Prepared by: 

USDOT Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Ave SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

August 2010 

Volume I: Report 

Supplemental Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement and 4(f) Evaluation for 

the proposed 

DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train
DESERTXPRESS HIGH-SPEED PASSENGER TRAIN

SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

AND 4(F) EVALUATION

Prepared by 

USDOT Federal Railroad Administration

With Cooperating Agencies 

Bureau of Land Management 

Surface Transportation Board 

Federal Highway Administration 

National Park Service 

Pursuant to: 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4332 et seq), and implementing regulations (40 C.F.R. 

Parts 1500-1508), 64 FR § 28545, 23 CFR §771, 65 FR § 33960, 49 C.F.R. § 1105; 49 U.S.C. § 303 

(formerly Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Section 4(f)); National Historic Preservation Act (16 

U.S.C. § 470); Clean Air Act as amended (42 USC §§ 7401 et seq. and 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93); the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC § 1531-1544); the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1251-1387); 

and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended 

(42 USC § 4601)

_______________________________ 

Joseph C. Szabo 

Administrator 

Federal Railroad Administration 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Date ________________ 

Contact the following individual for additional information concerning this document: 

Ms. Wendy Messenger 

USDOT Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

(202) 493-6396 

Abstract: In March 2009, the Federal Railroad Administration published a Draft Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for the DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train project. DesertXpress Enterprises 

Inc. proposes the construction and operation of a fully grade-separated, dedicated double track 

passenger-only railroad along an approximately 200-mile corridor, from Victorville, California to Las 

Vegas, Nevada. Following publication of the Draft EIS, DesertXpress Enterprises Inc. proposed several 

project modifications and additions to address substantive comments received during public and agency 

review of the Draft EIS and to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects. This Supplemental Draft 

EIS evaluates the environmental effects of the proposed project modifications and additions. 

The proposed project modifications and additions include a new Victorville passenger station site option, 

a Barstow area rail alignment routing following I-15 from Lenwood through Yermo, a new rail alignment 

through the Clark Mountains near the Mojave National Preserve, new sites for maintenance and 

operation facilities in unincorporated Clark County, relocation of portions of the rail alignment in 

metropolitan Las Vegas from the immediate I-15 corridor to the Industrial Road/Dean Martin Drive 
corridor, and other minor shifts in the rail alignment to avoid or reduce effects or improve operating 

characteristics of the rail service. 

The proposed project modifications and additions do not in any way change the underlying purpose of, or 

need for the project. The need for a high-speed rail service system stems from several factors, including 

high and increasing travel demand with limited increases in capacity on Interstate-15 (I-15), constraints to 

the expansion of air travel, and frequent automobile accidents on the I-15 corridor. The DesertXpress 

high-speed passenger train would provide reliable and safe passenger rail transportation using proven 

high-speed rail technology that would be a convenient alternative to automobile travel on I-15 or air travel 

to and from Las Vegas, and that would add transportation capacity along the I-15 corridor. 

Potential environmental impacts of the project modifications and additions include land use and 

community effects, conversion of grazing land, impacts on sensitive biological resources and wetlands, 

visual impacts in scenic areas of the Mojave Desert, impacts on historic properties and archaeological 

sites, impacts on parks and recreation resources, impacts to hydrological resources, air quality effects, 

noise, and effects on utility and public service providers. Mitigation measures and strategies are 

described to avoid or minimize potential impacts. 

___________________________________ 

This Supplemental Draft EIS is being made available to the public in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act for a public review and comment period ending October 18, 2010. Public 

hearings will be held as shown below. 

Las Vegas Area

October 13, 2010 

5:30 p.m.- 8:00 p.m 

Hampton Inn Tropicana 

SW Event Center B 

4975 Dean Martin Drive 

Las Vegas, NV 89118 

Victorville/Barstow Area

October 14, 2010 

5:30 p.m.- 8:00 p.m. 

Lenwood Hampton Inn 

Jackrabbit Room 1 

2710 Lenwood Road 

Barstow, CA 92311 

Locations, dates, and times of hearings will also be posted on the Federal Railroad Administration Web 

Site (www.fra.dot.gov), and notice will be mailed to interested parties and published in newspapers of 

general circulation. 

Comments on this Supplemental Draft EIS are due by October 18, 2010, and should be sent to the 

Federal Railroad Administration by mail addressed to: 

Ms. Wendy Messenger 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue S.E. MS-20 

Washington, DC 20590 

Attn: DesertXpress SDEIS 

Comments on the Supplemental Draft DesertXpress High-Speed Train EIS must be received by 

FRA by October 18, 2010. 

Visit the Federal Railroad Administration Web Site [www.fra.dot.gov] to view and download the 

Supplemental Draft and Draft EIS. 

Printed copies of the Supplemental Draft and Draft EIS have been placed in the following locations: 

Victorville City Library 

15011 Circle Drive 

Victorville, CA 92395 

Barstow Library 

304 East Buena Vista 

Barstow, CA 92311 

Las Vegas Library 

833 Las Vegas Blvd. N. 

Las Vegas, NV 89101 

Clark County Library 

1401 Flamingo 

Las Vegas, NV 89119 

To conserve resources this document was printed on 100% recycled paper. Please recycle the 

paper again once you have finished with it and no longer need a copy. 
August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

i 

Table of Contents 

ES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................. ES-1

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ........................................................................ 1-1 

2.0 ALTERNATIVES ................................................................................. 2-1 

2.1 Summary of Draft EIS Alternatives ............................................................. 2-1

2.2 Proposed Project Modifications and Additions ........................................... 2-2 

2.3 No Action Alternative ................................................................................. 2-16

3.0 REGULATORY SETTING AND AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

3.1 Land Use and Community Impacts .......................................................... 3.1-1

3.2 Growth ....................................................................................................... 3.2-1

3.3 Farmlands and Grazing Lands .................................................................. 3.3-1

3.4 Utilities/Emergency Services .................................................................... 3.4-1

3.5 Traffic and Transportation........................................................................ 3.5-1

3.6 Visual Resources ........................................................................................ 3.6-1

3.7 Cultural and Paleontological Resources ................................................... 3.7-1

3.8 Hydrology And Water Quality .................................................................. 3.8-1

3.9 Geology and Soils ...................................................................................... 3.9-1

3.10 Hazardous Materials ............................................................................... 3.10-1

3.11 Air Quality and Global Climate Change .................................................. 3.11-1

3.12 Noise and Vibration ................................................................................. 3.12-1

3.13 Energy ...................................................................................................... 3.13-1

3.14 Biological Resources ................................................................................ 3.14-1

3.15 Section 4(f) Evaluation .............................................................................3.15-1

3.16 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................ 3.16-1

3.17 Irretreivable and Irreversible Committments of Public Resources ........ 3.17-1

3.18 Short Term Uses Versus Long Term Productivity.................................. 3.18-1

3.19 Unavoidable Adverse Effects .................................................................. 3.19-1 
DesertXpress 

Supplemental Draft EIS Table of Contents 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

ii 

4.0 COMMENTS AND COORDINATION .................................................. 4-1 

4.1 Public Involvement And Outreach ............................................................... 4-1

4.2 Agency Involvement ..................................................................................... 4-2

5.0 PREPARERS AND REFERENCES ....................................................... 5-1

5.1 List of Preparers ........................................................................................... 5-1

5.2 References ..................................................................................................... 5-3
DesertXpress 

Supplemental Draft EIS Table of Contents 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

iii 

List of Figures 

Figure S-ES-1 New Project Modifications and Additions (1).................................... ES-39 

Figure S-ES-2 New Project Modifications and Additions (2) ................................... ES-40 

Figure S-ES-3 New Project Modifications and Additions (3) ....................................ES-41 

Figure S-ES-4 New Project Modifications and Additions (4) ................................... ES-42 

Figure S-ES-5 New Project Modifications and Additions (5) ................................... ES-43 

Figure S-2-1 New Project Features and Additions (1) ................................................. 2-4 

Figure S-2-2 New Project Features and Additions (2) ................................................. 2-5 

Figure S-2-3 New Project Features and Additions (3) ................................................. 2-6 

Figure S-2-4 New Project Features and Additions (4) ................................................. 2-7 

Figure S-2-5 New Project Features and Additions (5) ................................................ 2-8 

Figure S-2-6 Victorville Station Site 3A/3B - Site Plans .............................................. 2-9 

Figure S-2-7 Segment 2C - Median Options ............................................................. 2-11 

Figure S-2-8 Frias Substation Site Plan ..................................................................... 2-14 

Figure S-2-9 Profile Modification Cross Section ....................................................... 2-18 

Figure S-2-10 Cross Section: California Nevada State Line to Sloan Road (E) .......... 2-19 

Figure S-2-11 Cross Section: California Nevada State Line to Sloan Road (W) ........ 2-20 

Figure S-3.1-1 Land Ownership (1) .............................................................................. 3.1-2

Figure S-3.1-2 Land Ownership (2) .............................................................................. 3.1-3

Figure S-3.1-3 Land Ownership (3) .............................................................................. 3.1-4

Figure S-3.1-4 Land Ownership (4) ............................................................................. 3.1-5

Figure S-3.1-5 Land Ownership (5) .............................................................................. 3.1-6

Figure S-3.1-6 Land Use/Zoning Designation (1) ........................................................ 3.1-7

Figure S-3.1-7 Land Use/Zoning Designation (2) ....................................................... 3.1-8

Figure S-3.1-8 Land Use/Zoning Designation (3) ....................................................... 3.1-9

Figure S-3.1-9 Land Use/Zoning Designation (4) ..................................................... 3.1-10

Figure S-3.1-10 Land Use/Zoning Designation (5) ...................................................... 3.1-11

Figure S-3.1-11 Bureau of Land Management Multiple Use Classification, 

California Desert Conservation Area ................................................. 3.1-12

Figure S-3.1-12 Environmental Justice: California (1) ................................................ 3.1-13

Figure S-3.1-13 Environmental Justice: Nevada (2) ................................................... 3.1-14

Figure S-3.3-1 BLM Grazing Allotments ...................................................................... 3.3-2

Figure S-3.3-2 Segment 4C, BLM Grazing Allotments ................................................ 3.3-4 

Figure S-3.5-1 Existing Intersection Lane Geometry, Victorville Station Site 3 ........ 3.5-4
DesertXpress 

