5 General 

Conformity de minimis thresholds are used. For PM2.5 and SO2, the de minimis threshold for projects located in serious nonattainment areas are used 

because this threshold is lower than the 100 tons per year threshold for projects exclusively in moderate nonattainment areas. 3 The NCCAB is in attainment for all criteria pollutants (see Table 4). 

RCC­220321­001
Section 7 Applicability Analysis 

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

7-4 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

RCC­220321­001
 Chapter 8 Construction Activities Considered

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 8-1 

8 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES CONSIDERED

As shown in Section 3.3.6.1 of the Final EIR/EIS, the results of the regional analyses conducted 

for the Project demonstrate that emissions generated during the operational phase would be less 

than those emitted in the No Project and existing conditions scenarios and that the microscale 

analyses demonstrate that the Project would not cause or exacerbate a violation of the NAAQS 

for these pollutants. As such, no further analysis of the operational period emissions is necessary 

for this General Conformity Determination. This section focuses on the emissions generated from 

the construction period emissions for the Project. 

The analysis conducted for the EIR/EIS to estimate potential air quality impacts caused by on-site 

(e.g., demolition activities, construction equipment operations, and truck movements) and off-site 

(e.g., motor vehicle traffic effects because of truck trips) construction-phase activities included the 

following:

• Estimation of emissions generated by the construction activities (e.g., deconstruction, 

concrete and steel construction), including fugitive dust emissions and emissions released 

from diesel-powered equipment and trucks based on the hours of operation of each piece of 

equipment9

• Identification of heavily traveled truck routes to estimate the cumulative effects of on-site 

construction activity emissions and off-site traffic emissions

• An on-site dispersion modeling analysis of the major construction areas

• An off-site dispersion modeling analysis of the roadway intersections and interchanges 

adjacent to the construction areas, using traffic data that include construction-related vehicles 

and background traffic

• A comparison of the on-site and off-site modeling results to the applicable NAAQS for the 

applicable pollutants

Emission rates for these activities were estimated based on the following:

• The number of hours per day and duration of each construction activity

• The number and type of construction equipment to be used

• HP and utilization rates (hours per day) for each piece of equipment

• The quantities of construction/demolition material produced and removed from each site

• The number of truck trips needed to remove construction and demolition material and to bring 

the supply materials to each site

The following is a discussion of the construction analysis methodology. A full list of assumptions 

can be found in the EIR/EIS, Appendix C to the San Jose to Merced Project Section Air Quality 

and Greenhouse Gases Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2019). 

8.1 Models and Methods for Emissions Modeling 

Construction of the Project would generate emissions of VOC, NOX, CO, sulfur oxide (SOX) PM10, 

and PM2.5. Emissions would originate from off-road equipment exhaust, employee and haul truck 

vehicle exhaust (on-road vehicles) site grading and earth movement, concrete batching, 

demolition, paving, architectural coating, and helicopters (for reconductoring work). These 

emissions would be temporary (i.e., limited to the construction period) and would cease when

construction activities are complete. 

9 It is possible changes in VMT, speeds, or idle times resulting from traffic detours during construction could result in 

additional emissions. However, it is unknown to what extent motorists will change their driving patterns as a result of traffic 

detours and impediments, and, as such, it would be speculative to quantify the impact of temporary roadway restrictions 

on criteria pollutant emissions. 

RCC­220321­001
Section 8 Construction Activities Considered

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-2 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

Combustion exhaust, fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5), and fugitive off-gassing (VOCs) were 

estimated using a combination of emission factors and methodologies from CalEEMod, version 

2016.3.2; the CARB’s EMFAC2017 model, and the USEPA’s AP-42 Compilation of Air Pollutant 

Emission Factors based on Project-specific construction data (e.g., schedule, equipment, truck 

volumes) provided by the Project design team (Scholz pers. comm.). 

• Off-road equipment—Emission factors for off-road construction equipment (e.g., loaders, 

graders, bulldozers) were obtained from the CalEEMod (version 2016.3.2) User’s Guide 

appendix, which provides values per unit of activity (in grams per horsepower-hour) by 

calendar year (Trinity Consultants 2016. Analysts estimated criteria pollutants by multiplying 

the CalEEMod emission factors by the equipment inventory provided by the Project 

engineering team (Scholz pers. comm.).

• On-road vehicles—On-road vehicles (e.g., pickup trucks, flatbed trucks) would be required 

for material and equipment hauling, on-site crew and material movement, and employee 

commuting. The analysis estimated exhaust emissions from on-road vehicles using the 

EMFAC2017 emissions model and activity data (miles traveled per day) provided by the 

Project engineering team (Scholz pers. comm.). Emission factors for haul trucks are based 

on aggregated-speed emission rates for EMFAC’s T7 Single vehicle category. Factors for onsite dump, water, boom, and concrete trucks were based on 5 mph emission rates for the T6 

Heavy category. Factors for employee commute vehicles were based on a weighted average 

for all vehicle speeds for EMFAC’s light-duty automobile/light-duty truck vehicle categories.

CARB’s (2019) Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient [SAFE] Vehicles Rule adjustment factors were 

applied to the emission factors for gasoline-powered vehicles. Fugitive re-entrained road dust 

emissions were estimated using the USEPA’s Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors

(AP-42), Sections 13.2.1 and 13.2.2 (USEPA 2006, 2011).

• Site grading and earth movement—Fugitive dust emissions from earth movement (e.g., 

site grading, bulldozing, and truck loading) were quantified using emission factors from 

CalEEMod and USEPA (1998) AP-42cut-and-fill material were provided by the Project 

engineering team (Scholz pers. comm.).

• Concrete batching—Fugitive dust emissions from concrete batching at the three new 

temporary batch plants were quantified using emission factors from BAAQMD’s (2016) Permit 

Handbook and USEPA’s AP-42. Daily and annual batch quantities (cubic yards) were 

provided by the Project engineering team (Scholz pers. comm. 

• Demolition—Fugitive dust emissions from building demolition were based on the anticipated 

amount of square feet to be demolished and calculation method from the CalEEMod User’s 

Guide (Trinity Consultants 2016). 

• Paving—Fugitive VOC emissions associated with paving were calculated using activity data 

(e.g., square feet paved) provided by the Project engineer and the CalEEMod default 

emission factor of 2.62 pounds of VOC per acre paved (Scholz pers. comm.). 

• Architectural coating—Fugitive VOC emissions associated with architectural coatings of the 

stations were calculated using activity data (e.g., square feet coated) provided by the Project 

engineering team and methods contained in the CalEEMod User’s Guide (Scholz pers. 

comm.). Emissions calculations assume a VOC content of 150 grams per liter (g/L), 

consistent with BAAQMD’s Regulation 8, Rule 3, Section 301.

• Helicopters—Helicopters would be required for the reconductoring work. Exhaust emissions 

were calculated using emission factors and assumptions derived from a review of guidance 

manuals published by USEPA (1978) The Climate Registry (2018). 

8.2 Ballast and Subballast Hauling 

Ballast and subballast materials could be transported from multiple quarry locations throughout 

Northern California and the Central Valley. Analysts estimated emissions from ballast and 

subballast material hauling by trucks and locomotives based on the travel distances and 

RCC­220321­001
 Chapter 8 Construction Activities Considered

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 8-3 

transportation method (by rail or by truck) from the locations where ballast materials would be 

available. Analysts used heavy-duty truck emission factors (T7 Single) from EMFAC2017 to 

estimate emissions from haul trucks and rail emission factors from the USEPA (2009 to estimate 

the locomotive emissions. to estimate the locomotive emissions. 

Analysts identified up to 11 potential quarries that could provide ballast material. All quarries are 

within the SFBAAB, MBARD, and SJVAPCD, with the furthest quarry located 37 rail miles and 89 

highway miles from the Project footprint. Ballast and subballast quantities for the Project were 

provided by the Project engineering team and distributed equally among the identified quarries 

(Scholz pers. comm.). Scenario 1 assumed ballast and subballast would be hauled to the Project 

footprint using a combination of trucks and locomotives, and Scenario 2 assumed ballast and 

subballast would be hauled to the Project footprint using only trucks.

8.3 Annual Emissions Estimates 

As discussed in Section 7.3, Major Construction-Phase Activities, up to six construction activities 

(viaduct, embankment, at grade, trench, tunnel, and large cut and fill) would be constructed, 

depending on the subsection and alternative. The analysis assumes that each component would 

be constructed over multiple phases between 2022 and 2028.10 

8.4 Emissions by Air Basin 

Activities occurring within the SFBAAB and SJVAB were quantified and analyzed separately to 

compare emissions to appropriate de minimis thresholds. Emissions generated by construction of 

subsections that would occur exclusively within one air basin (e.g., San Jose Diridon Station 

Approach in the SFBAAB) were wholly assigned to that air basin. Emissions estimates for 

alternatives that span more than one air district were apportioned based on the location of 

construction activity. For example, construction of the Pacheco Pass Subsection would occur in 

both the SFBAAB and SJVAB. Accordingly, the emissions estimates were apportioned to the 

SFBAAB and SJVAB based on the number of rail miles constructed within each air basin. Table 6 

summarizes the location of each subsection and the air basin scaling factors used in the analysis, 

as appropriate. All reconductoring work would occur in the SFBAAB.

10 Construction is expected to take place later than the dates assumed in the air quality analysis. The construction 

emissions estimates are therefore conservative, as future emissions rates will be lower due to the implementation of 

cleaner and newer equipment. 

RCC­220321­001
Section 8 Construction Activities Considered

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-4 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

Table 6 Track Miles and Construction Scaling Factors by Air Basin 

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Subsection SFBAAB SJVAB SFBAAB SJVAB SFBAAB SJVAB SFBAAB SJVAB

Constructed Rail Miles

San Jose Diridon Station 

Approach 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 

Monterey Corridor 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 

Morgan Hill and Gilroy 14 0 14 0 13 0 14 0 

Pacheco Pass 5 7 5 7 5 7 5 7 

San Joaquin Valley 0 9 0 9 0 9 0 9 

Emission Scaling Factors

San Jose Diridon Station 

Approach 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%

Monterey Corridor 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0%

Morgan Hill and Gilroy 85%1 0% 85%1 0% 87%1 0% 85%1 0%

Pacheco Pass 43% 57% 43% 57% 43% 57% 43% 57%

San Joaquin Valley 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% 100%

Sources: Authority 2017; CARB 2012

SFBAAB = San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin

SJVAB = San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 1 The remaining 13–15 percent of track miles would be constructed in the NCCAB. However, as discussed in Section 8.1, Attainment Status of Resource Study Area, the portion of the RSA in the NCAAB is in attainment for 

all criteria pollutants. As such, a general conformity analysis is not required, and no further discussion of Project activities in the NCCAB is provided in this General Conformity Determination.

