1 

 U.S. Department of Transportation 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Record of Decision 

DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

Summary 

This is the Record of Decision (ROD) of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), an 

operating administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation, with regard to the 

DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train Project (Project) proposed by DesertXpress 

Enterprises, LLC (Applicant), a private entity not part of any federal, state, or local 

government agency. The Applicant has proposed to construct and operate the Project 

subject to the approval of appropriate authorities, which include FRA, the federal Lead 

Agency for the Project; the federal Cooperating Agencies for the Project (Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), Surface Transportation Board (STB), and the Bureau of Land 

Management (BLM)); and other federal agencies with specific review, consultation, 

and/or permitting roles, including but not limited to the Federal Aviation Administration 

(FAA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

(USACE). 

In making this decision, FRA considered the information and analysis contained in the 

2009 Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), 2010 Supplemental Draft EIS, and 

2011 Final EIS for the Project (collectively “EIS Documents”). FRA also considered public 

and agency comments received during the public comment periods for all of the above 

documents. 

The ROD has been prepared in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality’s 

(CEQ) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), (40 CFR 

Section 1505) and FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Fed. 

Reg. 28545, May 26, 1999). Specifically, this ROD: 

 Provides background of the NEPA process leading to the March 2011 publication of 

the Final EIS, including a summary of public involvement and agency 

coordination. 

 States and reaffirms the Project’s Purpose and Need. 

 Identifies the alternatives considered by FRA in the EIS Documents. 

 Summarizes the alternatives considered but dismissed in the Draft EIS. 

 Identifies the Selected Alternative. 

 Identifies the environmentally preferable alternative. 

 Summarizes environmental benefits and adverse effects. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

2 

 Summarizes the comments received on the Final EIS. 

 Discusses the measures to avoid and minimize environmental harm and requires a 

monitoring and enforcement program for all mitigation measures. 

 Presents the FRA Decision, determinations and findings on the proposed Project 

and identifies and discusses the factors that were balanced by FRA in making its 

decision. 

1.0 Project Introduction 

The Applicant has proposed to construct, operate, and maintain a high-speed passenger 

train system along the approximately 200-mile corridor between Victorville, California, 

and Las Vegas, Nevada. The Applicant proposes to construct the vast majority of the fully 

grade-separated, dedicated double track, passenger-only railroad within the Interstate 15 

(I-15) highway corridor. Two passenger stations would be built, one in Victorville, the 

other in Las Vegas; each would be located immediately adjacent to the I-15 corridor. The 

Project also includes ancillary operations and maintenance facilities as well as utility 

corridors to link proposed electrical substations to external sources of power to 

accommodate the preferred electrically-powered technology option as described in more 

detail below. 

Figure 1 shows the routing of the Selected Alternative rail alignment. 

The entire mainline section between Victorville and Las Vegas would incorporate dual 

tracks, one northbound and one southbound, to support the high ridership and frequency 

of train operation. The nominal direction of travel would follow the North-American 

practice of right-hand running. All tracks would be signaled for bi-directional operation 

should operating in reverse on a track be necessary. 

The preliminary Operations Plan assumes that trains would operate between 

approximately 0600 hours and 2200 hours (6 AM to 10 PM), 365 days per year. The 

hours of service could be extended if passenger demand warrants additional operation. 

The Applicant has proposed using existing, proven intercity high-speed train technology, 

customized for the unique setting of the corridor. Both diesel-electric multiple unit train, 

(DEMU) train and electric multiple unit (EMU) train were considered as high-speed train 

technology options. The DEMU train set is projected to operate at a maximum speed of 

125 mph. The EMU train set could have a maximum speed of 150 mph. The EMU option 

would require the addition of 17 autotransformers and three electrical substations along 

the route. The autotransformers would be located at approximately 10-mile intervals 

along the rail alignment. 
93

95

95

COLORADO R.