Supplemental Draft EIS Table of Contents 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

iv 

Figure S-3.5-2 Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes, Victorville Station Site 3 ....... 3.5-5 

Figure S-3.5-3 Trip Distribution, Victorville Station Site 3 ......................................... 3.5-7

Figure S-3.5-4 Future Year 2030 Intersection Lane Geometry, Victorville Station 

Site 3 ......................................................................................................3.5-8

Figure S-3.5-5 Future Year 2013 Intersection Lane Geometry, Victorville Station 

Site 3 ...................................................................................................... 3.5-9

Figure S-3.6-1 Visual Quality/Sensitivity (1) ............................................................... 3.6-3

Figure S-3.6-2 Visual Quality/Sensitivity (2) .............................................................. 3.6-4

Figure S-3.6-3 Visual Quality/Sensitivity (3) ............................................................... 3.6-5

Figure S-3.6-4 Visual Quality/Sensitivity (4) .............................................................. 3.6-6

Figure S-3.6-5 Visual Quality/Sensitivity (5) ............................................................... 3.6-7

Figure S-3.6-6 View Comparison, Victorville Station Site 3A .................................... 3.6-8

Figure S-3.6-7 Existing Conditions, Segment 2C (Central Barstow) ........................ 3.6-10

Figure S-3.6-8 View Comparison, Alignment Adjustment Area 8 ............................ 3.6-12

Figure S-3.6-9 View Comparison, Wigwam MSF Modification ................................ 3.6-13

Figure S-3.6-10 View Comparison, Profile Modification ............................................ 3.6-15

Figure S-3.6-11 View Comparison, Segment 2C Side Running .................................. 3.6-18

Figure S-3.6-12 View Comparison, Segment 2C Median ........................................... 3.6-19

Figure S-3.8-1 Hydrology and Floodplains (1) ............................................................ 3.8-2

Figure S-3.8-2 Hydrology and Floodplains (2) ........................................................... 3.8-3

Figure S-3.8-3 Hydrology and Floodplains (3) ........................................................... 3.8-4

Figure S-3.8-4 Hydrology and Floodplains (4) ............................................................3.8-5

Figure S-3.8-5 Hydrology and Floodplains (5) ........................................................... 3.8-6

Figure S-3.9-1 Faults and Earth Fissures (1) .............................................................. 3.9-8 

Figure S-3.9-2 Faults and Earth Fissures (2) .............................................................. 3.9-9

Figure S-3.9-3 Faults and Earth Fissures (3) ............................................................. 3.9-10

Figure S-3.9-4 Faults and Earth Fissures (4) ............................................................. 3.9-11 

Figure S-3-9.5 Faults and Earth Fissures (5) ............................................................. 3.9-12

Figure S-3.9-6 Regional Geologic Map (1) ................................................................. 3.9-13

Figure S-3.9-7 Regional Geological Map (2) .............................................................. 3.9-14 

Figure S-3.9-8 Regional Geological Map (3) .............................................................. 3.9-15 

Figure S-3.9-9 Regional Geological Map (4) .............................................................. 3.9-16 

Figure S-3-10.1 Hazardous Sites of Environmental Concern ..................................... 3.10-4

Figure S-3.12-1 Noise Measurement Locations, Segment 2C ..................................... 3.12-3

Figure S-3.12-2 Noise Measurement Locations, Alighnment Adjustment Area 8 ..... 3.12-7

Figure S-3.12-3 Noise Mitigation Locations, Segment 2C ........................................ 3.12-34

Figure S-3.12-4 Noise Mitigation Locations, Segment 6 (Revised Draft EIS 

Evaluation) ........................................................................................ 3.12-35
DesertXpress 

Supplemental Draft EIS Table of Contents 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

v 

Figure S-3.12-5 Noise Mitigation Locations, Segment 6B with AAA8...................... 3.12-36

Figure S-3.14-1 Biological Resources (1) ..................................................................... 3.14-2

Figure S-3.14-2 Biological Resources (2) ..................................................................... 3.14-3

Figure S-3.14-3 Biological Resources (3) ..................................................................... 3.14-4

Figure S-3.14-4 Biological Resources (4) ..................................................................... 3.14-5

Figure S-3.14-5 Biological Resources (5) ..................................................................... 3.14-6

Figure S-3.14-6 Sensitive Status Species Within the Project Region ........................ 3.14-38

Figure S-3.15-1 Section 4(f) Resources (1) .................................................................. 3.15-3

Figure S-3.15-1 Section 4(f) Resources (2) .................................................................. 3.15-4

Figure S-3.15-1 Section 4(f) Resources (3) .................................................................. 3.15-5

Figure S-3.15-1 Section 4(f) Resources (4) .................................................................. 3.15-6

Figure S-3.15-5 Section 4(f) Resources (5) .................................................................. 3.15-7
DesertXpress 

Supplemental Draft EIS Table of Contents 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

vi 

List of Tables 

Table ES-1 Comparison of Segment 1 Alternatives ................................................ ES-3 

Table ES-2 Comparison of Segment 2 Alternatives .............................................. ES-11 

Table ES-3 Comparison of Segment 3 Alternatives ..............................................ES-16 

Table ES-4 Comparison of Segment 4 Alternatives .............................................. ES-21 

Table ES-5 Comparison of Segment 5 Alternatives ............................................. ES-26 

Table ES-6 Comparison of Segment 6 Alternatives .............................................. ES-31

Table S-2-1 Summary of Routing Alternatives Evaluated in the Draft EIS .............. 2-4

Table S-2-2 Summary of Alignment Adjustment Areas ........................................... 2-15

Table S-3.1-1 Existing Land Use Summary - AAAs .................................................. 3.1-17

Table S-3.1-2 Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses ............................................ 3.1-19

Table S-3.1-3 Compatibility with Land Uses Designations ..................................... 3.1-20

Table S-3.2-1 Aggregated Sphere of Influence Growth Projections within Desert 

Region, 2000-2030, Unincorporated San Bernardino County .......... 3.2-2

Table S-3.2-2 San Bernardino County Desert Region Growth Projections 2000-

2030, Six City Sphere of Influence Areas ............................................ 3.2-2

Table S-3.2-3 City of Victorville Growth Projections ................................................. 3.2-3

Table S-3.2-4 Clark County Growth Projections ........................................................3.2-4

Table S-3.2-5 City of Las Vegas Growth Projections .................................................. 3.2-5

Table S-3.4-1 Summary of the Regional Environment .............................................. 3.4-1

Table S-3.4-2 Utilities/Public Service Providers Necessary .................................... 3.4-3 

Table S-3.4-3 Potential Utility Crossings .................................................................. 3.4-5 

Table S-3.5-1 Intersection Level of Service - Existing Conditions LOS .................... 3.5-3

Table S-3.5-2 Ramp Junction Level of Service - Existing Condition ........................ 3.5-6

Table S-3.5-3 Existing, 2013, & 2030 Baseline Plus DEMU - LOS Conditions on 

Local Streets ........................................................................................ 3.5-10

Table S-3.5-4 Existing, 2013, & 2030 Baseline Plus EMU - LOS Conditions on 

Local Streets .........................................................................................3.5-11

Table S-3.5-5 I-15/Dale Evans Parkway Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2013 

Conditions ........................................................................................... 3.5-13

Table S-3.5-6 I-15/Dale Evans Parkway Ramp Junction Level of Service – 2030 

Conditions ........................................................................................... 3.5-14

Table S-3.5-7 VV3 Mitigation Measures - DEMU Technology Option .................... 3.5-14

Table S-3.5-8 VV3 Mitigation Measures - EMU Technology Option ...................... 3.5-16
DesertXpress 

Supplemental Draft EIS Table of Contents 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

vii 

Table S-3.6-1 Summary of Existing Landscape Sensitivities for Project 

Additions and Modifications ................................................................3.6-2

Table S-3.7-1 Additional Identified Archaeological Resources at Project 

Additions and Modifications ................................................................ 3.7-2

Table S-3.7-2 Known NRHP Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological 

Resources in the Modified APE .......................................................... 3.7-12

Table S-3.9-1 Likelihood of Geological Hazards ........................................................ 3.9-5

Table S-3.11-1 Summary of 2008 and 2009 Air Quality Data at Victorville, Park 

Avenue Station .................................................................................... 3.11-2

Table S-3.11-2 Summary of 2008 and 2009 Air Quality Data Clark County 

Monitoring Stations ............................................................................ 3.11-4

Table S-3.11-3 Year 2007 Greenhouse GAS Emissions ............................................. 3.11-6

Table S-3.11-4 Regional Criteria Pollutant and Greenhouse gas Emmissions, No 

Action Alternative, 2013 and 2030. ................................................... 3.11-8

Table S-3.11-5 Revised Regional Criteria Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions Mojave Desert Air Basin, 2013 ......................................... 3.11-9

Table S-3.11-6 Revised Regional Criteria Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions, Mojave Desert Air Basin, 2030 ...................................... 3.11-10

Table S-3.11-7 Revised Regional Criteria Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions, Clark County Air Basin, 2013 ......................................... 3.11-11

Table S-3.11-8 Revised Regional Criteria Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions Clark County Air Basin, 2030 ......................................... 3.11-12

Table S-3.11-9 VV3 Local Area Hotspot Analysis, 2013 ........................................... 3.11-14

Table S-3.11-10 VV3, Local Area Hotspot Analysis, 2030 .......................................... 3.11-15

Table S-3.12-1 Existing Ambient Noise Measurements – Segment 2C .................... 3.12-2

Table S-3.12-2 Existing Ambient Noise Levels – Segment 6 ..................................... 3.12-5

Table S-3.12-3 Noise Impacts for Segment 2C Side Running – EMU ..................... 3.12-11

Table S-3.12-4 Noise Impacts for Segment 2C Side Running – DEMU .................. 3.12-12

Table S-3.12-5 Noise Impacts for Segment 2C Median – EMU .............................. 3.12-14

Table S-3.12-6 Noise Impacts for Segment 2C Median – DEMU............................ 3.12-15

Table S-3.12-7 Revised Noise Impacts for Segment 6A - EMU ............................... 3.12-18

Table S-3.12-8 Revised Noise Impacts for Segment 6A - DEMU ............................ 3.12-19

Table S-3.12-9 Revised Noise Impacts for Segment 6B - EMU ............................... 3.12-21

Table S-3.12-10 Revised Noise Impacts for Segment 6B - DEMU ............................ 3.12-22