RCC­220321­001
Section 8 Construction Activities Considered

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 8-5 

8.5 Project Design Features 

The Authority has developed IAMFs to reduce air quality effects. Because IAMFs are included as 

part of the Project design, they are not considered mitigation, and are included as part of the 

Project construction emissions estimate. Specifically, the following emissions benefits achieved 

by AQ-IAMF#1 through AQ-IAMF#6 were assumed in the modeling. estimate. Specifically, the 

following emissions benefits achieved by AQ-IAMF#1 through AQ-IAMF#6 were assumed in the 

modeling. 

• Fugitive dust reductions from earthmoving best management practices (AQ-IAMF#1) 

(Countess Environmental 2006). 

– PM from ground disturbance (i.e., scraping and grading activities), 75 percent (BAAQMD 

2017a)

– PM from unpaved vehicle travel (i.e., re-entrained road dust), 75 percent11

– PM from demolition, 36 percent (Countess Environmental 2006) 

• VOC reductions (93 percent) from application of architectural coatings (AQ-IAMF#2).12

• Criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) Lovegrove and Tadross 2017))

– CO, 10 percent (Tier 2 tunneling equipment) 

– NOX, 10 percent (Tier 2 tunneling equipment) 

– PM, 30 percent (all engines) 

• Criteria pollutant and GHG reductions from use of Tier 4 off-road engines (AQ-IAMF#4). 

Emissions reductions vary by pollutant and equipment type. Emissions were modeled using 

Tier 4 emission rates from CalEEMod.

• Criteria pollutant and GHG reductions from use of model year 2010 or newer on-road engines 

in heavy-duty, diesel powered trucks (AQ-IAMF#5). Emissions reductions vary by pollutant, 

analysis year, and air basin. Emissions were modeled using emission rates for model year 

2010 or newer engines derived from the CARB’s EMFAC2017 model. The emissions rates 

for model year 2010 and newer engines reflect implementation of EPA’s December 2000 

Control of Air Pollution from New Motor Vehicles: Heavy-Duty Engine and Vehicle Standards 

and Highway Diesel Fuel Sulfur Control Requirements. 

• Fugitive dust reductions from implementation of typical control measures at new concrete 

batch plants, such as water sprays, enclosures, and hoods (AQ-IAMF#6). Emissions were 

modeled using USEPA AP-42 controlled emission factors for concrete batch plants

11 Among other controls, this IAMF requires watering unpaved roads three times daily and limiting vehicle speeds. The 75 

percent efficacy is based on a 55 percent reduction for watering and a 44 percent reduction for vehicle speed limits (1-

(.55*.44)) = 0.75% (Countess Environmental 2006). 

12 Assumes an uncontrolled VOC content of 150 g/L per BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3, Section 301 and a controlled 

VOC content of 10 g/L per AQ-IAMF#2. 

RCC­220321­001
Section 8 Construction Activities Considered

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-6 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

RCC­220321­001
Section 9 Estimated Emission Rates and Comparison 

to De Minimis Thresholds

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 9-1 

9 ESTIMATED EMISSION RATES AND COMPARISON 

TO DE MINIMIS THRESHOLDS

Total annual estimated emissions generated within the SFBAAB and SJVAB during the 

construction period, as presented in the EIR/EIS, are provided in Tables 7 and 8. These values 

are the peak on-site emissions during each analysis year, plus maximum annual off-site 

emissions. The modeling accounts for implementation of AQ-IAMF#1 through AQ-IAMF#6 and 

reflects the impact of the SAFE Vehicle Rule (CARB 2019Emissions for each Project alternative, 

including the Preferred Alternative 4, are presented and analyzed in this General Conformity 

Determination. 

As shown in the tables, annual construction emissions of all Project alternatives would exceed the 

General Conformity de minimis threshold in the SJVAB for NOX for all years of construction 

between 2022 and 2028. NOx emissions would also exceed the General Conformity de minimis

threshold in the SFBAAB in 2024 under Alternatives 1 and 3, and between 2023 and 2025 under 

Alternatives 2 and 4. All other pollutants would be below applicable de minimis thresholds. 

RCC­220321­001
Section 9 Estimated Emission Rates and Comparison 

to De Minimis Thresholds

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

9-2 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

Table 7 San Jose to Central Valley Wye Annual Construction Emissions in the SFBAAB 

(tons per year)1 

Alternative/Year 2 VOC NOX CO SO2

3 PM10 PM2.5

Alternative 1

2022 4 50 145 <1 28 6 

2023 6 79 200 1 46 10

2024 7 106 * 245 1 66 15

2025 6 85 205 1 49 11

2026 3 37 89 <1 18 4 

2027 2 35 53 <1 12 3 

2028 1 11 28 <1 3 1 

Alternative 2

2022 6 76 192 1 41 10

2023 7 118 * 255 1 67 16

2024 9 155 * 304 1 93 21

2025 7 112 * 241 1 63 15

2026 4 56 125 <1 29 7 

2027 3 69 76 <1 29 6 

2028 1 14 38 <1 5 1 

Alternative 3

2022 5 51 173 <1 27 6 

2023 7 89 244 1 50 11

2024 8 114 * 293 1 69 15

2025 7 85 233 1 47 11

2026 3 41 116 <1 19 4 

2027 2 41 54 <1 15 3 

2028 1 12 30 <1 4 1 

Alternative 4

2022 5 77 177 1 47 11

2023 7 113 * 222 1 70 17

2024 8 156 * 272 1 95 23

2025 7 139 * 241 1 79 19

2026 3 62 109 <1 34 8 

2027 3 84 70 <1 37 7 

2028 1 13 29 <1 5 1 

De minimis threshold 100 100 - 100 - 100

Sources: Trinity Consultants 2016; USEPA 1998, 2006, 2009, 2011; BAAQMD 2016; The Climate Registry 2018; Scholz pers. comm.

Exceedances of the de minimis thresholds are shown in bolded underline with an asterisk (*). 

RCC­220321­001
Section 9 Estimated Emission Rates and Comparison 

to De Minimis Thresholds

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 9-3 

CO = carbon monoxide

NOX = oxides of nitrogen

PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric Company

PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less

PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less

SFBAAB = San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin

SO2 = sulfur dioxide

VOC = volatile organic compound

1 Emissions results include implementation of air quality IAMFs, as described in Section 6.

2 Construction is expected to take place later than the dates assumed in the air quality analysis. The construction emissions estimates are therefore 

conservative, as future emissions rates will be lower due to the implementation of cleaner and newer equipment.

3 Although the RSA is in attainment for SO2, because SO2 is a precursor for PM2.5, the PM2.5 General Conformity de minimis thresholds are used.

Table 8 San Jose to Central Valley Wye Annual Construction Emissions in the SJVAB 

(tons per year)1 

Alternative/Year 2 VOC NOX CO SO2

3 PM10 PM2.5

Alternatives 1, 2, 3, or 45

2022 6 42 * 218 1 18 5 

2023 6 55 * 226 1 24 6 

2024 6 56 * 220 1 23 5 

2025 6 54 * 209 1 21 5 

2026 4 45 * 131 <1 17 4 

2027 2 50 * 49 <1 17 3 

2028 1 10 * 22 <1 2 1 

De minimis threshold 10 10 - 70 100 70

Sources: Trinity Consultants 2016; USEPA 1998, 2006, 2009, 2011; BAAQMD 2016; The Climate Registry 2018; Scholz pers. comm.

Exceedances of the de minimis thresholds are shown in bolded underline with an asterisk (*). 

CO = carbon monoxide

NOX = oxides of nitrogen

PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less

PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less

SJVAB = San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 

SO2 = sulfur dioxide

VOC = volatile organic compound

1 Emissions results include implementation of air quality IAMFs, as described in Section 6. 2 Construction is expected to take place later than the dates assumed in the air quality analysis. The construction emissions estimates are therefore 

conservative, as future emissions rates will be lower due to the implementation of cleaner and newer equipment.

3 Although the RSA is in attainment for SO2, because SO2 is a precursor for PM2.5, the PM2.5 General Conformity de minimis thresholds are used. 4 Construction activities and associated emissions are the same among the four alternatives in the SJVAB. 

 

RCC­220321­001
Section 9 Estimated Emission Rates and Comparison 

to De Minimis Thresholds

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

9-4 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

RCC­220321­001
Section 10 Regional Effects

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 10-1 

10 REGIONAL EFFECTS 

As shown in Section 3.3.6.1 of the Final EIR/EIS, the total regional emissions for all applicable 

pollutants are lower during the operations phase of the Project than under No Project conditions 

(and would therefore not exceed the de minimis emission thresholds). As such, only emissions 

generated during the construction phase were compared to the conformity threshold levels to 

determine conformity compliance. As shown in Tables 7 and 8, construction-phase emissions, 

compared to the General Conformity applicability rates, are as follows:

• Annual estimated NOX emissions in the SJVAB are greater than the applicability rate of 10 

tpy for all years of construction between 2022 and 2028 for all Project alternatives with 

implementation of IAMFs.

• Annual estimated NOX emissions in the SFBAAB are greater than the applicability rate of 100 

tpy in 2024 under Alternatives 1 and 3 and for all years of construction between 2023 and 

2025 under Alternatives 2 and 4 with implementation of IAMFs. 

• Annual estimated VOC, CO, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 emissions are less than the applicability 

rates in the SFBAAB and SJVAB with implementation of IAMFs. 

Therefore, a General Conformity Determination is required for the Project for NOX for the years 

during construction when the emissions would exceed the de minimis thresholds in the SFBAAB 

and SJVAB and do not meet any of the exceptions cited in 40 C.F.R. Section 93.154(c). 

 

RCC­220321­001
Section 10 Regional Effects

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

10-2 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

RCC­220321­001
Section 11 General Conformity Evaluation

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 11-1 

11 GENERAL CONFORMITY EVALUATION

For federal actions subject to a General Conformity evaluation, the regulations delineate several 

ways an agency can demonstrate conformity (40 C.F.R. § 93.158). This section summarizes the 

findings that were used to make the determination for the Project. 

11.1 Conformity Requirements of Project

Based on the results shown in Tables 7 and 8, conformity determinations are required for 

construction-phase emissions for NOX because annual estimated emissions are greater than the 

applicability rates of 100 tpy in the SFBAAB and 10 tpy in the SJVAB. 

11.2 Compliance with Conformity Requirements

NOX (a precursor to O3) emissions caused by the construction of the Project would not result in 

an increase in regional NOX emissions in the SFBAAB or SJVAB because exceedances would be 

mitigated by offsets. This would be achieved by additional on-site controls and offsetting 

remaining NOX emissions generated by the construction of the Project in a manner consistent 

with the General Conformity regulations. 

The requirements for offsets (as described below) would be implemented as part of the Project 

and will be included in the mitigation measures in the Final EIR/EIS. Any required offsets are 

anticipated to be accomplished by entering into an agreement with BAAQMD and project-level 

VERA with the SJVAPCD. The requirement for the VERA (as described below) would be 

implemented as part of the project and will be included in the mitigation measures in the Final 

EIR/EIS: 

AQ-MM#1: Implement Additional On-Site Emissions Controls to Reduce Fugitive Dust

During construction, the contractor shall employ the following measures to minimize and control 

fugitive dust emissions:

• Where feasible, install wind breaks (e.g., dust curtains, plastic tarps, solid fencing) on the 

average dominant windward side(s) of station construction areas. For purposes of 

implementation, chain-link fencing with added landscape mesh fabric adequately qualifies as 

solid fencing.

• Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Authority 

regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 

hours. The phone number for the local air district shall also be visible to ensure compliance 

with applicable regulations. 

AQ-MM#2: Construction Emissions Reductions – Requirements for use of Zero Emission 

(ZE) and/or Near Zero Emission (NZE) Vehicles and off-road equipment 

This mitigation measure will reduce the impact of construction emissions from Project 

This mitigation measure will reduce the impact of construction emissions from project-related onroad vehicles and off-road equipment.

The Authority and all project construction contractors shall require that a minimum of 25 percent, 

with a goal of 100 percent, of all light-duty on-road vehicles (e.g., passenger cars, light-duty 

trucks) associated with the project (e.g., on-site vehicles, contractor vehicles) use ZE or NZE 

technology.

The Authority and all project construction contractors shall have the goal that a minimum of 

25 percent of all heavy-duty on-road vehicles (e.g., for hauling, material delivery and soil 

import/export) associated with the project use ZE or NZE technology. 

The Authority and all project construction contractors shall have the goal that a minimum of 

10 percent of off-road construction equipment use ZE or NZE vehicles. 

RCC­220321­001
Section 11 General Conformity Evaluation

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

11-2 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

If local or state regulations mandate a faster transition to using ZE and/or NZE vehicles at the 

time of construction, the more stringent regulations will be applied. For example, Executive Order 

(EO) N-79-20, issued by California Governor Newsom September 23, 2020, currently states the 

following:

• Light duty and passenger car sales be 100 percent ZE vehicles by 2035

• Full transition to ZE short haul/drayage trucks by 2035

• Full transition to ZE heavy-duty long-haul trucks, where feasible, by 2045

• Full transition to ZE off-road equipment by 2035, where feasible. 

The project will have a goal of surpassing the requirements of these or other future regulations as 

a mitigation measure. 

AQ-MM#3: Offset Project Construction Emissions in the San Francisco Bay Area Air Basin 

Prior to issuance of construction contracts, the Authority will conduct an air quality analysis that 

evaluates the conditions that exist at that time. If the analysis determines that there will be 

exceedances of the VOC or NOx thresholds, even after the application of the mitigation in AQMM#2, the Authority will enter into an agreement with BAAQMD to reduce VOC and NOX to the 

required levels by acquiring offsets. The required levels in the SFBAAB are as follows: 

1. For emissions in excess of the General Conformity de minimis thresholds (NOX): net zero.

2. For emissions not in excess of de minimis thresholds but above the BAAQMD’s daily 

emission thresholds (VOC and NOX): below the appropriate CEQA threshold levels.

The mitigation offset fee amount will be determined at the time of mitigation to fund one or more 

emissions reduction projects within the SFBAAB. The offset fee will be determined by the Authority 

and BAAQMD based on the type of projects that present appropriate emission reduction 

opportunities. These funds may be spent to reduce either VOC or NOX emissions (“O3 precursors”). 

Documentation of payment will be provided to the Authority or its designated representative. 

The agreement will include details regarding the annual calculation of required offsets the 

Authority must achieve, funds to be paid, administrative fee, and the timing of the emissions 

reductions projects. Acceptance of this fee by BAAQMD will serve as an acknowledgment and 

commitment by BAAQMD to: (1) implement an emissions reduction project(s) within a timeframe 

to be determined based on the type of project(s) selected after receipt of the mitigation fee 

designed to achieve the emission reduction objectives; and (2) provide documentation to the 

Authority or its designated representative describing the project(s) funded by the mitigation fee, 

including the amount of emissions reduced (tons per year) in the SFBAAB from the emissions 

reduction project(s). To qualify under this mitigation measure, the specific emissions reduction 

project(s) must result in emission reductions in the SFBAAB that are real, surplus, quantifiable, 

enforceable, and will not otherwise be achieved through compliance with existing regulatory 

requirements or any other legal requirement. Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Section 93.163(a), the 

necessary reductions must be achieved (contracted and delivered) by the applicable year in 

question. Funding will need to be received by BAAQMD prior to contracting with participants and 

should allow enough time to receive and process applications to fund and implement off-site 

reduction projects prior to commencement of project activities being reduced. This will roughly 

equate to 1 year prior to the required mitigation; additional lead time may be necessary 

depending on the level of off-site emission reductions required for a specific year.

This mitigation measure will be effective in offsetting emissions generated during project 

construction through the funding of emission-reduction projects. It is BAAQMD’s experience that 

emissions offsets are feasible mitigation that effectively achieves actual emission reductions (Kirk 

2018).

The implementation of this mitigation measure will not be expected to affect air quality in the 

BAAQMD because purchasing emissions offsets will not result in any physical change to the 

environment, and therefore will not result in other secondary environmental impacts. In addition to 

RCC­220321­001
Section 11 General Conformity Evaluation

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 11-3 

VOC and NOX, the implementation of emission-reduction projects could result in reductions of 

other criteria pollutants and/or GHGs. However, this will be a secondary effect of this mitigation 

measure and is not a required outcome to mitigate any impacts of the project. 

AQ-MM#4: Offset Project Construction Emissions in the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 

On June 19, 2014, the SJVAPCD and the Authority entered an MOU that establishes the 

framework for fully mitigating to net-zero construction emissions of NOx, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5

from the entire HSR project within the SJVAB (Authority and SJVUAPCD 2014). Emissions 

generated by construction of the portion of the project within the SJVAB are subject to this MOU 

and, therefore, must be offset to net zero. Pursuant to the MOU, the Authority and the SJVAPCD 

will enter into a Voluntary Emissions Reduction Agreement (VERA) to cover the portion of the 

project approved and funded for construction within the SJVAB. The project-level VERA must be 

executed prior to commencement of construction and the mitigation fees and offsets delivered 

and achieved according to the requirements of the VERA and MOU.

This mitigation measure will be effective in offsetting emissions generated during construction of 

the project through the funding of emission-reduction projects. It is SJVAPCD’s experience that 

implementation of a VERA is feasible mitigation that effectively achieves actual emission 

reductions. Based on the performance of current incentive programs and reasonably foreseeable 

future growth, the SJVAPCD has confirmed that enough emissions reduction credits will be 

available to offset emissions generated by the project for all years in excess of the SJVAPCD’s 

thresholds and the General Conformity de minimis threshold (Authority and SJVUAPCD 2014).

The implementation of this mitigation measure will not be expected to affect air quality in the 

SJVAPCD because purchasing emissions offsets will not result in any physical change to the 

environment, and therefore will not result in other secondary environmental impacts. In addition to 

NOX and PM10, the implementation of emission-reduction projects could result in reductions of 

other criteria pollutants, GHGs, or both. However, this will be a secondary effect of this mitigation 

measure and is not a required outcome to mitigate any impacts of the project. 

11.3 Consistency with Requirements and Milestones in Applicable SIP

The General Conformity regulations state that notwithstanding the other requirements of the rule, 

a federal action may not be determined to conform unless the total of direct and indirect 

emissions from the federal action is in compliance or consistent with all relevant requirements 

and milestones in the applicable SIP (40 C.F.R. § 93.158(c)). This includes, but is not limited to, 

such issues as reasonable further progress schedules, assumptions specified in the attainment or 

maintenance demonstration, prohibitions, numerical emission limits, and work practice standards. 

This section briefly addresses how the construction emissions for the Project were assessed for 

SIP consistency for this evaluation.

11.3.1 Applicable Requirements from U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

The USEPA promulgates requirements to support the goals of the CAA with respect to the 

NAAQS. Typically, these requirements take the form of rules regulating emissions from significant 

new sources, including emission standards for major stationary point sources and classes of 

mobile sources, as well as permitting requirements for new major stationary point sources. Since 

states have the primary responsibility for implementation and enforcement of requirements under 

the CAA and can impose stricter limitations than the USEPA, the USEPA requirements often 

serve as guidance to the states in formulating their air quality management strategies.

11.3.2 Applicable Requirements from California Air Resources Board

In California, to support the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS, the CARB is primarily 

responsible for regulating emissions from mobile sources. In fact, the USEPA has delegated 

authority to the CARB to establish emission standards for on-road and some non-road vehicles 

separate from the USEPA vehicle emission standards, although the CARB is preempted by the 

CAA from regulating emissions from many non-road mobile sources, including marine craft. 

Emission standards for preempted equipment can only be set by the USEPA.

RCC­220321­001
Section 11 General Conformity Evaluation

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

11-4 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

11.3.3 Applicable Requirements from Bay Area Air Quality Management District 

and San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

To support the attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS in the SFBAAB and SJVAB, the

BAAQMD and SJVAPCD have primarily been responsible for regulating emissions from 

stationary sources. As noted above, the BAAQMD and SJVAPCD develop and update their air 

quality management plans regularly to support the California SIP. While the plans contain rules 

and regulations geared to attain and maintain the NAAQS, these rules and regulations also have 

the much more difficult goal of attaining and maintaining the CAAQS. 

11.3.4 Consistency with Applicable Requirements for the California High-Speed 

Rail Authority 

The Authority already complies with, and will continue to comply with, a myriad of rules and 

regulations implemented and enforced by federal, state, regional, and local agencies to protect 

and enhance ambient air quality in the SFBAAB and SJVAB. 

In particular, because of the long persistence of challenges to attain the ambient air quality 

standards in the SFBAAB and SJVAB, the rules and regulations promulgated by the CARB, 

BAAQMD, and SJVAPCD are among the most stringent in the U.S. 

The Authority will continue to comply with all existing applicable air quality regulatory 

requirements for activities over which it has direct control and would meet in a timely manner all 

regulatory requirements that become applicable in the future.

These are appropriate USEPA, CARB, BAAQMD, and SJVAPCD rules which are standard 

practices and best management practices for construction in the BAAQMD and SJVAPCD, 

including control of emissions and exhaust:

• BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 2 (New Source Review)—This rule contains requirements for 

Best Available Control Technology and emission offsets.

• BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rule 5 (New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminates)—This 

rule outlines guidance for evaluating TAC emissions and their potential health risks.

• BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 1 (Particulate Matter)—This rule restricts emissions of PM 

darker than No. 1 on the Ringlemann Chart to less than 3 minutes in any 1 hour.

• BAAQMD Regulation 6, Rule 6 (Prohibition of Trackout)—This rule limits the quantity of 

PM in the atmosphere through control of trackout of solid materials onto paved public roads 

outside the boundaries of Large Bulk Material Sites, Large Construction Sites, and Large 

Disturbed Surface sites including landfills.

• BAAQMD Regulation 7 (Odorous Substances)—This regulation establishes general odor 

limitations on odorous substances and specific emission limitations on certain odorous 

compounds.