Lake

Mohave

LAKE

HAVASU

LAKE MEAD

Hoover Dam

 Joshua Tree NP

Mojave National

Preserve

 Lake Mead NRA

 Death Valley NP

KERN

LOS ANGELES

SAN BERNARDINO

INYO

MOHAVE

CLARK

NYE

Lancaster

Primm

Big Bear

Hesperia

Palmdale

Bullhead City

San Bernardino

Burbank

Paradise

Barstow

Baker

Yermo

15

40

15

215

395

395

Needles

DesertXpress

Record of Decision Federal Railroad

Administration Project Location

Source: CirclePoint, 2011.

1

Legend

Preferred Alternative

Proposed Terminals

190

127

127

247

58

138

138

247 18

18

62

178

372 NEVADA

373 NEVADA

160

NEVADA

163

NEVADA

160

NEVADA

ARIZONA

68

Segment 1

Segment 2C

Segment 2A

Segment 3B

Segment 4C

Segment 5B

Segment 6B

Las Vegas

Victorville
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

4 

The initial train composition would be a ten vehicle train. Passenger capacities for DEMU 

trains would be about 478; for EMU trains, which have slightly longer and wider cars, 

capacity would be about 675 passengers. On either train, one of the ten cars would be 

configured as an entertainment car. 

FRA, as Lead Agency for NEPA compliance, commenced the environmental review 

process in 2006. Based on anticipated permits and licenses needed for construction and 

operation of the Project (identified in Table 1 below), FRA requested and received the 

participation of the following Cooperating Agencies: STB, FHWA, BLM, and NPS1. 

Specific roles and responsibilities of each federal agency, including permitting agencies, 

are further described below. 

Table 1: Federal Permits or Approvals Anticipated for Action Alternatives 

Agency Permit/Approval 

Federal Railroad Administration Regulations related to high-speed train operation and safety 

Bureau of Land Management Right-of-Way 

Surface Transportation Board Authority to Construct and Operate Railroad 

Federal Highway Administration Concurrence for Highway Right-of-Way (ROW) Occupancy 

and/or Disposal 

Access Justification Report or Access Modification Report2

Concurrence on Project Design Elements Related to Highway 

Operations

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Sec. 404 Permit (waters of the United States) 

Sec. 401 Certification 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Section 7 Biological Opinion 

Federal Aviation Administration Determination under 14 CFR Part 77 that the Project does not 

pose an obstruction to aerospace navigation 

Source: Circlepoint, 2009-2011. 

 

1 The NPS was invited to be a Cooperating Agency because a 1.55-mile long portion of one of the proposed rail 

segments (Segment 4A) would have traversed lands within the boundaries of the Mojave National Preserve. 

No other rail alignment or facility was proposed to be located within the Mojave National Preserve or on any 

other land under NPS control. 

2 The current project design does not include creating new access points to the interstate freeway (I-15), nor is 

direct access to the I-15 freeway envisioned during construction or rail operations maintenance. However if 

project designs or plans change to require permanent access modifications to I-15 or temporary direct access 

for construction, approval of an Access Modification Report would be required. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

5 

Federal Railroad Administration 

Under 49 U.S.C. 20101 et seq., FRA has authority over the safety of railroads. The Project 

would use trains and other features that do not comply with current FRA safety 

regulations, including track and locomotive safety regulations. 

FRA will exercise jurisdiction over this issue and all other railroad safety issues during 

design and operation of the Project. As part of the FRA’s oversight and regulation of 

railroad safety issues, FRA expects that the Applicant comply with, at a minimum, the 

technical criteria and procedures of FRA’s Tier 1 or Tier III Guidelines as developed by 

FRA’s Engineering Task Force of the Passenger Safety Working Group of the Railroad 

Safety Advisory Committee, FRA’s pre-revenue service acceptance testing requirements as 

outlined in 49 CFR section 238.111, and all other applicable railroad safety regulatory and 

statutory requirements. 