Table S-3.12-11 Noise Impacts for Segment 6B as Modified by AAA 8– EMU ........ 3.12-25

Table S-3.12-12 Noise Impacts for Segment 6B as Modified by AAA 8– DEMU ..... 3.12-26

Table S-3.12-13 Noise Mitigation Locations, Segment 2C Side Running ................. 3.12-30

Table S-3.12-14 Noise Mitigation Locations, Segment 2C Median ........................... 3.12-31

Table S-3.12-15 Noise Mitigation Locations, Segment 6 – Revised Draft EIS 

Analysis ............................................................................................. 3.12-32
DesertXpress 

Supplemental Draft EIS Table of Contents 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

viii 

Table S-3.12-16 Noise Mitigation Locations, Segment 6B as Modified by AAA 8 .... 3.12-33

Table S-3.13-1 EMM Regional Data and Projections, Regions 12 and 13 ................. 3.13-3

Table S-3.13-2 Direct Energy Consumption Factors ................................................. 3.13-4

Table S-3.13-3 Construction-Related Energy Consumption Factors ........................ 3.13-6

Table S-3.13-4 Annual Overall Direct Energy Consumption ..................................... 3.13-8

Table S-3.13-5 Indirect Energy Consumption .......................................................... 3.13-10

Table S-3.14-1 Sensitive Biological Resources Known or with Potential to Occur 

in Vicinity of VV3 ................................................................................ 3.14-7

Table S-3.14-2 Sensitive Biological Resources Known or with Potential to Occur 

in Vicinity of the Segment 2C ........................................................... 3.14-10 

Table S-3.14-3 Sensitive Biological Resources Known or with Potential to Occur 

in Vicinity of the Segment 4C ........................................................... 3.14-12

Table S-3.14-4 Sensitive Biological Resources Known or with Potential to Occur 

in Vicinity of the RSMSF .................................................................. 3.14-15

Table S-3.14-5 Sensitive Biological Resources with Potential to Occur on Frias 

Substation Site .................................................................................. 3.14-18
DesertXpress 

Supplemental Draft EIS Table of Contents 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

ix 

List of Appendices 

Appendix S-A-1 Segment SC – Side Running and Median Options 

Appendix S-A-2 Segment 4C Alignment 

Appendix S-A-3 Relocated Sloan MSF Site 

Appendix S-A-4 Wigwam Avenue MSF Modification 

Appendix S-B VV3 Supplemental TIA 

Appendix S-C Supplemental Hazardous Material Reports and Environmental 

Database Review for Frias Substation 

Appendix S-D Noise and Vibration Analyses 
DesertXpress 

Supplemental Draft EIS Table of Contents 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

x 

This page intentionally left blank.
August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

ES-1

ES Executive Summary 

ES-1 INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND 

In March 2009, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) published a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the DesertXpress high-speed passenger rail 

project (project). The project entails the construction and operation of a privately 

financed interstate high-speed passenger train between Victorville, California and Las 

Vegas, Nevada. DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC (Applicant) proposes to a fully gradeseparated, dedicated double track passenger-only railroad along an approximately 200-

mile corridor that would generally follow the I-15 freeway. The project would also include 

construction of a passenger station in Victorville, California, a passenger station in Las 

Vegas, Nevada, a maintenance and operation facility in Victorville, an overnight 

maintenance and storage facility in the Las Vegas area and associated ancillary facilities 

needed to maintain and operate the proposed rail line. 

Following publication of the Draft EIS, the project Applicant proposed several project 

modifications and additions to address substantive comments received during public and 

agency review of the Draft EIS and to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects. 

This Supplemental Draft EIS evaluates the environmental effects of these proposed 

modifications and additions. 

ES-2 PURPOSE AND NEED 

The purpose of the project is to provide reliable and safe passenger rail transportation 

using proven high-speed rail technology between Southern California (Victorville) to Las 

Vegas that is a convenient alternative to automobile travel on the Interstate-15 freeway (I15), or air travel to and from Las Vegas, and that adds transportation capacity in the I-15 

corridor. 

The need for a high-speed rail service stems from several factors: high and increasing 

travel demand amidst lagging capacity on the I-15 corridor, frequent accidents in the I-15 

corridor, and constraints to expansion of air travel. Chapter 1.0, Purpose and Need, 

of this Supplemental Draft EIS summarizes the purpose and need of the project. Chapter 

1.0, Purpose and Need, of the Draft EIS provides a detailed discussion of the purpose 

and need of the project. 
DesertXpress Executive Summary 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

ES-2 

ES-3 ALTERNATIVES 

The Draft EIS considered action alternatives categorized into two primary sets: Alternative 

A and Alternative B. These are based on potential alignment routings for the 200 mile 

corridor. 

Alternative A consists primarily of rail alignment segments that would be within the 

median of the I-15 freeway. 

Alternative B consists primarily of rail alignment segments that would be within the 

fenced area of the I-15 freeway, adjacent to automobile travel lanes. 

In addition, the Draft EIS examined a third alignment option within the Las Vegas 

metropolitan area, Option C. 

For analytical purposes, each of the alignments along the 200 mile corridor was divided 

into seven segments. Figure ES-1 shows the location of the action alternatives. FRA 

organized the analysis in this manner to allow FRA and the cooperating agencies to “mix 

and match” various segments in composing a preferred alternative. 

The action alternatives evaluated in the Draft EIS also included one of each of the 

following permanent physical facilities in addition to the rail alignment: 

 Victorville passenger station: Two site options (Site 1 and Site 2) immediately 

west of the I-15 freeway were considered. 

 Victorville Operations, Maintenance, and Storage Facility (OMSF): Two 

site options (OMSF 1 and OMSF 2) immediately west of the I-15 freeway were 

considered. 

 Maintenance of Way (MOW) facility: One site option adjacent to the I-15 

freeway near the community of Baker was considered. 

 Las Vegas area Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF): Three site 

options, Sloan Road MSF, Wigwam Avenue MSF, and Robindale Avenue MSF are 

under consideration. 

 Las Vegas area passenger station: Four site options in Clark County/City of 

Las Vegas: Southern Station, Central Station A, Central Station B, and Downtown 

Station were considered. 

In addition, two train technologies, each fully applicable to any set of the action 

alternatives, were considered in the Draft EIS: a diesel-electric multiple unit train 

(DEMU) or an electric multiple unit train (EMU). The two technology options would have 

similar right-of-way width requirements and largely the same construction footprint. 

However, the EMU option, as considered in t he Draft EIS, also included overhead 

catenary wires and supports (located along the length of the rail alignment), three 

electrical substations (one at an OMSF, one at the MOW, and one at an MSF), 
DesertXpress Executive Summary 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

ES-3 

approximately seventeen transformers (each located on 4,000 to 5,000 square foot 

parcels at 10 mile intervals along the rail corridor), and three electrical utility connections 

from the existing electrical grid, one in Victorville, one in Baker, and one near Sloan. 

Subsequent to the publication of the Draft EIS, the Applicant proposed several project 

modifications and additions to address substantive comments received during public and 

agency review of the Draft EIS and to reduce or avoid significant environmental effects. 

This Supplemental Draft EIS considers these proposed modifications and additions, which 

are summarized below and described in more detail in Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, of 

this Supplemental Draft EIS. 

 Victorville Station Site 3 (VV3): An additional station site option is proposed 

immediately west of the I-15 freeway near the Dale Evans Parkway.

 Victorville OMSF2: The footprint of OMSF 2 has been reduced from 260 acres 

as analyzed in the Draft EIS to approximately 68 acres. The location of the facility 

is not changed.

 Segment 2C: Two alignments, side running and median, have been proposed 

within the I-15 freeway corridor through Lenwood and Barstow, for Segment 2

 Segment 4C: An additional alignment for Segment 4 has been proposed. 

Segment 4C is a similar alignment to Segment 4B as presented in the Draft EIS, 

but would travel north of planned solar energy projects and the Ivanpah Dry Lake 

bed before connecting back to the I-15 freeway corridor in the vicinity of Primm, 

Nevada. 

 Relocated Sloan MSF (RSMSF): A modified location for the Sloan MSF has 

been proposed approximately 9 miles south of Sloan Road and approximately 2 

miles south of the Sloan Road MSF analyzed in the Draft EIS. 

 Frias Substation Site: An additional electrical substation site has been 

proposed at the intersection of West Frias Avenue and South Dean Martin Drive in 

unincorporated Clark County, to provide electrical power in the event the EMU 

technology is selected.

 Alignment Adjustment Areas (AAAs): Eight minor modifications to the 

alignment locations analyzed in the Draft EIS have been proposed.

 Wigwam Avenue MSF Modification: A modification has been proposed to the 

Wigwam MSF to reorient the tail tracks from the south, rather than the north as 

evaluated in the Draft EIS. The size of the site is otherwise unchanged. 

 Profile Modification: A modification has been proposed to the profile and width 

of a 1.3 mile portion of Segment 3B. The alignment is otherwise unchanged.

Figures S-ES-1 through S-ES-5 show the locations of the proposed project 

modifications and additions.
DesertXpress Executive Summary 

August 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS 

ES-4 

ES-4 SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 

Tables S-ES -1 through S-ES 6 summarize by affected project segment the impacts of 

the project modifications and additions, including all permanent facilities, relative to their 

counterpart project components as well as the No Action Alternative. 

Project modifications and additions evaluated in this Supplemental Draft EIS affect 

portions of and/or features along Segments 1 through 6. None of the project 

modifications affect any of the Las Vegas area stations (Southern, Central A, Central B, 

Downtown), Segment 7, nor the two technology options (DEMU and EMU), which were 

fully evaluated in the Draft EIS. Therefore, summary Tables S-ES-1 through S-ES-6 only 

presents impacts Segments 1 through 6. The information contained in the following tables 

is derived from the information, analysis and conclusions contained in this Supplemental 

Draft EIS, the Draft EIS, and supporting appendices. 