• BAAQMD Regulation 8, Rule 3 (Architectural Coatings)—This rule limits the quantity of 

VOC in architectural coatings.

• BAAQMD Regulation 9, Rule 6 (Nitrogen Oxides Emission from Natural Gas–Fired 

Boilers and Water Heaters)—This rule limits emissions of NOX generated by natural gas– 

fired boilers.

• BAAQMD Regulation 9, Rule 8 (Stationary Internal Combustion Engines)—This rule 

limits emissions of NOX and CO from stationary internal combustion engines of more than 50 

horsepower.

• BAAQMD Regulation 11, Rule 2 (Asbestos Demolition, Renovation, and 

Manufacturing)—This rule controls emissions of asbestos to the atmosphere during 

demolition, renovation, milling, and manufacturing and establishes appropriate waste 

disposal procedures.

RCC­220321­001
Section 11 General Conformity Evaluation

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 11-5 

• SJVAPCD Rule 2010 (Permits Required)—This rule requires any person constructing, 

altering, replacing or operating any source operation which emits, may emit, or may reduce 

emissions to obtain an Authority to Construct or a Permit to Operate.

• SJVAPCD Rule 2201 (New and Modified Stationary Source Review)—This rule requires 

that sources not increase emissions above the specified thresholds.

• SJVAPCD Rule 2280 (Portable Equipment Registration)—This rule requires portable 

equipment used at project sites for less than 6 consecutive months be registered with the 

SJVAPCD.

• SJVAPCD Rule 4002 (National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants)—This 

rule incorporates by reference the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants 

from Part 61, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and the 

National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories from Part 

63, Chapter I, Subchapter C, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). 

• SJVAPCD Rule 4102 (Nuisance)—This rule prohibits discharge from any source 

whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other materials which cause injury, 

detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public or 

which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such person or the public or 

which cause or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.

• SJVAPCD Rule 4201 and Rule 4202 (Particulate Matter Concentration and Emission 

Rates)—These rules provide PM emission limits for sources operating within the district.

• SJVAPCD Rule 4301 (Fuel-Burning Equipment)—This rule limits the emissions from fuelburning equipment whose primary purpose is to produce heat or power by indirect heat 

transfer.

• SJVAPCD Rule 4601 (Architectural Coatings)—This rule limits VOC emissions from 

architectural coatings.

• SJVAPCD Rule 4641 (Cutback, Slow Cure, and Emulsified Asphalt, Paving, and 

Maintenance Operations)—This rule limits VOC emissions by restricting the application and 

manufacturing of certain types of asphalt for paving and maintenance operations.

• SJVAPCD Rule 8011 (General Requirements—Fugitive Dust Emission Sources)—This 

rule outlines requirements for implementation of control measures for fugitive dust emission 

sources.

• SJVAPCD Rule 9510 (Indirect Source Review)—This rule outlines mitigation requirements 

for construction and operations emissions that exceed certain thresholds. The rule applies to 

any transportation project in which construction emissions equal or exceed 2 tons of NOX or 

PM10 per year. Projects subject to Rule 9510 must submit an Air Impact Assessment 

application to the SJVAPCD prior to construction. 

• BAAQMD and SJVAPCD CEQA Guidelines—The BAAQMD and SJVAPCD prepared their 

Air Quality Guidelines and Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts (GAMAQI), 

respectively, to assist lead agencies and project applicants in evaluating the potential air 

quality impacts of projects in the SFBAAB and SJVAB (BAAQMD 2017b; SJVAPCD 2015). 

The Air Quality Guidelines and GAMAQI provide BAAQMD- and SJVAPCD-recommended 

procedures for evaluating potential air quality impacts during the CEQA environmental review 

process. The documents provide guidance on evaluating short-term (construction) and longterm (operational) air emissions. The Air Quality Guidelines and GAMAQI used in this 

evaluation contain guidance on the following:

– Criteria and thresholds for determining whether a project may have a significant adverse 

air quality impact

– Specific procedures and modeling protocols for quantifying and analyzing air quality 

impacts

RCC­220321­001
Section 11 General Conformity Evaluation

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

11-6 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

– Methods to mitigate air quality impacts

– Information for use in air quality assessments and environmental documents that will be 

updated more frequently, such as air quality data, regulatory setting, climate, and 

topography

– USEPA Rule 40 C.F.R. Part 89, Control of Emissions from New and In-Use Nonroad 

Compression-Ignition Engines: requires stringent emission standards for mobile nonroad

diesel engines of almost all types using a tiered phase-in of standards

– CARB Rule 13 California Code of Regulations Section 1956.8, California Exhaust 

Emission Standards and Test Procedures for 1985 and Subsequent Model Heavy-Duty 

Diesel Engines and Vehicles: requires significant reductions in emissions of NOX, PM, 

and nonmethane organic compounds using exhaust treatment on heavy-duty diesel 

engines manufactured in model year 2007 and later years.

RCC­220321­001
Section 12 Estimated Emission Rates and Comparison to 

De Minimis Thresholds—Cumulative Analysis

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 12-1 

12 ESTIMATED EMISSION RATES AND COMPARISON TO 

DE MINIMIS THRESHOLDS—CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS

The RSA for cumulative air quality impacts is the SFBAAB and SJVAB. While these are separate 

projects for purposes of planning the HSR system, construction of the Project would overlap with 

the construction period for the following other HSR sections13: 

• San Francisco to San Jose, construction in the SFBAAB between 2022 and 2025

• Merced to Fresno, construction in the SJVAB in 2022

• Central Valley Wye, construction in the SJVAB in 2022 and material hauling in the SFBAAB 

in 2022

• Fresno to Bakersfield, construction in the SJVAB between 2022 and 2023

• Bakersfield to Palmdale, construction in the SJVAB between 2022 and 2025

Overlapping construction activities could add to cumulative air quality impacts within the SFBAAB 

and SJVAB. For purposes of full disclosure of the potential impacts, the cumulative emissions 

that could result from potential concurrent construction activities are presented in Tables 9 and 

10. As the analysis demonstrates, concurrent construction could result in exceedances of the

NOX General Conformity de minimis threshold in the SFBAAB and VOC and NOX General 

Conformity de minimis thresholds in the SJVAB. As previously discussed, the Authority has

already entered into an MOU with the SJVAPCD that will offset all emissions of VOC, NOx, and 

PM generated in the SJVAB by construction of the High Speed Rail Project to net zero. Pursuant 

to AQ-MM#-3, the Authority will enter into an agreement with BAAQMD to offset VOC and NOx 

emissions from construction of the Project in excess of the federal de minimis thresholds to net 

zero, if there will be exceedances of the VOC or NOx thresholds as determined by an analysis to 

be conducted prior to the issuance of construction contracts. 

The Merced to Sacramento Project would also generate emissions in the SJVAB. However, this 

section would not be completed until Phase 2, which is after the mandated Los Angeles to San 

Francisco line. It is likely construction activities would therefore take place after this Project is 

completed (i.e., after 2028). 

13 The analysis assumed that Project construction would take place from 2022 to 2028, and that construction of other 

HSR project sections would occur according to the schedules presented in their respective environmental documents. 

RCC­220321­001
Section 12 Estimated Emission Rates and Comparison to 

De Minimis Thresholds—Cumulative Analysis

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

12-2 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

Table 9 Overlapping HSR System Construction Emissions in the SFBAAB (tons per year)

Year1 VOC NOx CO SO2

2 PM10 PM2.5

2022

JM3,4 6 77 192 1 47 11

FJ3,5 5 99 136 1 134 30

CVY 1 31 9 <1 1 1 

Total 11 207 * 337 1 182 43

2023

JM3,4 7 118 * 255 1 70 17

FJ3,5 4 91 117 <1 117 27

CVY 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 10 209 * 372 1 187 44

2024

JM3,4 9 156 * 304 1 95 23

FJ3,5 3 80 105 <1 106 24

CVY 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 12 237 * 409 1 202 46

2025

JM3,4 7 139 * 241 1 79 19

FJ3,5 4 96 132 <1 102 23

CVY 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 12 235 * 372 1 181 42

De minimis threshold 100 100 - 100 - 100

Source: See Table 7 in Section 10.0; Authority and FRA 2017a

Exceedances of the de minimis thresholds are shown in bolded underline with an asterisk (*). 

CO = carbon monoxide

CVY = Central Valley Wye

FJ = San Francisco to San Jose

IAMF = impact avoidance and minimization feature

JM = San Jose to Merced

NOX = oxides of nitrogen

PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less

PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less

RSA = resource study area

SO2 = sulfur dioxide

VOC = volatile organic compound

1 The analysis assumed that Project construction would take place from 2022 to 2028, and that construction of other HSR project sections would 

occur according to the schedules presented in their respective environmental documents. 2 Although the RSA is in attainment for SO2, because SO2 is a precursor for PM2.5, the PM2.5 General Conformity de minimis thresholds are used. 3 Emissions results include implementation of air quality IAMFs, as described in Section 6.

4 Presents the highest emissions estimate that would occur under any of the four alternatives. 5 Presents emissions under Alternative B, which is the alternative with the greatest emissions in the SFBAAB. 

RCC­220321­001
Section 12 Estimated Emission Rates and Comparison to 

De Minimis Thresholds—Cumulative Analysis

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 12-1 

Table 10 Overlapping HSR System Construction Emissions in the SJVAB (tons per year)

Year1 VOC NOx CO SO2

2 PM10 PM2.5

2022

JM3,4 6 42 * 218 1 18 5 

B-P5 11 * 103 * 87 1 10 5 

F-B5 <1 1 1 <1 <1 <1 

M-F5 5 4 3 <1 9 2 

CVY5 2 44 20 <1 2 2 

Total6 25 * 194 * 330 2 39 13

2023

JM3,4 6 55 * 226 1 24 6 

B-P5 8 70 * 66 1 9 4 

F-B5 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 

M-F5 0 0 0 0 0 0 

CVY5 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total6 14 * 125 * 292 2 33 10

2024

JM3,4 6 56 * 220 1 23 5 

B-P5 6 50 * 50 1 6 3 

F-B5 0 0 0 0 0 0 

M-F5 0 0 0 0 0 0 

CVY5 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total6 12 * 106 * 270 2 29 8 

2025

JM3,4 6 54 * 209 1 21 5 

B-P5 2 10 * 11 1 1 1 

F-B5 0 0 0 0 0 0 

M-F5 0 0 0 0 0 0 

CVY5 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total6 8 64 * 220 2 22 6 

De minimis threshold 10 10 - 70 100 70

Source: See Table 8 in Section 10; Authority and FRA 2012, Authority and FRA 2017a, Authority and FRA 2014b, Authority and FRA 2017b

Exceedances of the de minimis thresholds are shown in bolded underline with an asterisk (*). 