In addition, DesertXpress may become eligible for federal funds through the Railroad 

Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program (RRIF), which is administered by 

FRA. The RRIF program was established by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century (TEA-21) and amended by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible and Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) and the Rail Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008. Under this program, the FRA Administrator is authorized to 

provide, in the aggregate, direct loans and loan guarantees up to $35 billion. In general, 

RRIF funds may be used to (1) acquire, improve or rehabilitate intermodal or rail 

equipment or facilities including track, bridges, yards, building and shops, (2) refinance 

eligible debt, and (3) develop new intermodal or railroad facilities. 

When an eligible applicant applies for a RRIF loan, numerous preconditions to the 

issuance of the loan must be met. These include completion of the NEPA process and a 

determination that the applicant is eligible for financial assistance. Should DesertXpress 

receive financial assistance through a RRIF loan, it would be required to comply with 

various Federal laws including compliance with the requirements of the Uniform 

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

amended (Uniform Act) (42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.) and its implementing regulations. 

Bureau of Land Management 

The BLM has approval authority over the use of public lands under their control under 43 

U.S.C. 1761, the Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA). This authority 

encompasses the granting of transportation rights-of-way, including for rail 

transportation purposes, as outlined under the ROW regulations at 43 CFR Part 28001 

The FLPMA governs the way in which the public lands administered by the BLM are 

managed. The FLPMA recognizes the value of the public lands, declaring that these lands 

would remain in public ownership. As stated in Title V, Section 501 of the FLPMA, “[t]he 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

6 

Secretary, with respect to public lands...[is] authorized to grant, issue, or renew rights-ofway over, upon, under, or though such lands for...roads, trails, highways, railroads...or 

other means of transportation, except where such facilities are constructed and 

maintained in connection with commercial recreation facilities on lands in the National 

Forest System, or such other necessary transportation or other systems or facilities which 

are in the public interest and which require rights-of-way over, upon, under, or through 

such lands.” 43 U.S.C. 1761(6)–(7). 

Surface Transportation Board 

Under 49 U.S.C. 10901, the STB has exclusive jurisdiction over the construction and 

operation of new rail lines. Associated with this jurisdiction, the STB has authority to 

preempt state and local environmental review, land use requirements, and other 

associated permitting requirements. 

In response to a request for a declaratory order filed by DesertXpress, the STB issued a 

decision in DesertXpress Enterprises, LLC-Petition for Declaratory Order, STB Finance 

Docket No. 34914 (STB served June 27, 2007) (June 2007 Dec. Order) stating that the 

Project would not be subject to state and local environmental review, land use, or to other 

permitting requirements. The STB determined that DesertXpress would first be required 

to file an application under 49 U.S.C. 10901 for STB authority to build and operate the 

new line. 

In its June 2007 Dec. Order, the STB concluded that construction and operation of 

DesertXpress’ planned interstate passenger rail line would be within the agency’s 

jurisdiction under Section 10501 because DesertXpress would be a rail carrier providing 

interstate common carrier rail transportation. Accordingly, the STB found that the broad 

preemption at 49 U.S.C. 10501 (b) would attach, and environmental review would be 

under NEPA and related federal environmental laws and that the individual laws and 

regulations of California and Nevada, such as the California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA) would not apply.3 

Subsequent to the March 2009 publication of the Draft EIS, the California-Nevada Super 

Speed Train Commission and the American Magline Group asked the STB to reopen and 

reverse the June 2007 Dec. Order. The STB held an oral hearing on the matter in October 

2009. In a decision issued on May 6, 2010, the STB reaffirmed its 2007 decision that the 

 

3 Although the DesertXpress project does not require a CEQA review, the EIS includes the type of analysis that 

would have been conducted under the regulations and guidance of CEQA. See City of Auburn v. United States, 

154 F.3d 1027, 1031 31 (9th Cir. 1998) (City of Auburn). Moreover, state and local agencies and concerned 

citizens have had ample opportunity to participate in the ongoing EIS process. A number of state agencies 

have participated in the ongoing EIS process, including Caltrans and NDOT. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

7 

DesertXpress Project falls within the STB’s jurisdiction and would require Board authority 

under 49 U.S.C. 10901. 