New information from the analysis contained in this Supplemental Draft EIS is 

highlighted in the table. 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-5 

Table S-ES-1 Comparison of Segment 1 Alternatives 

Environmental Topic Segment 1 Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated 

TCAs 

Victorville 

Station Site 1 

Victorville 

OMSF Site 1 

Victorville 

Station Site 2 

Victorville 

Station Site 3 

(3A/3B) 

Re

V

O

Land Use & Community ImpactsCompatibility with Adjacent Land Uses 

High within I-15 

corridor, Low 

outside 

Medium Medium High High 

Compatibility with Land Use Plans 

High within I-15 

corridor, Low 

outside 

Medium-High Medium-High High, except for 

Low (residential)

High, except for 

Low (residential)

Hig

Low 

Number of housing units displaced 

0 0 0 0 0 

Extent of community disruption/severance 

None expected None expected None expected None expected None expected No

Number of environmental justice (EJ) communities crossed by or within 1 mile of facilities 

Would cross 2 

EJ census 

blocks 

(minority/poverty)

Within EJ 

census block 

(minority) 

Within EJ 

census block 

(minority) 

Within 1 mile of 

2 EJ census 

blocks 

Within 1 mile of 

2 EJ census 

blocks 

Wit

1 

GrowthEstimated permanent employment 

NA 361 to 463 permanent jobs in the Victorville Station and OMSF regardless o

Removal of obstacles to growth 

None expected None expected None expected None expected None No

Extent of effects to TOD potential 

Beneficial effect Beneficial effect Beneficial effect Beneficial effect Beneficial effect Ben

Extent of effects to economic vitality 

Construction 

period 

employment 

Beneficial construction and operational employment effects similar for all sta

sites 

Farmlands & AgricultureAcres of Directly Impacted Farmland 

0 0 0 0 0 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-6 

Environmental Topic Segment 1 Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated 

TCAs 

Victorville 

Station Site 1 

Victorville 

OMSF Site 1 

Victorville 

Station Site 2 

Victorville 

Station Site 3 

(3A/3B) 

Re

V

O

Farmlands & Agriculture Cont’dAcres of Indirectly Impacted Farmland 

0 0 0 0 0 

Potential Severance of Grazing Allotment 

Yes; would 

traverse a BLM 

grazing allotment

All Victorville station/OMSF site options are on land identified as a grazing a

are immediately adjacent to I-15 freeway, minimizing severance pote

Utilities & Emergency ServicesExceed capacity of utility or service systems:  Electricity and Gas No demand 

associated, 

unless EMU 

selected 

No No No No 

 Water Supply No demand 

associated 

No No No No 

 Sewage/Wastewater No demand 

associated 

No No No No 

 Stormwater Would require 

connections to 

existing and/or 

new facilities 

New conveyances would be required at all station/maintenance sites in V

 Solid Waste No generation No No No No  Police Services No No No No No  Fire/Emergency 

Services 

New staff, 

equipment and 

facility 

New staff, 

equipment and 

facility 

(Assumed No) New staff, 

equipment and 

facility 

New staff, 

equipment and 

facility 

(As
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-7 

Environmental Topic Segment 1 Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated 

TCAs 

Victorville 

Station Site 1 

Victorville 

OMSF Site 1 

Victorville 

Station Site 2 

Victorville 

Station Site 3 

(3A/3B) 

Re

V

O

Utilities & Emergency Services Cont’dPotential conflict with existing utility distribution systems 

Yes, but conflicts 

can be mitigated 

Yes, but 

conflicts can be 

mitigated 

Yes, but 

conflicts can be 

mitigated 

Yes, but 

conflicts can be 

mitigated 

Yes, but 

conflicts can be 

mitigated; 

VV3A requires 

approval of 

LADWP for long 

term parking in 

utility corridor 

con

Traffic & Transportation Result in substantial traffic increases:  Freeway Mainlines Between Victorville and I-40, traffic reduction associated with either DEMU or 

of traffic would reduce freeway volumes and positively affect LOS 

 Station Area Intersections NA Delays would 

worsen at 4 

intersections 

(EMU and 

DEMU) 

Same as Station 

Site 1 

Delays would 

worsen at 2 

intersections 

(EMU) 

Delays would 

worsen at 1 

intersections 

(DEMU) 

Delays would 

worsen at 3 

intersections 

(EMU) 

Delays would 

worsen at 5 

intersections 

(DEMU) 

Sam

Visual Resources Extent of consistency with BLM VRM Objectives 

Somewhat 

consistent within I-15 corridor; not 

consistent 

outside I-15 

corridor 

All station and OMSF site options would be somewhat consistent 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-8 

Environmental Topic Segment 1 Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated 

TCAs 

Victorville 

Station Site 1 

Victorville 

OMSF Site 1 

Victorville 

Station Site 2 

Victorville 

Station Site 3 

(3A/3B) 

Re

V

O

Visual Resources Cont’d Effect to FHWA Visual Quality/Sensitivity With Project 

In I-15 corridor, 

quality would be 

reduced from 

moderate to low. Outside corridor, 

quality would be 

reduced from 

mod/high to 

mod/low 

All station and OMSF site options would be somewhat consistent 

Cultural & Paleontological Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Directly Affected 

16 2 5 1 7 

Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Indirectly Affected 

0 0 0 0 0 

Number of Historic Architectural Resources Directly/Indirectly Affected 

0 0 0 0 0 

Hydrology & Water Quality Linear feet of impact to water resources 

2491 0 12 0 2257 (VV3A) 

2075 (VV3B) 

Acres within a 100-year floodplain 

2.8 13.5 1.9 0 0 

Result in substantial drainage pattern alteration 

No No No No Yes but can be 

mitigated 

Ye
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-9 

Environmental Topic Segment 1 Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated 

TCAs 

Victorville 

Station Site 1 

Victorville 

OMSF Site 1 

Victorville 

Station Site 2 

Victorville 

Station Site 3 

(3A/3B) 

Re

V

O

Hydrology & Water Quality Cont’d Estimated peak stormwater discharge (cubic feet/second) 

NA 227 Mostly unpaved; 

not quantified 

243 275 (VV3A) 

235 (VV3B) 

Mos

no

Geology & Soils Expected likelihood of Surface Fault Rupture 

High High High High High 

Expected likelihood of ground shaking 

High High High High High 

Expected difficulty of excavation 

Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate 

Expected likelihood of landslides 

Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate 

Hazardous Materials Number of properties of environmental concern 

0 0 0 0 0 

Air Quality & Global Climate Change Exceed a state or federal standard? 

No No No No No 

Result in CO Hotspot? No No No No No Expected adverse construction period impact? 

No No No No No 

Noise & Vibration Expected number of impacts under FRA criteria 

3 for EMU, 4 

DEMU 

NA NA NA NA 

Expected number of severe impacts under FRA criteria 

0 for EMU, 1 for 

DEMU 

NA NA NA NA 

Expected number of vibration impacts 

0 0 0 0 0 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-10 

Environmental Topic Segment 1 Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated 

TCAs 

Victorville 

Station Site 1 

Victorville 

OMSF Site 1 

Victorville 

Station Site 2 

Victorville 

Station Site 3 

(3A/3B) 

Re

V

O

Energy Result in Significant Change in Energy Consumption? 

Analysis examined project as a whole, comparing DEMU, EMU, and No 

Biological Resources Impose Barrier to wildlife movement 

Yes, outside I-15 

corridor 

No No No No 

Number of stream crossings 24 0 0 2 1 2 

fr

Sensitive plant community acreage affected  Permanent 0 0 0 0 0  Temporary 0 0 0 0 0 Desert Tortoise habitat acreage affected  Permanent 159 93 92.4 114.5 205.5 (VV3A) 

223.5 (VV3B) 

 Temporary 832.1 0 0 0 38.5 (VV3A) 

40.8 (VV3B) 

Mohave Ground Squirrel habitat acreage affected  Permanent 198.5 85.1 22.6 105.2 205.5 (VV3A) 

223.5 (VV3B) 

 Temporary 803.3 0 0 0 38.5 (VV3A) 

40.8 (VV3B) 

Potential to result in direct mortality/loss/disturbance to:  Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard 

Yes No No No No 

 Nesting raptors/migratory birds 

Yes No No No No 

 Banded Gila Monster No No No No No  Burrowing Owls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-11 

Environmental Topic Segment 1 Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated 

TCAs 

Victorville 

Station Site 1 

Victorville 

OMSF Site 1 

Victorville 

Station Site 2 

Victorville 

Station Site 3 

(3A/3B) 

Re

V

O

Biological Resources Cont’d  Roosting Bats Yes, at bridge 

crossings 

Yes, rock 

outcrops 

No No No 

 American Badger Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes  Desert Bighorn Sheep No No No No No  Clark County MSHCP Covered Reptiles 

No No No No No 

Acres of Special Management Lands Lost 

0 0 0 0 No 

Section 4(f) Number of Section 4(f) properties used  Park and Recreation 0 0 0 0 0  Cultural Resources 2 0 0 0 0 

Source: CirclePoint, 2010. 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-12 

Table S-ES-2 Comparison of Segment 2 Alternatives 

Environmental Topic Segment 2A/2B, 2A Rail 

Alignment and Associated TCAs 

(including AAAs 1-2)

Segment 2A/2B, 2B Rail 

Alignment and Associated 

TCAs (including AAAs 1-2)

Segment 2

(Side Running an

Options) and As

TCA 

Land Use & Community Impacts Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses High within I-15 corridor, Low near 

Barstow, Low to medium near 

Yermo 

High within I-15 corridor, High 

near commercial uses, Low 

near Barstow, Low near 

residential uses 

High within I-15 c

Medium ne

commercial/indust

Low near Barsto

near residentia

Compatibility with Land Use Plans High within I-15 corridor, Low 

outside 

Medium-High Medium-Hi

Number of housing units displaced 0 0 0 Extent of community disruption/severance 

Linear division through Lenwood 

and Yermo 

Linear division through 

Lenwood 

None Expec

Number of environmental justice(EJ) communities crossed by or within 1 mile of facilities 

Within 1 mile of 4 EJ census blocks 

(minority/poverty) 

Within 1 mile of 4 EJ census 

blocks (minority/poverty) 

Would cross 2 EJ 

blocks (minority/p

Growth Estimated permanent employment NA NA NA Removal of obstacles to growth None expected None expected None expecExtent of effects to TOD potential None None None expecExtent of effects to economic vitality Construction period employment Construction period 

employment 

Construction p

employme

Farmlands & Agriculture Acres of Directly Impacted Farmland 3.37 acres 3.37 acres 0 Acres of Indirectly Impacted Farmland 6.75 acres 6.75 acres 0 Potential Severance of Grazing Allotment 