B-P = Bakersfield to Palmdale

CO = carbon monoxide

CVY = Central Valley Wye

F-B = Fresno to Bakersfield

IAMF = impact avoidance and minimization feature

JM = San Jose to Merced

RCC­220321­001
Section 12 Estimated Emission Rates and Comparison to 

De Minimis Thresholds—Cumulative Analysis

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

12-2 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

M-F = Merced to Fresno 

NOX = oxides of nitrogen

PM2.5 = particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less

PM10 = particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less

RSA = resource study area

SO2 = sulfur dioxide

VOC = volatile organic compound

1 The analysis assumed that Project construction would take place from 2022 to 2028, and that construction of other HSR project sections would 

occur according to the schedules presented in their respective environmental documents. 2 Although the RSA is in attainment for SO2, because SO2 is a precursor for PM2.5, the PM2.5 General Conformity de minimis thresholds are used. 3 Emissions results include implementation of air quality IAMFs, as described in Section 6.

4 Refer to Table 8 in Section 10. 

5 The highest annual emissions for each pollutant among the analyzed alternatives is presented. 

6 Totals may not add due to rounding. 

RCC­220321­001
Section 13 Reporting and Public Comments

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 13-1 

13 REPORTING AND PUBLIC COMMENTS

To support a decision concerning the Project, the FRA issued a draft General Conformity 

Determination for a 30-day public and agency review as required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 93.155 and 

93.156. In developing the analysis underlying this general conformity determination, the Authority 

has consulted extensively with the BAAQMD and SJVAPCD on a variety of technical and 

modeling issues. The Authority has also consulted with the USEPA and CARB on the overall 

approach to demonstrating general conformity. 

The FRA provided copies of the draft General Conformity Determination to the appropriate 

regional offices of the USEPA, CARB, BAAQMD, and SJVAPCD for a 30-day review. FRA 

published a notice in the Federal Register on November 26, 2021 advising the public of the 

availability of the Draft Conformity Determination for a 30-day review and comment period. This 

draft conformity determination was made available on FRA’s docket at 

https://www.regulations.gov/, Docket FRA-2021-0100. The comment period of the Draft 

Conformity Determination closed on December 27, 2021. 

Two comments were received on the draft General Conformity Determination. These comments 

were supportive of the project and did not include any comments on the content of the draft 

General Conformity Determination. Consequently, no changes are necessary for this Final 

General Conformity Determination. 

The FRA will provide copies of this Final General Conformity Determination to the appropriate 

regional offices of USEPA, CARB, BAAQMD, and SJVAPCD. The Final General Conformity 

Determination is available at the FRA website 

(https://railroads.dot.gov/environment/environmental-reviews/clean-air-act-california-generalconformity-determinations) and on FRA’s docket at https://www.regulations.gov/, Docket FRA2021-0100. 

 

RCC­220321­001
Section 13 Reporting and Public Comments

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

13-2 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

RCC­220321­001
Section 14 Findings and Conclusions

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 14-1 

14 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS 

FRA conducted a General Conformity evaluation consistent with 40 C.F.R. Part 93 Subpart B. 

The General Conformity regulations apply at this time to this Project because the Project is in an 

area that is designated as either nonattainment or maintenance for the 8-hour O3, 24-hour PM2.5, 

and 24-hour PM10 standards. The FRA conducted the General Conformity evaluation consistent 

with all regulatory criteria and procedures and following the Authority’s coordination with the 

USEPA, BAAQMD, SJVAPCD, and CARB. As a result of this review, the FRA concluded, 

because Project-generated emissions would either be fully offset (for construction phase) or less 

than zero (for operational phase), that the Project’s emissions can be accommodated in the SIP 

for the SFBAAB and SJVAB. The FRA has determined that the Project as designed would 

conform to the approved SIP based on the following: 

• The Authority would commit that construction-phase NOX emissions would be offset 

consistent with the applicable federal regulations by entering into an agreement with 

BAAQMD and through the Authority’s existing commitments in its June 2014 MOU and VERA 

with the SJVAPCD, respectively. 

• The Authority, BAAQMD, and SJVAPCD would enter into a contractual agreement to mitigate 

the Project’s NOX emissions by providing funds to BAAQMD’s and SJVAPCD’s to fund grants 

for projects that achieve the necessary emission reductions. 

• BAAQMD and SJVAPCD would seek and implement the necessary emission reduction

measures, using Authority funds. 

• BAAQMD and SJVAPCD would serve as administrators of the emissions reduction projects 

and verifiers of the successful mitigation effort. 

 

RCC­220321­001
Section 14 Findings and Conclusions

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

14-2 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

RCC­220321­001
Section 15 References

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 15-1 

15 REFERENCES 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD). 2001. San Francisco Bay Area Ozone 

Attainment Plan for the 1-Hour National Ozone Standard. October 24, 2011. 

www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/Files/Planning%20and%20Research/Plans/2001%20Ozone% 

20Attainment%20Plan/oap_2001.ashx (accessed August 17, 2016).

———. 2016. Bay Area Air Quality Management District Permit Handbook. 

www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/engineering/permit-handbook/baaqmd-permithandbook.pdf?la=en (accessed March 2017).

———. 2017a. California Environmental Quality Act Air Quality Guidelines. May 2017.

———. 2017b. Spare the Air, Cool the Climate. April 19, 2017. 

www.baaqmd.gov/~/media/files/planning-and-research/plans/2017-clean-airplan/attachment-a_-proposed-final-cap-vol-1-pdf.pdf?la=en (accessed October 2018).

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2012. CARB’s Geographical Information System (GIS) 

Library. www.arb.ca.gov/ei/gislib/gislib.htm (accessed March 2017). 

———. 2017. 2012 Base Year Emissions. January 26, 2017. 

www.arb.ca.gov/ei/emissiondata.htm (accessed October 2018).

———. 2019. EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Part 

One. https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/msei/emfac_off_model_adjustment_factors_final_draft.pdf

(accessed July 2020).

———. 2020. iADAM: Air Quality Data Statistics. www.arb.ca.gov/adam/topfour/topfour1.php

(accessed June 2020).

California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority). 2016. Connecting and Transforming California, 

2016 Business Plan. May 1, 2016.

———. 2017. Draft Footprint Exhibits. February 2017.

California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration (Authority and FRA). 

2012. Merced to Fresno Section California High-Speed Train (HST) Final Project 

Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) and Merced to 

Fresno Section Air Quality and Global Climate Change Technical Report. Sacramento, 

CA, and Washington, D.C. April 2012.

Authority and FRA 2014a. Final EIR/EIS Fresno to Bakersfield Section. April. 

https://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/fresno-bakereir/final_ERIS_FresBaker_Vol_I_Cover.pdf (accessed: March 6, 2019). 

———. 2014b. Fresno to Bakersfield Section Air Quality and Global Climate Change Technical 

Report. Sacramento, CA, and Washington, D.C. April 2014. 

———. 2016. Merced to Fresno Section: Central Valley Wye Supplemental EIR/EIS. 

Sacramento, CA. December 2016.

———. 2017a. Merced to Fresno Section: Central Valley Wye Air Quality and Global Climate 

Change Technical Report. Sacramento, CA, and Washington, D.C. 

———. 2017b. Bakersfield to Palmdale Air Quality and Global Climate Change Technical Report. 

Sacramento, CA, and Washington, D.C. 

Countess Environmental. 2006. WRAP Fugitive Dust Handbook. 

www.wrapair.org/forums/dejf/fdh/content/FDHandbook_Rev_06.pdf (accessed 

September 27, 2018). 

Lovegrove, Alice and Tadross, Edward. 2017. Memo to Bryan Porter, HSR Authority, regarding 

Incorporating the Use of Tier 4 Engines and Renewable Diesel Fuel in Environmental 

Documentation. November 9. 

RCC­220321­001
Section 15 References

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

15-2 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD). 2005. Report on Attainment of 

the California Particulate Matter Standards in the Monterey Bay Region. December 1, 

2005. http://mbard.org/pdf/358%20(1).pdf (accessed August 17, 2016).

———. 2007. Federal Maintenance Plan for Maintaining the National Ozone Standard in the 

Monterey Bay Region. March 21, 2007. http://mbard.org/pdf/451.pdf (accessed August 

17, 2016).

———. 2017. 2012-2015 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). March 15, 2017. 

http://mbard.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/2012-2015-AQMP_FINAL.pdf (accessed 

March 30, 2017).

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). 2007a. PM10 Maintenance Plan 

and Request for Redesignation. September 20, 2007. 

www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/docs/Maintenance%20Plan10-25-07.pdf (accessed 

January 22, 2015).

———. 2007b. 2007 Ozone Plan. April 2007. 

www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/AQ_Final_Adopted_Ozone2007.htm (accessed 

January 22, 2015).

———. 2013. 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-Hour Ozone Standard. September 2013. 

www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/OzoneOneHourPlan2013/AdoptedPlan.pdf

(accessed January 22, 2015). 

———. 2015. 2015 Plan for the 1997 PM2.5 Standard. April 16, 2015. 

www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/docs/PM25-2015/2015-PM2.5-Plan-Complete.pdf

(accessed May 14, 2015).

———. 2016a. 2016 Moderate Area Plan for the 2012 PM2.5 Standard. September 15, 2016. 

www.valleyair.org/Board_meetings/GB/agenda_minutes/Agenda/2016/September/final/0 

5.pdf (accessed November 22, 2016).

———. 2016b. 2016 Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard. June 16, 2016. 

www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone-Plan-2016.htm (accessed January 8, 2018).

———. 2018. 2018 Plan for the 1997, 2006, and 2012 PM2.5 Standards. October 16, 2018. 

www.valleyair.org/pmplans/ (accessed October 2018).

Scholz, Dan. Construction Manager. AnchorCM, San Francisco, CA. September and October 

2018—email messages to ICF. 

The Climate Registry. 2018. Default GHG Emission Factors. March 15, 2018. 

Trinity Consultants. 2016. Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod. October 2016. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1978. Air Pollutant Emission Factors for Military 

and Civil Aircraft. EPA-450/3-78-117. October 1978. 

———. 1994. General Conformity Guidance: Questions and Answers. July 13, 1994. 

www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-03/documents/gcgqa_940713.pdf (accessed 

August 2016). 

———. 1998. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. Section 11.9 Western Surface Coal 

Mining. www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html (accessed October 17, 2016). 

———. 2006. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Chapter 13.2.2, Unpaved Roads. 

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/index.html (accessed October 2016).

———. 2009. Emission Factors for Locomotives. EPA-420-F-09-025. April 2009. 

———. 2011. Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Chapter 13.2.1, Paved Roads. 

www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch13/bgdocs/b13s0201.pdf (accessed October 2016).

RCC­220321­001
Section 15 References

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination Page | 15-3 

———. 2018. Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants. June 30, 2018. www.epa.gov/greenbook (accessed August 2018).

———. 2020. AirData Monitor Values Report. www3.epa.gov/airdata/ad_rep_mon.html

(accessed June 2020).