Aside from these orders and decisions issued from the STB (meaning the Board comprised 

of three members appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate), the STB has 

delegated Cooperating Agency activities for the Project to its Office of Environmental 

Analysis (OEA). 

Federal Highway Administration 

Under 23 U.S.C. 111 and 142(f), for the portions of the proposed Project that would be 

within the existing highway ROW under the jurisdiction of the FHWA, the implementing 

regulations in 23 CFR 1.23 provide the FHWA authority over approval of temporary or 

permanent occupancy or use within the boundaries of federal-aid highways. Most 

critically, the FHWA must conclude that the Project does not pose a hindrance to the 

ongoing use of the I-15 corridor as an interstate highway. The BLM decision to grant rightof-way for the Project requires this determination by the FHWA. 

Throughout the environmental review process, FHWA divisions in California and Nevada 

coordinated closely with the State Departments of Transportation (Caltrans and the 

Nevada Department of Transportation) in their respective states. Ultimately, the State 

Departments of Transportation will need to issue encroachment permits to allow 

construction of the proposed rail lines within designated freeway right-of-way areas. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Concurrently with the NEPA process, the Applicant initiated the Clean Water Act (CWA) 

Section 404 permitting process with the USACE in May 2010. The CWA Section 404 sets 

forth a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the 

United States, including wetlands. As part of this CWA Section 404 permitting process, 

the Applicant prepared formal jurisdictional delineation reports for the Ivanpah Valley 

area and the Las Vegas watersheds. Jurisdictional determinations and issuance of a 

permit for the discharge of fill material into waters of the United States associated with 

construction of the DesertXpress Project will be part of the CWA Section 404 permit 

process administered by the USACE. 

In addition to the CWA Section 404 permit, the Applicant will apply for certification under 

Section 401 of the CWA.4 Section 401 Certification is administered in California through 

the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (in the case of the DesertXpress Project, the 

 

4 Under the CWA Section 401, every applicant for a federal permit or license for any activity that may result in 

a discharge to a water body must obtain State Water Quality Certification (Certification) that the proposed 

activity will comply with state water quality standards. Most Certifications are issued in connection with 

USACE CWA Section 404 permits for dredge and fill discharge. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

8 

Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board) and in Nevada by the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection. 

Given the relatively minor agency permitting issues for the Project, the USACE was not 

invited to participate as a Cooperating Agency for the DesertXpress Project. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Concurrently with the NEPA process, FRA initiated the Endangered Species Act Section 7 

consultation process, pursuant to 50 CFR Part 402. Section 7 of the Endangered Species 

Act requires all federal agencies to consult with the USFWS for any action that may affect 

listed species or their designated habitat. 16 U.S.C. 1536. FRA’s informal and formal 

consultation with the USFWS has been ongoing and was instrumental in scoping the 

biological resource analysis for the EIS Documents as well as for the Biological 

Assessment (BA) submitted consistent with Section 7 requirements. 

FRA developed and submitted a draft BA to the USFWS in August 2010. The BA 

evaluated direct, indirect, and cumulative effects of the Project on federally listed, 

threatened, endangered, or proposed listed species and their designated habitat. The 

USFWS provided specific comments on the August 2010 BA. FRA developed a revised BA 

in response to those comments and as a result of additional coordination between the 

USFWS and FRA. FRA submitted the revised BA on the Agency Preferred Alternative to 

the USFWS in December 2010. 

Following USFWS review and additional consultation and coordination, the USFWS 

issued a Biological Opinion (BO) for the Project on April 26, 2011. The USFWS concluded 

in the BO that the Project would not jeopardize the continued existence of identified 

species nor would the Project adversely modify designated critical habitat areas. 