No No No 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-13 

Environmental Topic Segment 2A/2B, 2A Rail 

Alignment and Associated TCAs 

(including AAAs 1-2)

Segment 2A/2B, 2B Rail 

Alignment and Associated 

TCAs (including AAAs 1-2)

Segment 2

(Side Running an

Options) and As

TCA 

Utilities & Emergency Services Exceed capacity of utility or service systems:  Electricity and Gas No demand associated, unless 

EMU selected 

No demand associated, unless 

EMU selected 

No demand asso

unless EMU se

 Water Supply No demand associated No demand associated No demand ass Sewage/Wastewater No demand associated No demand associated No demand ass Stormwater Would require connections to new 

conveyance facilities 

Would require connections to 

existing and/or new 

conveyance facilities 

Would require con

to existing and/

conveyance fa

 Solid Waste No generation No generation No generat Police Services SBCPD concern of train derailment 

emergency 

SBCPD concern of train 

derailment emergency 

SBCPD concern 

derailment eme

 Fire/Emergency Services New staff, equipment and facility New staff, equipment and 

facility 

New staff, equipm

facility 

Potential conflict with existing utility distribution systems 

Yes, but conflicts can be mitigated Yes, but conflicts can be 

mitigated 

Yes, but conflicts 

mitigated 

Traffic & Transportation Result in substantial traffic increases:  Freeway Mainlines Between I-40 and the California-Nevada state line, traffic reduction associated with eithe

or EMU levels of traffic would reduce freeway volumes and positively affect LOS 

 Station Area Intersections NA NA NA 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-14 

Environmental Topic Segment 2A/2B, 2A Rail 

Alignment and Associated TCAs 

(including AAAs 1-2)

Segment 2A/2B, 2B Rail 

Alignment and Associated 

TCAs (including AAAs 1-2)

Segment 2

(Side Running an

Options) and As

TCA 

Visual Resources Extent of consistency with BLM VRM Objectives 

Somewhat consistent in 

undeveloped and developed areas. 

Somewhat consistent in 

undeveloped and developed 

areas. 

Somewhat cons

undeveloped and d

areas 

Effect to FHWA Visual Quality/Sensitivity With Project 

In undeveloped areas, quality 

decreased from moderate/high to 

moderate. Low/moderate quality in 

developed areas. 

In undeveloped areas, quality 

decreased from moderate/high 

to moderate. Near I-15, 

quality decreased from 

moderate to low. 

At Barstow, disru

unity. Near I-1

substantial chan

existing low

Cultural & Paleontological Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Directly Affected 

16 23 14 

Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Indirectly Affected 

3 7 0 

Number of Historic Architectural Resources Directly/Indirectly Affected 

0 0 0 

Hydrology & Water Quality Linear feet of impact to water resources 

1157 11,064 2344 (side run

2342 (median ru

Acres within a 100-year floodplain 12 22 11 (side runn

10 (median run

Result in substantial drainage pattern alteration 

No No No 

Estimated peak stormwater discharge (cubic feet/second) 

NA NA No 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-15 

Environmental Topic Segment 2A/2B, 2A Rail 

Alignment and Associated TCAs 

(including AAAs 1-2)

Segment 2A/2B, 2B Rail 

Alignment and Associated 

TCAs (including AAAs 1-2)

Segment 2

(Side Running an

Options) and As

TCA 

Geology & Soils Expected likelihood of Surface Fault Rupture 

High near Barstow, Low near 

Yermo. 

High near Barstow, Low near 

Yermo. 

High 

Expected likelihood of ground shaking High High High Expected difficulty of excavation Moderate Moderate Moderate Expected likelihood of landslides Moderate near Barstow, Low near 

Yermo. 

Moderate near Barstow, Low 

near Yermo. 

Low 

Hazardous Materials Number of properties of environmental concern 

4 6 5 

Air Quality & Global Climate Change Exceed a state or federal standard? No No No Result in CO Hotspot? No No No Expected adverse construction period impact? 

No No No 

Noise & Vibration Expected number of impacts under FRA criteria 

57 for EMU, 77 for DEMU 60 for EMU, 83 for DEMU 60 for EMU, 139 f

(side runnin

80 for EMU, 127 f

(median runn

Expected number of severe impacts under FRA criteria 

31 for EMU, 41 for DEMU 35 for EMU, 46 for DEMU 33 for EMU, 48 fo

(side runnin

0 for EMU, 22 fo

(median runn

Expected number of vibration impacts 19 23 0 Energy Result in Significant Change in Energy Consumption? 

Analysis examined project as a whole, comparing DEMU, EMU, and 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-16 

Environmental Topic Segment 2A/2B, 2A Rail 

Alignment and Associated TCAs 

(including AAAs 1-2)

Segment 2A/2B, 2B Rail 

Alignment and Associated 

TCAs (including AAAs 1-2)

Segment 2

(Side Running an

Options) and As

TCA 

Biological Resources Impose Barrier to wildlife movement No No No Number of stream crossings 16 12 12 Sensitive plant community acreage affected  Permanent 0 0 0  Temporary 4.6 acres of Mesquite Shrubland 0 0 Desert Tortoise habitat acreage affected  Permanent 171 151 37.5 (side run

37.4 (median ru

 Temporary 700 548 101 (side run

97.(median run

Mohave Ground Squirrel habitat acreage affected  Permanent 23 40 36 (side runn

36 (median run

 Temporary 863 319 89.1 (side run

89.1 (median ru

Potential to result in direct mortality/loss/disturbance to:  Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard Yes, near Mojave River No Yes, near Mojav

(side runnin

No for median r

 Nesting raptors/migratory birds Yes Yes Yes (both opt Banded Gila Monster No No No (both opti Burrowing Owls Yes Yes Yes (both opt Roosting Bats Yes, in caves and mines Yes, in caves and mines No (both opti American Badger Yes Yes Yes (both opt
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-17 

Environmental Topic Segment 2A/2B, 2A Rail 

Alignment and Associated TCAs 

(including AAAs 1-2)

Segment 2A/2B, 2B Rail 

Alignment and Associated 

TCAs (including AAAs 1-2)

Segment 2

(Side Running an

Options) and As

TCA 

Biological Resources Cont’d  Desert Bighorn Sheep No No No (both opti Clark County MSHCP Covered Reptiles 

No No No (both opti

Acres of Special Management Lands Lost 

60.9 acres of Superior-Cronese 

Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat 

60.9 acres of SuperiorCronese Desert Tortoise 

Critical Habitat 

0 

Section 4(f) Number of Section 4(f) properties used  Park and Recreation 0 0 0  Cultural Resources 6 7 2 

Source: CirclePoint, 2010. 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-18 

Table S-ES-3 Comparison of Segment 3 Alternatives 

Environmental Topic Segment 3A Rail 

Alignment and Associated 

TCAs 

Segment 3B Rail Alignment and 

Associated TCAs (with Profile 

Modification and AAA 3-6) 

Baker Maintena

Way Facili

Land Use & Community Impacts Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses High within I-15 corridor, 

Low outside 

High within I-15 corridor, Low 

outside 

High 

Compatibility with Land Use Plans High within I-15 corridor, 

Low outside 

Medium-High Medium-Hi

Number of housing units displaced 0 0 0 Extent of community disruption/severance None expected None expected None expecNumber of environmental justice (EJ) communities crossed by or within 1 mile of facilities 

Would cross 3 EJ census 

blocks (minority and 

poverty) 

Would cross 3 EJ census blocks 

(minority and poverty) 

Outside any EJ 

block 

Growth Estimated permanent employment NA NA 8 employeeRemoval of obstacles to growth None expected None expected None expecExtent of effects to TOD potential None None None Extent of effects to economic vitality Construction period 

employment 

Construction period employment Beneficial const

and operatio

employment e

Farmlands & Agriculture Acres of Directly Impacted Farmland 0 0 0 Acres of Indirectly Impacted Farmland 0.3 0 0 Potential Severance of Grazing Allotment No, Adjacent to grazing 

lands 

No, Adjacent to grazing lands No, Adjacent to 

lands 

Utilities & Emergency Services Exceed capacity of utility or service systems:  Electricity and Gas No demand associated, 

unless EMU selected 

No demand associated, unless 

EMU selected 

No 

 Water Supply No demand associated No demand associated No 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-19 

Environmental Topic Segment 3A Rail 

Alignment and Associated 

TCAs 

Segment 3B Rail Alignment and 

Associated TCAs (with Profile 

Modification and AAA 3-6) 

Baker Maintena

Way Facili

Utilities & Emergency Services Cont’d  Sewage/Wastewater No demand associated No demand associated No  Stormwater Would require connections 

to existing and/or new 

conveyance facilities 

Would require connections to 

existing and/or new conveyance 

facilities 

New conveya

would be requ

 Solid Waste No generation No generation No  Police Services No No No  Fire/Emergency Services New staff, equipment, and 

facility 

New staff, equipment, 

and facility 

New staff, equi

and facilit

Potential conflict with existing utility distribution systems 

Yes, but conflicts can be 

mitigated 

Yes, but conflicts can be mitigated Yes, but conflic

be mitigate

Traffic & Transportation Result in substantial traffic increases:  Freeway Mainlines Between I-40 and the California-Nevada state line, traffic 

reduction associated with either DEMU or EMU levels of traffic 

would reduce freeway volumes and positively affect LOS 

NA 

 Station Area Intersections NA NA NA Visual Resources Extent of consistency with BLM VRM Objectives 

Somewhat consistent in I-15 

corridor. Not consistent 

near wilderness areas in 

Preserve. 

Somewhat consistent in I-15 

corridor. Not consistent near 

wilderness areas in the Mojave 

National Preserve. 

High level of co

with views fr

Preserve

Effect to FHWA Visual Quality/Sensitivity With Project 

In Preserve, quality reduced 

from high to moderate. 

Outside Preserve, quality 

reduced from moderate/high 

to moderate. 

In Preserve, quality reduced from 

high to moderate. Outside 

Preserve, quality reduced from 

moderate/high to moderate. 