 

RCC­220321­001
Section 15 References

April 2022 California High-Speed Rail Authority

15-4 | Page San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

RCC­220321­001
Attachment A 

California High-Speed Rail Authority Project Environmental Document April 2022 

San Jose to Merced Project Section Final Federal General Conformity Determination 

ATTACHMENT A: LETTERS OF AGREEMENT WITH BAAQMD

RCC­220321­001
375 BEALE STREET, SUITE 600 • SAN FRANCISCO CA • 94105 • 415.771.6000 • www.Air District.gov

March 11, 2022

Brian Kelly

Chief Executive Officer

California High Speed Rail Authority

770 L Street, Suite 620, 

Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Intent to offset future emissions during construction of San Francisco to 

San Jose and San Jose to Merced Sections of the California High­Speed 

Rail System for purposes of Federal Clean Air Act General Conformity

Dear Mr. Kelly,

Purpose

The  purpose  of  this  letter  is  to  document  that  the  Bay  Area  Air  Quality 

Management  District  (Air District) and  the  Bay  Area  Clean  Air  Foundation

(Foundation) intend  to  work  with  the  California  High  Speed  Rail  Authority 

(Authority) on  off­site  emission  reduction  measures  to  support  General

Conformity  for  the  San  Francisco  to  San  Jose  and  San  Jose  to  Merced 

Project Sections of the California High­Speed Rail (HSR) System.

Projects

The California HSR System will provide intercity, high­speed service on more 

than  800  miles  of  guideway  throughout  California,  connecting  the  major 

population centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the southern 

Central  Valley,  Los  Angeles,  the  Inland  Empire,  Orange  County,  and  San 

Diego. The San Francisco to San Jose (FJ) and San Jose to Merced Project 

(JM) Sections (“Projects” or “Actions”) are critical links connecting the Bay 

Area to the Central Valley project sections.

General Conformity Rule

The  General  Conformity  Rule,  as  codified  in  Title  40  Code  of  Federal 

Regulations  Part  93,  Subpart  B,  establishes the  process  by  which  federal 

agencies  determine  conformance  of  proposed  projects  that  are  federally 

funded or require federal approval with applicable air quality standards. This 

determination must demonstrate that a proposed action would not cause or 

contribute  to  new  violations  of  air  quality  standards,  exacerbate  existing 

violations,  or  interfere  with timely attainment or  required  interim  emissions

reductions  towards  attainment.  The  Authority,  as  the  proponent  of  the 

Actions,  is  receiving  federal  grant  funds  through  the  Federal  Railroad 

Administration’s (FRA) High­Speed  Intercity Passenger  Rail  program.  The 

Actions  may  also  receive  FRA  safety  approvals.  Because  of  the  federal 

ALAMEDA COUNTY

John J. Bauters

(Vice Chair)

Pauline Russo Cutter

David Haubert

Nate Miley

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY

John Gioia

David Hudson

Karen Mitchoff

(Chair)

Mark Ross

MARIN COUNTY

Katie Rice

NAPA COUNTY

Brad Wagenknecht

SAN FRANCISCO COUNTY

Tyrone Jue

(SF Mayor’s Appointee)

Myrna Melgar

Shamann Walton

SAN MATEO COUNTY

David J. Canepa

Carole Groom 

Davina Hurt

(Secretary)

SANTA CLARA COUNTY

Margaret Abe­Koga

Cindy Chavez

Rich Constantine

Rob Rennie

SOLANO COUNTY

Erin Hannigan

Lori Wilson

SONOMA COUNTY

Teresa Barrett

Lynda Hopkins

Jack P. Broadbent

EXECUTIVE OFFICER/APCO

RCC­220321­001
Brian Kelly March 11, 2022

Page 2

funding and potential safety approvals, the Actions are subject to the General Conformity 

Rule;  and  because  construction­phase  emissions  (without  mitigation)  would  exceed 

General  Conformity  de  minimis thresholds,  the  Actions  are  not  exempt  and  must 

demonstrate how the projects intend to achieve conformity.

General Conformity Determinations

It is the Air District’s understanding that the draft General Conformity Determinations for 

the Actions document FRA’s findings that the Actions comply with the General Conformity 

Rule, conform to the purposes of the State Implementation Plan, and are consistent with 

all applicable requirements. FRA will issue the draft General Conformity Determination for 

the San Francisco to San  Jose Project Section for public review and  comment and has 

issued  the  draft  General  Conformity  Determination  for  the  San  Jose  to  Merced  Project 

Section for public review. Neither Air District nor the Bay Area Clean Air Foundation have 

reviewed or commented on the draft Conformity Determinations. 

The  draft  General  Conformity  Determinations  are  based  on  the  Impact  Avoidance  and 

Minimization  Measures  (IAMF)  and  Mitigation  Measures  (MM)  that  are  described  in 

Appendix  2­E  and  Section  3.3.7  of the Final  EIR/EISs for  both Actions  and  that  will  be 

implemented for the Actions. This compliance is demonstrated as follows:

• The operation of the Action would result in a reduction of regional emissions of all 

applicable air pollutants and would not cause a localized exceedance of an air quality 

standard; and 

• Whereas emissions generated during the construction of the Actions would exceed 

General  Conformity  de  minimis thresholds  for  one  pollutant,  these  emission 

increases would be offset through off­site emissions reductions projects funded by 

the Authority and administered by Air District’s support organization, the Bay Area 

Clean Air Foundation, a public charity. 

Based on the Authority’s current emissions analysis, construction emissions exceed 

General Conformity de minimis thresholds for nitrogen oxides (NOx) in the San Francisco 

Bay  Area  Air  Basin.  The  Authority  has  advised  that  these  exceedances  are  based  on 

current  construction  schedule  and  equipment  estimates  and based  on  the  available 

information to date. The methodology used by the Authority in creating these estimates is 

similar to what was used for estimating the emissions for the EIR/EISs for the Authority’s

Merced  to  Fresno  and  Fresno  to  Bakersfield  Project  Sections.  After  seven  years  of 

construction in the Central Valley, the Authority reports that the estimates in those EIR/EISs 

are conservative and actual emissions from construction are currently lower than EIR/EIS 

estimates by 50 to 70 percent. 

Impact Avoidance and Minimization Features

The Authority has incorporated the following IAMFs into the Projects: 

RCC­220321­001
Brian Kelly March 11, 2022

Page 3

• AQ­IAMF#1: Fugitive Dust Emissions: The contractor will employ several control 

measures to minimize and control fugitive dust emissions and prepare a fugitive 

dust control plan for each distinct construction segment.

• AQ­IAMF#2: Selection of Coatings: The contractor will use lower VOC content 

paint than that required by Air District Regulation 8, Rule 3, when available.

• AQ­IAMF#3: Renewable Diesel: The contractor will use renewable diesel fuel to 

minimize  and  control  exhaust  emissions  from  all  heavy­duty  diesel­fueled 

construction diesel equipment and on­road diesel trucks.

• AQ­IAMF#4:  Reduce  Criteria  Exhaust  Emissions  from  Construction 

Equipment: All heavy­duty off­road construction diesel equipment used during the 

construction phase will meet Tier 4 engine requirements.

• AQ­IAMF#5: Reduce Criteria Exhaust Emissions from On­Road Construction 

Equipment: All diesel on­road trucks used to haul construction materials will be 

model year 2010 or newer.1

• AQ­IAMF#6:  Reduce  the  Potential  Impact  of  Concrete  Batch  Plants: The 

contractor will prepare a technical memorandum documenting the concrete batch 

plant siting criteria, including locating the plant at least 1,000 feet from sensitive 

receptors, and utilization of typical control measures. 

Mitigation Measures

The Authority has committed to the following mitigation measure in its Northern California 

environmental  documentation and  has  committed  in  its  environmental documentation to 

incorporating this measure into its future Northern California construction contracts.  

AQ­MM#2  2­ Construction  Emissions  Reductions—Requirements  for  Use  of 

Zero Emission and/or Near Zero Emission Vehicles and Off­Road Equipment

This  mitigation  measure  will reduce  the  impact  of  construction  emissions  from 

project­related on­road vehicles and off­road equipment.

The Authority and all project construction contractors will require that a minimum of 

25  percent,  with  a  goal  of  100  percent,  of  all  light­duty  on­road  vehicles  (e.g., 

passenger cars, light­duty trucks) associated with the project (e.g., on­site vehicles, 

contractor  vehicles)  use  zero  emission  (ZE)  or  near­zero  emission  (NZE) 

technology.

The  Authority  and  all  project  construction  contractors  will  have  the  goal  that  a 

minimum of 25 percent of all heavy­duty on­road vehicles (e.g., for hauling, material 

delivery and soil import/export) associated with the construction activities for the San 

1

IAMFs listed are from the San Jose to Merced Project Section. AQ­IAMF#5 in San Francisco to San Jose Project Section is slightly 

different and reads as follows: All on road trucks will consist of an average fleet mix of equipment year 2010 or newer, but no less than 

the average fleet mix for the current calendar year as set forth in the CARB’s EMFAC 2014 database.

2 This mitigation measure number is specific to the San Jose to Merced Project Section Final EIR/EIS. This same measure is AQMM#1 in the San Francisco to San Jose Project Section Final EIR/EIS.

RCC­220321­001
Brian Kelly March 11, 2022

Page 4

Francisco to San Jose and San Jose to Merced Sections of the HSR System use 

ZE or NZE technology. 

The  Authority  and  all  project  construction  contractors  will  have  the  goal  that  a 

minimum of 10 percent of off­road construction equipment use ZE or NZE vehicles.

If  local  or  state  regulations  mandate  a  faster  transition  to  using  ZE  and/or  NZE 

vehicles at the time of construction, the more stringent regulations will be applied. 

For  example,  Executive  Order  (EO)  N­79­20,  issued  by  California  Governor 

Newsom September 23, 2020, currently states the following:

• Light duty and passenger car sales be 100 percent ZE vehicles by 2035

• Full transition to ZE short haul/drayage trucks by 2035

• Full transition to ZE heavy­duty long­haul trucks, where feasible, by 2045

• Full transition to ZE off­road equipment by 2035, where feasible. 

The project will have a goal of surpassing the requirements of these or other future 

regulations as a mitigation measure.  

It  is  the  Air District’s understanding  that  the  Authority  already  mandates  that  all  such 

equipment  meet  the  highest  emission  standard  codified  by  the  U.S.  Environmental 

Protection  Agency  (EPA) —Tier  4 and  that  the  Authority  intends  for  its  implementation 

strategy to go further, mandating through contractual measures that by 2030, 10 percent of 

off­road equipment be ZEV at start of construction, and sets the goal of 100 percent ZEV 

for such equipment by 2035.

Future Emissions Estimates

It is the Air District’s understanding that since funding has not been fully secured for the 

Projects, construction emissions would be recalculated after funding is secured, prior to the 

implementation  of  any  off­site emissions  reduction  programs  and  prior  to  construction 

activities  commencing.  As  such,  the  Authority  reports  that  the  following  steps  will  be 

followed to demonstrate conformity:

• Once  construction  funding  is  secured  for  the  project  section,  a  revised  construction 

schedule will be developed.

• Based  on  the  new  schedule,  a  construction  plan  will  be  developed  and  analyzed  to 

determine the emissions generated by construction. 

• At the time of analysis, the IAMFs and MMs will be revisited and may be updated to 

include technologies and methodologies that were not considered in the earlier analysis.

This review and implementation of updated measures will aid the projects in reducing 

the generation of emissions due to construction. The Air District strongly recommends 

that these additional measures include the following:

RCC­220321­001
Brian Kelly March 11, 2022

Page 5

o All  on­road  heavy­duty  trucks  traveling  to  the  construction  site  shall  have 

engines that are no more than seven years old (i.e., in 2022, engines must 

be 2015 model year or newer).  

o All off­road equipment shall use the highest tier engines available when zeroemissions  equipment  is  not  available  (e.g. Tier  4  construction,  rail, marine 

equipment). In place of Tier 4 engines, off­road equipment can incorporate 

retrofits such that emission reductions achieved equal or exceed that of a Tier 

4 engine. 

o All  off­road  equipment  with  a  power  rating  below  19  kilowatts  (e.g.,  plate 

compactors, pressure washers) shall be battery powered. 

o Diesel generators, including any designated for back­up, shall not be used at 

the  project  sites  during  construction  unless  absolutely  necessary.  If 

necessary, generators shall have Best Available Control Technology (BACT) 

that meets CARB's Tier 4 emission standards or meets the most stringent inuse standard, whichever has the least emissions. 

• Once  emission  estimates  are  calculated using the IAMF  and MMs, the Authority  will 

confirm  whether  the  estimates  are  still  above  the  applicable  General  Conformity  de 

minimis thresholds.

• All affected air districts will be notified of the emission levels and  consulted to offset 

emissions  for  those  years/pollutants  that  exceed  General  Conformity  de  minimis

thresholds. Alternatively, the air districts could include these emissions in the applicable 

State Implementation Plan.

• The  emission  accounting  program  the  Authority  uses  to  track  emissions  for  the 

segments currently being constructed will be utilized to actively quantify the construction 

emissions generated by the project. 

Conclusion

The Air District and the Bay Area Clean Air Foundation acknowledge the following:

• The  Authority  will ensure  that  the  lowest  level  of  construction  emissions  are 

generated through the use of IAMFs outlined in this document and rolling review of 

best available technologies. 

• The Authority will exhaust all on­site opportunities to reduce emissions during the 

construction  phase,  including from  vehicles traveling to  and from the  project  site, 

before seeking off­site NOx mitigation.

As such, by signing below the Air District and the Bay Area Clean Air Foundation commit 

to the following:

• The Air District will work with the Authority to mitigate all NOx emissions exceeding 

General  Conformity  de  minimis thresholds  to  zero as  required  by  General 

Conformity,  through  an  off­site emissions  reductions  program.  Funds  from  the 

Authority for mitigation offsets will be administered by Air District’s Bay Area Clean 

Air Foundation for the award of grants to Bay Area businesses, public agencies, and 

RCC­220321­001
Brian Kelly March 11, 2022

Page 6

residents who will implement projects that reduce emissions of NOx, reactive organic 

gases, and particulate matter. The Bay Area Clean Air Foundation intends to enter 

into a contractual agreement with the Authority to implement this program, with the 

Authority providing funds for off­site emissions reductions projects that achieve the 

necessary  emissions  reductions.  Current  off­site  emissions  reductions  programs 

work  to  cost­effectively  reduce  emissions  from  primarily  mobile  source  projects.  

Project types may include, but are not limited to: 

o Grants  to  replace  dirty  diesel  off­road  equipment,  e.g.,  tractors  and 

agricultural equipment, marine, lawn and garden;

o Grants to replace older, high­polluting trucks and buses; and

o Grants to owners to scrap older, high­polluting vehicles.

• The  Bay  Area  Clean  Air Foundation  requires  adequate  lead  time  to  achieve 

emissions reductions, and understands that the Authority will commit to working with 

the  Foundation well  in  advance  of  construction  years  during  which  emissions 

reductions  may  be  necessary  (no  less  than  three  years,  for  construction  years 

estimated to require emissions reductions of 100 tons/year or more).

• The Bay Area Clean Air Foundation will seek and implement the necessary emission 

reduction measures to the extent possible, using Authority funds; and 

• The  Bay  Area  Clean  Air Foundation  will  serve  in  the  role  of  administrator  of  the 

emissions reduction projects and verifier of the successful mitigation effort. 

Thank you for your continuing partnership with Air District and the Foundation to protect 

air quality, the climate and public health in the Bay Area.

Sincerely,

Jack P. Broadbent

Executive Officer/APCO Bay Area Air Quality Management District

President, Bay Area Clean Air Foundation

cc: Director Margaret Abe­Koga

Director David J. Canepa

Chair Cindy Chavez

Director Rich Constantine

Director Carole Groom 

Director Davina Hurt

Director Tyrone Jue

Director Rob Rennie

Director Shamann Walton

RCC­220321­001
5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING 

2 This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is entered into by the California 

3 High-Speed Rail Authority ("Authority") and the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

4 Control District ("District"). Authority and District are collectively referred to herein as 

the "Parties" with each being a "Party". 

6 RECITALS 

7 WHEREAS, District is an air pollution control district formed by the counties of 

8 Fresno, Kings, Madera, Merced, San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tulare, and the Valley 

9 portion of Kern, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 40150, et seq.; 

and 

11 WHEREAS, District is responsible for developing and implementing air quality 

12 control measures within the District Boundaries as depicted in Exhibit A ("District 

13 Boundaries" or "San Joaquin Valley Air Basin") attached hereto and incorporated 

14 herein, including air quality control measures for stationary sources, transportation 

sources, and indirect sources; and 

16 WHEREAS, despite the best efforts of District, air quality within District 

17 Boundaries remains impaired such that the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is not in 

18 attainment of federal Clean Air Act standards for ozone and its precursors NOx and 

19 VOCs (extreme nonattainment) and PM2.5 and is in Attainment/Maintenance status for 

PM1 O (NOx, voe, PM1 O and PM2.5 collectively, "Criteria Pollutants"); and

21 WHEREAS, emissions of Criteria Pollutants from the Authority's planned high22 speed rail construction within District Boundaries would exacerbate that non-attainment 

23 status and could threaten that Attainment/Maintenance status; and 

24 WHEREAS, the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is unique meteorologically in that 

it is surrounded on three sides by mountain ranges, including to the west which 

26 significantly limits the ability of ocean weather patterns and winds to refresh air in the 

27 basin; and 

28 

SJVUAPCD -1- 1990 E. Gettysburg 

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) RCC­220321­001 230-6000
1 WHEREAS, the Authority, in partnership with the Federal Railroad 

2 Administration ("FRA"), is developing a high-speed train system ("HST System"), which 

3 includes construction of guide-way segments, and ancillary facilities such as a Heavy 

4 Maintenance Facility, stations, and overpasses for California pursuant to the California 

5 High-Speed Rail Act (Public Utilities Code section 18500 et seq.) ("Rail Act") and the 

6 Safe, Reliable High-Speed Passenger Train Bond Act for the 21st Century (codified at 

7 Streets and Highways Code section 2704 et seq.) ("Bond Act") that would serve the 

8 San Francisco Bay Area, Sacramento, Central Valley, Los Angeles and San Diego 

9 through various station-to-station segments ("Segments") (as depicted in Exhibit B); 

10 and 

11 WHEREAS, the HST System includes segments or portions thereof that will be 

12 constructed, if and when funding can be secured, within the boundaries of the San 

13 Joaquin Valley ("SJV") including the following: Merced to San Jose (portion), Merced to 

14 Fresno (all), Fresno to Bakersfield (all), Bakersfield to Palmdale (portion), and 

15 Sacramento to Merced (portion), collectively referred to as "HST SJV District Portion"; 

16 and 

17 WHEREAS, the Authority completed Program-level Environmental Impact 

18 Statements/Reports ("EIS/EIR") in 2005, 2008, 2010 and 2012 pursuant to the National 

19 Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA") and California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") 

20 evaluating impacts of the HST System, and selecting preferred route corridors; and 

21 WHEREAS, a project level Final EIS/EIR ("MF FEIR") for the Merced to Fresno 

22 Segment ("MF Segment") was approved and certified via Resolution 12-19 ("MF FEIR 

23 Resolution") and the MF Segment approved and CEQA findings made via Resolution 

24 12-20 ("MF Segment Resolution") by the Authority's Board of Directors in May 2012

25 and FRA's associated Record of Decision ("ROD") issued on September 2012; and 

26 WHEREAS, construction of a portion of the MF Segment (from approximately 

27 Madera to downtown Fresno) is anticipated to commence in 2014 with connections to 

28 the San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles Basin expected after year 2028; and 

SJVUAPCD -2- 1990 E. Gettysburg

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) 230-6000 RCC­220321­001
1 WHEREAS, the Authority found in the MF FEIR and MF FEIR Resolution that 

2 construction of the MF Segment would cause significant air quality impacts from 

3 construction emissions of Criteria Pollutants because the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin 

4 is in non-attainment for Criteria Pollutants; and 

5 WHEREAS, the Authority has included in the MF Segment Resolution, and in 

6 the Draft EIR/EIS for the Fresno-Bakersfield Segment (and anticipates so including in 

7 the draft environmental documents for other Segments of the HST SJV District Portion) 

8 various requirements and mitigation measures to reduce significant construction 

g emissions associated with the HST SJV District Portion (such as using the cleanest 

1 o construction and hauling fleet as reasonably practicable, as detailed in MF FEIR AQ11 MM#1 and #2); and 

12 WHEREAS, nevertheless, Criteria Pollutant(s) emitted during HST construction 

13 within the District Boundaries would still exacerbate and/or threaten the existing non14 attainment and maintenance status for Criteria Pollutants within the District Boundaries; 

15 and 

16 WHEREAS, during the public process leading up to the MF FEIR, the District 

17 recommended in writing that the Authority enter into a Voluntary Emission Reduction 

18 Agreement ("VERA") with the District as an additional mitigation measure (because of 

19 the emissions offsets VERA implementation would achieve) for construction emission 

20 impacts the MF FEIR concluded would occur in the MF Segment; and 

21 WHEREAS, the MF Segment Resolution committed the Authority to entering 

22 into a VERA with the District for the MF Segment as a mitigation measure to 

23 accomplish net-zero MF Segment construction emissions of Criteria Pollutants 

24 because of the San Joaquin Air Basin's difficult air quality challenge (i.e., its non25 attainment status), which VERA now has been drafted for the funded Madera-to26 Fresno portion of the MF Segment and is near ready for execution ("Madera-to-Fresno 

27 VERA"); and 

28 

SJVUAPCD 

1990 E. Gettysburg 

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) 230-6000

-3-

RCC­220321­001
1 WHEREAS, the. Authority understands that any significant HST construction 

2 emissions air quality impacts from Criteria Pollutants within the District Boundaries 

3 could be mitigated through various measures, including emissions offsets to net zero 

4 through entry into VERAs, which approach would address the District's view that any 