Consistent, 

constructed ne

corridor. 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-20 

Environmental Topic Segment 3A Rail 

Alignment and Associated 

TCAs 

Segment 3B Rail Alignment and 

Associated TCAs (with Profile 

Modification and AAA 3-6) 

Baker Maintena

Way Facili

Cultural & Paleontological Resources Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Directly Affected 

19 39 (1 fewer than unaltered 

Segment 3B) 

0 

Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Indirectly Affected 

6 9 0 

Number of Historic Architectural Resources Directly/Indirectly Affected 

0 0 0 

Hydrology & Water Quality Linear feet of impact to water resources 4059 7608 0 Acres within a 100-year floodplain 0 2.7 0 Result in substantial drainage pattern alteration 

No No No 

Estimated peak stormwater discharge (cubic feet/second) 

NA NA NA 

Geology & Soils Expected likelihood of Surface Fault Rupture 

High from Yermo to Baker, 

low from the east of Baker. 

High from Yermo to Baker, low from 

the east of Baker. 

High 

Expected likelihood of ground shaking Low/moderate from Yermo 

to Baker, moderate from the 

east of Baker. 

Low/moderate from Yermo to 

Baker, moderate from the east of 

Baker. 

Low/Modera

Expected difficulty of excavation Moderate Moderate Moderate Expected likelihood of landslides Moderate Moderate Moderate 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-21 

Environmental Topic Segment 3A Rail 

Alignment and Associated 

TCAs 

Segment 3B Rail Alignment and 

Associated TCAs (with Profile 

Modification and AAA 3-6) 

Baker Maintena

Way Facili

Hazardous Materials Number of properties of environmental concern 

2 2 0 

Air Quality & Global Climate Change Exceed a state or federal standard? No No No Result in CO Hotspot? No No No Expected adverse construction period impact? 

No No No 

Noise & Vibration Expected number of impacts under FRA criteria 

0 0 0 

Expected number of severe impacts under FRA criteria 

0 0 0 

Expected number of vibration impacts 0 0 0 Energy Result in Significant Change in Energy Consumption? 

Analysis examined project as a whole, comparing DEMU, EMU, a

Biological Resources Impose Barrier to wildlife movement No No No Number of stream crossings 105 117 1 Sensitive plant community acreage affected  Permanent 0 84 acres of Joshua Tree Woodland; 

2 acres of Mesquite Shrubland 

0 

 Temporary 0 194 acres of Joshua Tree 

Woodland; 13 acres of Mesquite 

Shrubland 

0 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-22 

Environmental Topic Segment 3A Rail 

Alignment and Associated 

TCAs 

Segment 3B Rail Alignment and 

Associated TCAs (with Profile 

Modification and AAA 3-6) 

Baker Maintena

Way Facili

Biological Resources Cont’dDesert Tortoise habitat acreage affected  Permanent 7.6 620 0  Temporary 40.9 1848 0 Mohave Ground Squirrel habitat acreage affected  Permanent 0 0 0  Temporary 70.1 61.5 0 Potential to result in direct mortality/loss/disturbance to:  Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard No No No  Nesting raptors/migratory birds No Yes Yes  Banded Gila Monster No Yes No  Burrowing Owls No Yes Yes  Roosting Bats No Yes, in caves and mines No  American Badger Yes Yes Yes  Desert Bighorn Sheep No Yes No  Clark County MSHCP Covered Reptiles 

No No No 

Acres of Special Management Lands Lost 0 268.5 acres of Superior-Cronese 

Desert Tortoise Critical Habitat, 226 

acres of Ivanpah Desert Tortoise 

Critical Habitat, 3.6 acres of 

Cronese ACEC. 

0 

Section 4(f) Number of Section 4(f) properties used  Park and Recreation 0 0 0  Cultural Resources 7 8 0 Source: CirclePoint, 2010. 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-23 

Table S-ES-4 Comparison of Segment 4 Alternatives 

Environmental Topic Segment 4A Rail Alignment 

and Associated TCAs 

Segment 4B Rail Alignment 

and Associated TCAs 

Segment 4C Rail Alig

and Associated T

Land Use & Community Impacts Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses 

Low within the Preserve Low High within vacant 

institutional land uses

within residential land 

High within BLM Class 

Low within BLM Class 

Compatibility with Land Use Plans High-Low Medium-High Medium-High Number of housing units displaced 0 0 0 Extent of community disruption/severance 

None expected None expected None expected 

Number of environmental justice (EJ) communities crossed by or within 1 mile of facilities 

2 1 1 

Growth Estimated permanent employment NA NA NA Removal of obstacles to growth None expected None expected None expected Extent of effects to TOD potential None None None Extent of effects to economic vitality Construction period 

employment 

Construction period 

employment 

Construction period em

Farmlands & Agriculture Acres of Directly Impacted Farmland 0 0 0 Acres of Indirectly Impacted Farmland 

0 0 0 

Potential Severance of Grazing Allotment 

None Yes; would traverse an 

allotment 

Yes; would traverse an 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-24 

Environmental Topic Segment 4A Rail Alignment 

and Associated TCAs 

Segment 4B Rail Alignment 

and Associated TCAs 

Segment 4C Rail Alig

and Associated T

Utilities & Emergency Services Exceed capacity of utility or service systems:  Electricity and Gas No demand associated, unless 

EMU selected 

No demand associated, unless 

EMU selected 

No demand associated

EMU selected 

 Water Supply No demand associated No demand associated No demand associ Sewage/Wastewater No demand associated No demand associated No demand associ Stormwater Would require connections to 

existing and/or new facilities 

Would require connections to 

new facilities 

Would require connec

new facilities 

 Solid Waste No generation No generation No generation  Police Services No No No  Fire/Emergency Services New staff, equipment and 

facility 

New staff, equipment and 

facility 

New staff, equipment an

Potential conflict with existing utility distribution systems 

Yes, but conflicts can be 

mitigated 

Yes, but conflicts can be 

mitigated 

Yes, but conflicts ca

mitigated 

Traffic & Transportation Result in substantial traffic increases:  Freeway Mainlines Between I-40 and the California-Nevada state line, traffic reduction associated with either D

EMU levels of traffic would reduce freeway volumes and positively affect LOS 

 Station Area Intersections NA NA NA 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-25 

Environmental Topic Segment 4A Rail Alignment 

and Associated TCAs 

Segment 4B Rail Alignment 

and Associated TCAs 

Segment 4C Rail Alig

and Associated T

Visual Resources Extent of consistency with BLM VRM Objectives 

Not consistent within and 

outside Clark Mountains. 

Somewhat within and outside 

Clark Mountains. 

Somewhat within and 

Clark Mountains

Effect to FHWA Visual Quality/Sensitivity With Project 

Within Preserve, quality 

reduced from high to moderate. 

Moderate quality outside the 

Preserve. 

Moderate quality in Clark 

Mountains. High quality 

outside Clark Mountains. 

Moderate quality in and 

Clark Mountains

Cultural & Paleontological Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Directly Affected 

7 8 10 

Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Indirectly Affected 

1 1 3 

Number of Historic Architectural Resources Directly/Indirectly Affected 

0 0 0 

Hydrology & Water Quality Linear feet of impact to water resources 

734 319 1485 

Acres within a 100-year floodplain 0 0 0 Result in substantial drainage pattern alteration 

No No No 

Estimated peak stormwater discharge (cubic feet/second) 

NA NA NA 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-26 

Environmental Topic Segment 4A Rail Alignment 

and Associated TCAs 

Segment 4B Rail Alignment 

and Associated TCAs 

Segment 4C Rail Alig

and Associated T

Geology & Soils Expected likelihood of Surface Fault Rupture 

High High Low 

Expected likelihood of ground shaking 

Low/Moderate Low/Moderate Moderate/High 

Expected difficulty of excavation Moderate High Moderate Expected likelihood of landslides Moderate High Moderate Hazardous Materials Number of properties of environmental concern 

1 0 0 

Air Quality & Global Climate Change Exceed a state or federal standard? No No No Result in CO Hotspot? No No No Expected adverse construction period impact? 

No No Yes, but can be miti

Noise & Vibration Expected number of impacts under FRA criteria 

0 0 0 

Expected number of severe impacts under FRA criteria 

0 0 0 

Expected number of vibration impacts 0 0 0 Energy Result in Significant Change in Energy Consumption? 

Analysis examined project as a whole, comparing DEMU, EMU, and N

Biological Resources Impose Barrier to wildlife movement Yes, outside I-15 Yes, outside I-15 Yes, outside I-1Number of stream crossings 29 42 48 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-27 

Environmental Topic Segment 4A Rail Alignment 

and Associated TCAs 

Segment 4B Rail Alignment 

and Associated TCAs 

Segment 4C Rail Alig

and Associated T

Biological Resources Cont’d Sensitive plant community acreage affected  Permanent 0.5 acres of Mesquite 

Shrubland 

0 1.9 acres of Mesquite S

 Temporary 0 0 3.1 acres of Mesquite SDesert Tortoise habitat acreage affected  Permanent 42.2 111.8 182.9  Temporary 371.7 500.3 490 Mohave Ground Squirrel habitat acreage affected  Permanent 0 0 0  Temporary 0 0 0 Potential to result in direct mortality/loss/disturbance to:  Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard No No No  Nesting raptors/migratory birds Yes Yes Yes  Banded Gila Monster Yes Yes Yes  Burrowing Owls Yes Yes Yes  Roosting Bats Yes, in caves and mines Yes, in caves and mines Yes, in caves and m American Badger Yes Yes Yes  Desert Bighorn Sheep Yes Yes Yes  Clark County MSHCP Covered Reptiles 

No No Yes 

Acres of Special Management Lands Lost 

20.4 acres of Ivanpah Desert 

Tortoise Critical Habitat, 13.8 

acres of the Mojave National 

Preserve 

0 0 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-28 

Environmental Topic Segment 4A Rail Alignment 

and Associated TCAs 

Segment 4B Rail Alignment 

and Associated TCAs 

Segment 4C Rail Alig

and Associated T

Section 4(f) Number of Section 4(f) properties used  Park and Recreation 1 (Mojave National Preserve) 0 0  Cultural Resources 0 0 0 Source: CirclePoint, 2010. 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-29 

Table S-ES-5 Comparison of Segment 5 Alternatives 

Environmental Topic Segment 5A Rail Alignment 

and Associated TCAs 

Segment 5B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Sloan Road MSF Relocate

MSF (R

Land Use & Community Impacts Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses 

High High High Hig

Compatibility with Land Use Plans Low near limited residential 

areas, Medium to high 

elsewhere 

Low near limited 

residential areas, Medium 

to high elsewhere 

Low High withi

undevelo

within re

are

Number of housing units displaced 0 0 0 0 Extent of community disruption/severance 

None None None No

Number of environmental justice (EJ) communities crossed by or within 1 mile of facilities 

0 0 0 0 

Growth Estimated permanent employment None None 154 to 251 jobs from th

station/maintenance facility rega

location 

Removal of obstacles to growth None expected None expected None expected None exExtent of effects to TOD potential None None None NoExtent of effects to economic vitality Slight adverse effects to 

Primm and Jean 

Slight adverse effects to 

Primm and Jean 

None No

Farmlands & Agriculture Acres of Directly Impacted Farmland None None None NoAcres of Indirectly Impacted Farmland 

None None None No

Potential Severance of Grazing Allotment 

None None None No
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-30 

Environmental Topic Segment 5A Rail Alignment 

and Associated TCAs 

Segment 5B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Sloan Road MSF Relocate

MSF (R

Utilities & Emergency Services Exceed capacity of utility or service systems:  Electricity and Gas No demand associated, 

unless EMU selected 

No demand associated, 

unless EMU selected 

No N

 Water Supply NA NA New conveyance 

systems would be 

required 

New con

systems w

requ

 Sewage/Wastewater NA NA No New con

systems w

requ

 Stormwater No No NA NA  Solid Waste NA NA No N Police Services No No No N Fire/Emergency Services New staff, equipment and a 

new station 

New staff, equipment and 

a new station 

No N

Potential conflict with existing utility distribution systems 

Yes, but conflicts can be 

mitigated 

Yes, but conflicts can be 

mitigated 

Unlikely, but any 

conflicts can be 

mitigated 

Unlikely, 

conflicts 

mitig

Traffic & Transportation Result in substantial traffic increases:  Freeway Mainlines DEMU or EMU options would reduce freeway volumes and positively affect LOS  Station Area Intersections NA NA NA NA 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-31 

Environmental Topic Segment 5A Rail Alignment 

and Associated TCAs 

Segment 5B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Sloan Road MSF Relocate

MSF (R

Visual Resources Extent of consistency with BLM VRM Objectives 

Consistent in Primm and 

Jean. Somewhat consistent 

elsewhere. 

Consistent Not consistent Consi

Effect to FHWA Visual Quality/Sensitivity With Project 

No change within Primm and 

Jean. Slight decrease in 

visual quality elsewhere. 

No change within Primm 

and Jean. Slight decrease 

in visual quality 

elsewhere. 

Minimal adverse 

change in visual 

quality 

Minimal 

change i

qua

Cultural & Paleontological Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Directly Affected 

4 16 0 1 

Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Indirectly Affected 

2 10 0 0 

Number of Historic Architectural Resources Directly/Indirectly Affected 

0 0 0 0 

Hydrology & Water Quality Linear feet of impact to water resources 

0 0 0 0 

Acres within a 100-year floodplain 0 0.9 0 0 Result in substantial drainage pattern alteration 

No No No N

Estimated peak stormwater discharge (cubic feet/second) 

NA NA Unknown Unkn

Geology & Soils Expected likelihood of Surface Fault Rupture 

None None None No

Expected likelihood of ground shaking 

Low to High Low to High Low to High Low to 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-32 

Environmental Topic Segment 5A Rail Alignment 

and Associated TCAs 

Segment 5B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Sloan Road MSF Relocate

MSF (R

Geology & Soils Cont’dExpected difficulty of excavation Moderate Moderate Moderate ModeExpected likelihood of landslides Moderate Moderate Moderate ModeHazardous Materials Number of properties of environmental concern 

0 0 0 0 

Air Quality & Global Climate Change Exceed a state or federal standard? No No No NResult in CO Hotspot? No No No NExpected adverse construction period impact? 

No No No N

Noise & Vibration Expected number of impacts under FRA criteria 

0 0 0 0 

Expected number of severe impacts under FRA criteria 

0 0 0 0 

Expected number of vibration impacts 

0 0 0 0 

Energy Result in Significant Change in Energy Consumption? 

Analysis examined project as a whole, comparing DEMU, EMU, and N

Biological Resources Impose Barrier to wildlife movement No No No NNumber of stream crossings 49 49 1 0 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-33 

Environmental Topic Segment 5A Rail Alignment 

and Associated TCAs 

Segment 5B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Sloan Road MSF Relocate

MSF (R

Biological Resources Cont’d Sensitive plant community acreage affected  Permanent 0 0 0 0  Temporary 0 0 0 0 Desert Tortoise habitat acreage affected  Permanent 0.2 203.2 9.7 to 13.9 9. Temporary 8.7 685.6 0 11Mohave Ground Squirrel habitat acreage affected  Permanent 0 0 0 0  Temporary 0 0 0 0 Potential to result in direct mortality/loss/disturbance to:  Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard No No No N Nesting raptors/migratory birds Yes Yes Yes Ye Banded Gila Monster No No No Ye Burrowing Owls No Yes No Ye Roosting Bats No Yes No N American Badger Yes Yes Yes Ye Desert Bighorn Sheep No No No N Clark County MSHCP Covered Reptiles 

Yes Yes Yes Ye

Acres of Special Management Lands 0 0 0 0 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-34 

Environmental Topic Segment 5A Rail Alignment 

and Associated TCAs 

Segment 5B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Sloan Road MSF Relocate

MSF (R

Section 4(f) Number of Section 4(f) properties used  Park and Recreation 0 0 0 0  Cultural Resources 0 4 0 0 Source: CirclePoint, 2010. 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-35 

Table S-ES-6 Comparison of Segment 6 Alternatives 

Environmental Topic Segment 6A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 6B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

(with AAAs 7-8) 

Segment 6C Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Wigwam MSF 

Modification 

Robindale 

MSF 

S

Land Use & Community Impacts Compatibility with Adjacent Land Uses 

High near undeveloped 

and 

commercial/industrial 

uses, Low near 

residential uses 

High near 

undeveloped and 

commercial/industrial 

uses, Low near 

residential uses 

High near 

undeveloped and 

commercial/industri

al uses, Low near 

residential uses 

Medium to 

High 

Medium 

Compatibility with Land Use Plans 

Low near residential 

areas, Medium to high 

elsewhere* 

Low near residential 

areas, Medium to 

high elsewhere* 

Low near 

residential areas, 

Medium to high 

elsewhere 

Medium to 

High 

Low M

a

wit

& 

R

Number of housing units displaced 

0 0 0 0 1 

Extent of community disruption/severance 

None None Division through 

Sloan 

None None 

Number of environmental justice (EJ) communities crossed by or within 1 mile of facilities 

Would cross 4 EJ 

census blocks (minority 

and poverty) 

Would cross 4 EJ 

census blocks 

(minority and 

poverty) 

Would cross 2 EJ 

census blocks 

(minority and 

poverty) 

0 0 

Growth Estimated permanent employment 

None None None 154 to 251 

jobs from the 

station/MSF 

regardless of 

location 

154 to 251 

jobs from the 

station/MSF 

regardless of 

location 

Removal of obstacles to growth 

None None None None None 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-36 

Environmental Topic Segment 6A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 6B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

(with AAAs 7-8) 

Segment 6C Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Wigwam MSF 

Modification 

Robindale 

MSF 

S

Growth Cont’d Extent of effects to TOD potential 

None None None None None 

Extent of effects to economic vitality 

Construction Period 

Employment 

Construction Period 

Employment 

Construction 

Period Employment

Beneficial 

construction 

and 

operational 

employment 

effects similar 

for all station/ 

OMSF sites 

Beneficial 

construction 

and 

operational 

employment 

effects 

similar for all 

station/ 

OMSF sites 

C

E

Farmlands & Agriculture Acres of Directly Impacted Farmland 

None None None None None 

Acres of Indirectly Impacted Farmland 

None None None None None 

Potential Severance of Grazing Allotment 

None None None None None 

Utilities & Emergency Services Exceed capacity of utility or service systems: 

Electricity and Gas No demand associated, 

unless EMU selected 

No demand 

associated, unless 

EMU selected 

No demand 

associated, unless 

EMU selected 

No No 

Water Supply No No No No No Sewage/Wastewater No No No No No Stormwater No No No No No Solid Waste No No No No No Police Services No No No No No 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-37 

Environmental Topic Segment 6A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 6B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

(with AAAs 7-8) 

Segment 6C Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Wigwam MSF 

Modification 

Robindale 

MSF 

S

Utilities & Emergency Services Cont’d

Fire/Emergency Services 

New staff, equipment 

and a new station 

New staff, equipment 

and a new station 

New staff, 

equipment and a 

new station 

No No No

Potential conflict with existing utility distribution systems 

Yes, but conflicts can 

be mitigated 

Yes, but conflicts can 

be mitigated 

Yes, but conflicts 

can be mitigated 

Yes, but 

conflicts can 

be mitigated 

Yes, but 

conflicts can 

be mitigated 

co

Traffic & Transportation Result in substantial traffic increases:  Freeway Mainlines DEMU and EMU options would reduce freeway volumes and positively affect LOS 

Station Area Intersections 

NA NA NA NA NA 

Visual Resources Extent of consistency with BLM VRM Objectives 

Somewhat consistent 

in undeveloped 

southern portions, 

consistent elsewhere. 

Somewhat consistent 

in undeveloped 

southern portions, 

consistent elsewhere.

Consistent Consistent Consistent 

co

Effect to FHWA Visual Quality/Sensitivity With Project 

No change No change No change No change No change 

Cultural & Paleontological Number of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Directly Affected 

1 0 19 0 0 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-38 

Environmental Topic Segment 6A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 6B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

(with AAAs 7-8) 

Segment 6C Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Wigwam MSF 

Modification 

Robindale 

MSF 

S

Cultural & Paleontological Cont’dNumber of Eligible or Assumed Eligible Archaeological Resources Indirectly Affected 

0 1 4 0 0 

Number of Historic Architectural Resources Directly/Indirectly Affected 

0 0 0 0 0 

Hydrology & Water Quality Linear feet of impact to water resources 

0 0 77 0 0 

Acres within a 100-year floodplain 

0.8 to 12.6 23 3.7 to 4.2 1.7 to 2.1 0 

Result in substantial drainage pattern alteration 

No No No No No 

Estimated peak stormwater discharge (cubic feet/second) 

NA NA NA Unknown Unknown 

Geology & Soils Expected likelihood of Surface Fault Rupture 

None None None None None 

Expected likelihood of ground shaking 

Low to Moderate Low to Moderate Low to Moderate Low to 

Moderate 

Low to 

Moderate 

Expected difficulty of excavation 

High High High High High 

Expected likelihood of landslides 

Moderate Moderate Low to Moderate Moderate Low to 

Moderate 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-39 

Environmental Topic Segment 6A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 6B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

(with AAAs 7-8) 

Segment 6C Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Wigwam MSF 

Modification 

Robindale 

MSF 

S

Hazardous Materials Number of properties of environmental concern 

6 6 3 0 0 

Air Quality & Global Climate Change Exceed a state or federal standard? 