5 net HST construction emissions of Criteria Pollutants within the District Boundaries are 

6 impacts that must be fully mitigated; and 

7 WHEREAS, the District has developed Incentive Programs around several core 

8 principles, including cost-effectiveness, integrity, effective program administration, 

9 excellent customer service, the efficient use of District resources, fiscal transparency 

10 and public accountability; and 

11 WHEREAS, the District's Incentive Programs involve the District using monies 

12 (such as grant funds and project-proponent-provided monies via a VERA) to fund 

13 (usually on a percentage basis) the purchase and use by third parties of newer 

14 equipment that emits fewer Criteria Pollutants to replace older, less-clean-burning 

15 equipment (such as farm tractors), which the District administers through Individual 

16 Incentive Program Funding Agreements ("IIPFAs"); and 

17 WHEREAS, the District's IIPFAs require the user of the new equipment to use 

18 the new equipment for a minimum number of hours (based on the user's historical use 

19 of the replaced equipment) over a specified number of years, and require permanent 

20 destruction of the replaced equipment; and 

21 WHEREAS, the IIPFAs, because of their requirements, result in reductions of 

22 Criteria Pollutants that get assigned to the project proponent providing the funding to 

23 offset emissions by that project proponent ("Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets"); and 

24 WHEREAS, the Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets, because of the requirements of 

25 and protections in the IIPFAs, are secured and certified to the Authority by the District 

26 ("Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets") upon execution of each IIPFA; and 

27 WHEREAS, the District's Incentive Programs are regularly audited by 

28 independent outside agencies including professional accountancy corporations on 

SJVUAPCD 

1990 E. Gettysburg 

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) 230-6000

-4-

RCC­220321­001
1 behalf of the federal government, the California Air Resources Board ("ARB"), the 

2 California Department of Finance and the California Bureau of State Audits; and 

3 WHEREAS, the District has determined that with appropriate funding from 

4 Authority, the District can source, secure and certify Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets as 

5 necessary for construction of the HST SJV District Portion. 

6 AGREEMENT 

7 NOW THEREFORE, the Authority and the District hereby agree as follows: 

8 1. Offset of Construction Emissions of Criteria Pollutants

9 (i) The Authority shall fully offset all HST SJV District Portion-related HST

10 construction emissions from Criteria Pollutants by achieving surplus, quantifiable and 

11 enforceable emissions reductions of Criteria Pollutants. 

12 (ii) For the purpose of this MOU, "fully offset" or "net zero" means that the

13 total amount of all Criteria Pollutants emission reductions secured by the offset 

14 reduction measures is equal to, or greater than, the total amount of actual Criteria 

15 Pollutant HST construction emissions within the HST SJV District Portion, minus the 

16 projected emissions of Criteria Pollutants that would have occurred in the locations of 

17 the HST District Portion construction in the absence of HST construction as may be 

18 feasible and technically calculable for specific facilities HST might replace (as individual 

19 VERAs may include). "Surplus" emission reductions are reductions that are not 

20 otherwise required by existing laws or regulations. 

21 (iii) In order to fully offset such construction-related air emissions from the

22 HST SJV District Portion, upon each Segment in the HST SJV District Portion having 

23 been approved for construction by the Authority and any applicable state or federal 

24 entity, having secured funding for construction, and having approved or certified 

25 associated environmental review reports and/or statements as required by applicable 

26 law ("Certified Environmental Document"), the Authority and District shall enter into a 

27 VERA substantially in the form of the Madera-to-Fresno VERA to cover the portion of 

28 the Segment approved and funded for construction within District Boundaries prior to 

SJVUAPCD 

1990 E. Gettysburg -5-

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) 230·6000 RCC­220321­001
1 the commencement of construction of said portion. Notwithstanding the above, nothing 

2 in this MOU shall prevent the Authority from commencing any construction if, despite 

3 the Authority's best efforts, timely entry into the associated VERA did not occur; in such 

4 event, the Parties shall work cooperatively to accomplish entry into the VERA in time 

5 for emissions offsets to occur in a timely manner to satisfy applicable law such as 

6 contemporaneous offset timing requirements established by the U.S. Environmental 

7 Protection Agency for general conformity. 

8 2. VERA Implementation

9 (i) Upon entering into a VERA, the Authority shall provide the District with a

10 meaningful amount of Air Quality Mitigation Funds (as a deposit) as may be specified in 

11 each VERA, which the District shall place in a District trust or escrow account until 

12 committed in an executed and Authority-approved IIPFA. Such Funds are intended to 

13 fund equipment replacement and/or retrofit to achieve Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets 

14 and to fund the District's administrative expenses to implement the VERA, as may be 

15 specified in each VERA. The Authority acknowledges that the District will require 

16 availability of a meaningful amount of such Funds prior to soliciting and negotiating 

17 IIPFAs to accomplish Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets on the Authority's behalf as part 

18 of any individual VERA. The District acknowledges that construction of the HST SJV 

19 District Portion is not fully funded, and future funding sources and availability can affect 

20 how individual VERAs get funded and the provisions and terms in such VERAs. The 

21 total estimated amount of Air Quality Mitigation Funds necessary for each VERA are 

22 based on (a) the total tonnage of Criteria Pollutants estimated to be emitted during the 

23 HST construction covered by each VERA, as estimated within a Certified 

24 Environmental Document or some subsequent estimate based on more then-up-to25 date construction information and (b) District's cost per ton per the then-applicable rate 

26 contained in District Rule 9510 as set forth in each VERA. 

27 (ii) Upon receipt of a meaningful amount of such Funds as relates to an

28 individual VERA and upon the Authority's written notice to proceed from its Contract 

SJVUAPCD 

1990 E. Gettysburg 

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) 230-6000

-6-

RCC­220321­001
1 Manager to the District based on relative certainty of a likely construction start date for 

2 the HST construction covered by the relevant VERA, the District will commence 

3 negotiating and executing (after Authority limited review and approval) and funding 

4 (from the Funds in trusUescrow) IIPFAs to achieve Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA 

5 Offsets on behalf of the Authority in a timely manner to satisfy applicable law or 

6 general conformity regulations requiring emission reductions to be achieved 

7 contemporaneous to the actual emissions to be offset. The Authority will continue to 

8 fund the trusUescrow account, and District will continue to negotiate and execute 

g additional IIPFAs to create additional Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets until 

1 o sufficient Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets have been funded to accomplish full 

11 offset to net zero for that VERA. 

12 (iii) Upon execution of each IIPFA, District shall issue to the Authority a Secured

13 Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets Receipt, by which the District ensures to the Authority 

14 that such associated offsets listed in the Receipt have been secured with no further 

15 involvement or funding by the Authority. 

16 (iv) Through periodic reporting to each other, the Authority will monitor the actual

17 emissions resulting from construction and the District will monitor and match such 

18 actual emissions to the total offsets stated in Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets 

19 Receipts issued to date. The District shall certify in writing to the Authority when the 

20 total Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets listed in all Receipts issued fully offset 

21 the actual construction emissions of Criteria Pollutant(s) from the HST Segment portion 

22 covered by the associated VERA. 

23 3. Refunds

24 When total offsets stated in Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets Receipts

25 equal or exceed total actual construction emissions of Criteria Pollutants for the HST 

26 construction covered in a VERA, the District shall, upon Authority written request, 

27 refund the Authority any remaining Air Quality Mitigation Funds which are not 

28 

SJVUAPCD 

1990 E. Gettysburg 

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) 230-6000

-7-

RCC­220321­001
1 encumbered through IIPFAs. The District shall have a reasonable period of time to 

2 refund the unencumbered Air Quality Mitigation Funds. 

3 4. Transfer of Segment Excess Emission Reductions

4 If total offsets stated in Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets Receipts

5 exceed total construction emissions of Criteria Pollutants for the HST construction 

6 covered in a VERA, the Authority shall be credited with such excess emission ("VERA 

7 Excess Emission Reduction" or "Excess"). Such VERA Excess Emission Reductions 

8 shall be transferred to any other then-existing or future Authority-District VERA. If there 

9 is no existing VERA and likely will not be a future VERA in time for the Authority to get 

1 o value for the Excess, the Authority may transfer the Excess to a third-party developer. 

11 5. District Rule 9510-lndirect Source Review

12 Authority acknowledges that it is required to comply with all applicable laws that

13 may be in effect as the HST SJV District Portion is implemented, such as the District's 

14 current Rule 9510 (including its requirement to submit an Air Impact Assessment 

15 Application). The Authority acknowledges that it is subject to all applicable provisions 

16 of District Rule 9510 that are in effect at the time of submitting an Air Impact 

17 Assessment Application, but the District anticipates that Criteria Pollutant Offsets to be 

18 accomplished through VERAs as contemplated by this MOU will satisfy the emissions 

19 reductions requirements of current Rule 9510. 

20 6. Term of MOU

21 This MOU shall be effective upon the date it is signed. The Parties acknowledge

22 that construction of the HST SJV District Portion could span one or more decades. The 

23 Parties agree to work cooperatively together over that time period to evaluate any 

24 amendments necessary to this MOU to reflect any relevant circumstances that may 

25 change, including but not limited to changing state and federal law requirements 

26 related to air quality, changes (positive or negative) in the Clean Air Act attainment 

27 status of the San Joaquin Air Basin for Criteria Pollutants or other pollutants, changing 

28 and evolving HST funding, and changing state and federal law requirements related to 

SJVUAPCD 

1990 E. Gettysburg -8-

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) 230-6000 RCC­220321­001
s 

errnng Board Cha 

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Contra Distric / 

1 the HST System. This MOU shall be terminated by its terms when total offsets stated in 

2 Secured Criteria Pollutant VERA Offsets Receipts equal or exceed total actual 

3 construction emissions of Criteria Pollutants for the HST SJV District Portion. 

4 7. Exhibits. The Exhibits to this MOU are fully incorporated and are a part

5 of this MOU, and are: 

6 A. District Boundaries Map

7 B. HST System and Segment Map

8 8. Miscellaneous. The Recitals set forth above are hereby incorporated into

9 the terms of this MOU. Counterpart and facsimile/computer image signatures shall be 

1 o treated as originals. Notices under this MOU shall be given in writing to the persons 

11 and addresses listed in the then-most-current VERA. This MOU contains all 

12 understandings between the Parties as to the matters covered herein and incorporates, 

13 integrates and supersedes any different or other oral or written understandings 

14 between the Parties as to the matters covered herein. This MOU was prepared equally 

15 by both Parties. 

16 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Authority and District have executed this MOU 

17 and agree that it shall be effective as of the date first written above. 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

AUTHORITY 

High Speed Rail Authority 

Jeff Morales 

Chief Executive Officer 

SJVUAPCD 

1990 E. Gettysburg 

Fresno, CA 93726 

(559) 230-6000

-9-

DISTRICT 

Recommended for ap roval: 

Se e adredin 

Executive Director/APCO 

Approved as to legal form: 

RCC­220321­001
RCC­220321­001
RCC­220321­001
RCC­220321­001