No No No No No 

Result in CO Hotspot? No No No No No Expected adverse construction period impact? 

No No No No No Y

b

Noise & Vibration Expected number of impacts under FRA criteria 

358 for EMU, 268 for 

DEMU 

371 for EMU, 303 for 

DEMU 

0 0 0 

Expected number of severe impacts under FRA criteria 

0 13 for EMU, 37 for 

DEMU 

0 0 0 

Expected number of vibration impacts 

0 0 0 0 0 

Energy Result in Significant Change in Energy Consumption? 

Analysis examined project as a whole, comparing DEMU, EMU, and No Acti

Biological Resources Impose Barrier to wildlife movement 

No No Yes No No 

Number of stream crossings 

16 to 18 16 to 18 26 to 27 1 1 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-40 

Environmental Topic Segment 6A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 6B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

(with AAAs 7-8) 

Segment 6C Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Wigwam MSF 

Modification 

Robindale 

MSF 

S

Biological Resources Cont’dSensitive plant community acreage affected  Permanent 0 0 0 0 0 4 Temporary 0 0 0 0 0 Desert Tortoise habitat acreage affected  Permanent 40.2 38 78.2 3 8.8  Temporary 116.6 116.6 329.2 0 0 Mohave Ground Squirrel habitat acreage affected  Permanent 0 0 0 0 0  Temporary 0 0 0 0 0 Potential to result in direct mortality/loss/ disturbance to: 

Mojave Fringe-toed Lizard 

No No No No No 

Nesting raptors/migratory birds 

No Yes Yes No No 

Banded Gila Monster No No No No No Burrowing Owls No Yes Yes No No Roosting Bats No Yes Yes No No American Badger Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Desert Bighorn Sheep 

No No No No No 
DesertXpress 

August 2010 S

ES-41 

Environmental Topic Segment 6A Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Segment 6B Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

(with AAAs 7-8) 

Segment 6C Rail 

Alignment and 

Associated TCAs 

Wigwam MSF 

Modification 

Robindale 

MSF 

S

Biological Resources Cont’d

Clark County MSHCP Covered Reptiles 

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 

Acres of Special Management Lands Lost 

0 0 0 0 0 

Section 4(f) Number of Section 4(f) properties used 

Park and Recreation 0 0 0 0 0 Cultural Resources 0 0 2 0 0 

 Source: CirclePoint, 2010. 
DesertXpress Executive Summary 

A u g u s t 2 0 1 0 S u p p l e m e n t a l D r a f t E I S 

ES-42 

ES-5 AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION OF ADVERSE EFFECTS 

As currently planned, the DesertXpress Project would avoid and minimize many potential 

adverse environmental effects. Chapter 3, includes in each topic area a discussion of 

mitigation measures and strategies. In addition, design and construction practices have 

been identified that would be employed as the DesertXpress project is developed further 

in the final design phase and construction stages. Key aspects of the design practices 

include, but are not limited to the following: 

 Minimize impact footprint and associated direct impacts to farmlands, parklands, 

biological, and water resources through maximum use of existing transportation 

corridors. 

 Increase safety and circulation and potentially reduce air pollution and noise 

impacts through use of grade separation at road crossings. 

 Placement of the majority of the DesertXpress alignment within existing highway 

and railroad rights-of-way, to reduce the need for additional right-of-way and 

minimize potential impacts to agricultural resources and other natural resources. 

 Cooperate with regulatory agencies to develop acceptable specific design and 

construction standards for steam crossings, including but not limited to 

maintaining open surface (bridged versus closed culvert) crossings, infrastructure 

setbacks, erosion control measures, sediment-controlling excavation/fill practices, 

and other best management practices. 

 Fully lined tunnels with impermeable material to prevent infiltration of 

groundwater or surface waters. 

ES-6 PUBLIC AND AGENCY INVOLVEMENT 

This Draft EIS has been prepared with extensive public and agency involvement, which is 

summarized in Chapter 4.0, Comments and Coordination. 

 
Note: Segments 1 and 2A/2B

are one common alignment

that would be used under

Alternative A or Alternative B.

Barstow

Victorville Apple Valley

Oro

Grande

Lenwood

Segment 1

Segment 1

Segment 2C

Segment 2A / 2B

Victorville

OMSF 1

 Victorville

Site 1

 Victorville

Site 2

Victorville

OMSF 2

Victorville

Station Site

3A/3B

Southern California Logistics Airport

Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base

Newberry Mountains Wilderness

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 1 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Victorville

OMSF Site 2

Victorville Station

Site 3A / 3B

Segment 1

Dale Evans Pky

Boulder Rd

15

Geografika Consulting 06.16.10

4

5

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, 

NAIP 2003-2006, 

Legend

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Modified Station Site Option - 

Victorville Station Site 3A/3B

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

1 inch equals 3 miles

0 4 2

Kilometers

0 3 1.5

Miles

NORTH

Project Modifications and Additions (1)

FIG

S-ES-1
Note: Segments 1 and 2A/2B

are one common alignment

that would be used under

Alternative A or Alternative B.

Yermo

Lenwood Barstow

Afton Canyon

Natural Area

Segment 1

Segment 2A

Segment 3A

Segment 3B

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

Segment 2B

Segment 2C 

Segment 2A / 2B

Fort Irwin

Cady Mountains Wilderness Study Area

Soda Mountains Wilderness Study Area

Newberry Mountains Wilderness

Black Mountain Wilderness

Barstow Marine Corps Logistics Base

China Lake Naval Weapons Center

Rodman Mountains Wilderness

South Avawatz Mountains Wilderness Study Area

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 2 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Segment 2A/2B

Segment 2C

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 1

Segment 2A

Segment 2B

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 2

TCA 2C1

H Street

Mojave River

Segment 2A / 2B

Segment 2C

North Main St.

Alignment Adjustment Area 1

Note: The dashed line represents

the extent of the median option

for Segment 2C.

Geografika Consulting 06.016.10

4

5

Source: DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, 

NAIP 2003-2006, 

Legend

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 10 5

Kilometers

0 8 4

Miles

NORTH

Project Modifications and Additions (2)

FIG

S-ES-2
Mojave National

Preserve

NEVADA

CALIFORNIA

Baker MOW

Facility Site

Baker

Halloran

Springs

t 3 B

Segment 3 A

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

Segment 4B

Segment 4A

Segment 5A Segment 5B

Segment 4C

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 3 of 5

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

TCA 7

er

15

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 3

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 4

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 5

Alignment 

Adjustment 

Area 6

Segment 3B

Segment 3A

TCA 19

TCA 20

TCA 21

TCA 18

Segment 4B

Segment 4A

TCA 4C3

Segment 4C

TCA 4C1

TCA 4C2

TCA 11

TCA 12

TCA 4C4

TCA 4C5

Geografika Consulting 06.16.10

Profile

Modification Area

15

4

5 Las Vegas

Source: Bell and Price 1992, NV Bureau

of Mines & Geology 1996, CA Division of Mines

& Geology 2000, DesertXpress 2007, ESRI 2005, 

NAIP 2003-2006, US Census Bureau

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 10 5

Kilometers

0 8 4

Miles

NORTH

Legend

Faults and Earth Fissures

Fault

Overall outline of fissure area

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Project Modifications and Additions (3)

FIG

S-ES-3
TCA 14 

Primm

Jean

Segment 6C Segment 6B

Segment 5A

Segment 5 B

Segment 6A

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 4 of 5

Geografika Consulting 06.16.10

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas

CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Former Sloan MSF 

and Substation

Location

TCA 13

604

Segment 5B

Segment 5A

15

Relocated Sloan MSF,

Substation and

Utility Corridor

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 7

Segment 6C

Segment 6A

Segment 6B

4

5

Nevada

California

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 3 miles NORTH

0 6 3

Miles

0 5 2.5

Kilometers

Legend

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Relocation Sloan MSF /

Substation Site Option

Project Modification and Additions (4)

FIG

S-ES-4
TCA 14 

Robindale MSF

Las Vegas

Southern

Station

Las Vegas

Central

Station A

Las Vegas

Downtown

Station

Las Vegas

Central

Station B

Segment 6C

Segment 6B

Segment 6A

Segment 7C

Segment 7A

Segment 7B

1

2

3

Locator Map

Map 5 of 5

Geografika Consulting 06.16.10

Death Valley NP

Mojave NPRES

Victorville

Las Vegas CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

40

DesertXpress - 

Supplemental EIS

Frias

Substation

Segment 6 B

Segment 6 A

4

5

Robindale MSF

15

160

TCA 16

Las Vegas

Southern Station

McCarran

International

Airport

a Ave

Las Vegas Blvd

Rd

Segment 7 B

Segment 6 A

Segment 6 C

Segment 6 A Segment 6 B

Robindale

Las Vegas

Central Station B

TCA 22

Alignment

Adjustment

Area 8

Wigwam

MSF

Segment 7 A

Source: CirclePoint 2008, ESRI 2005,

DesertXpress 2007, NAIP and DOQQ Imagery

1 inch equals 2 miles

NORTH

0 2.5 1.25

Kilometers

0 2 1

Miles

Legend

DesertXpress Alignments

Alternative A

Alternative B

Common Alignment used under

Alternative A or Alternative B

Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Maintenance Facility Site Options

Autotransformer Site Options

(EMU Option Only)

Electric Utility Corridor

(EMU Option Only)

Ancillary Facility Sites

Station Options

Alignment Adjustment Areas

Modified Temporary Construction

Area (TCA) Site Options

Additional Alignment Modifications

Text Project Modifications and Additions

Frias Substation and

Wigwam MSF Modifications

Project Modifications and Additions (5)

FIG

S-ES-5
DesertXpress Executive Summary 

A u g u s t 2 0 1 0 S u p p l e m e n t a l D r a f t E I S 

ES-48 

This page intentionally left blank.