Consistent with Section 7 requirements, the BO stipulates several reasonable and prudent 

conservation measures to avoid or reduce potential impacts. These have been 

incorporated as mitigation commitments; please see Appendix A of this ROD. The BO 

also includes an incidental take statement authorizing activity associated with 

construction and operation of the Project. 

Federal Aviation Administration 

The FAA is responsible for the safety of civil aviation. FAA regulations are codified at 14 

CFR Parts 1 through 1399 and include FAA’s responsibility to ensure the safe, efficient use 

and preservation of the United States’ navigable airspace. FAA describes its Airport 

Design Standards in FAA Advisory Circular 150/5300-13, Airport Design. Compliance 

with this Advisory Circular is mandatory for federally obligated airport sponsors and for 

land uses within designated Runway Protection Zones.
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

9 

Rail alignments associated with the Project would be located near existing and proposed 

aviation facilities, including McCarran Las Vegas International Airport (LAS), the planned 

Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport (SNSA) near Primm, and a private sport aviation 

facility near Jean. Under the authority of 14 CFR Part 77, the FAA determines whether 

proposed new objects/structures would be an obstruction to air navigation near these 

existing and proposed facilities. 

2.0 NEPA Process Background 

FRA, as Lead Agency for NEPA compliance, commenced the environmental review 

process in 2006. Based on anticipated permits and licenses needed for construction and 

operation of the Project, FRA requested and received the participation of the following 

Cooperating Agencies: STB, FHWA, BLM, and NPS. 

Table 2 below summarizes major NEPA milestones of the Project. 

Table 2: Summary of Major NEPA Milestones 

Milestone Date 

Notice of Intent & Public Scoping Meetings July 2006 

Notice of Availability Published/Circulation of Draft 

EIS/Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2009 

Public Hearings: Victorville, Barstow, Las Vegas April 2009 

Notice of Availability Published/Circulation of 

Supplemental Draft EIS, Supplemental Section 4(f) 

Evaluation 

August 2010 

Public Hearings: Barstow, Las Vegas October 2010 

Notice of Availability and Publication of Final EIS and 

Final Section 4(f) Evaluation 

March 2011 

Source: FRA, 2006-2011. 

The environmental process for the DesertXpress Project began formally in July 2006. 

Scoping Meetings for the DesertXpress Project were held in August 2006 and a Draft EIS 

was published on March 27, 2009. 

The Draft EIS presented the purpose and need for the Project, the reasonable range of 

alternatives for rail alignment, station site, maintenance facility, and train technology 

options, the existing environmental setting, potential effects from construction, and 

operation, and identified mitigation measures to reduce or eliminate potential adverse 

environmental effects. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 10 

The Draft EIS informed decision makers, interested parties, and the public about the 

differences and tradeoffs among various alternatives and options. The alternatives were 

organized to allow the Lead and Cooperating agencies to “mix and match” by choosing 

various segments and site options in composing a Preferred Alternative. The Draft EIS 

was circulated for 56 days for public review and comment. Public hearings were held in 

Las Vegas, Barstow, and Victorville to provide additional opportunity for the public to 

comment on the Draft EIS. 

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

modifications and additions to address comments received on the Draft EIS and to reduce 

or avoid significant environmental effects. FRA prepared a Supplemental Draft EIS to 

evaluate these modifications and additions, which included an additional station site 

option in Victorville, two new rail alignment options, modifications to the Victorville and 

Las Vegas maintenance facilities, and rail alignment adjustments. 

FRA published the Supplemental Draft EIS on September 3, 2010 and circulated it for a 

46 day public review and comment period. FRA held public hearings on the Supplemental 

Draft EIS in Las Vegas and Barstow to provide additional opportunity for the public to 

comment. 

The information presented in and the comments received on the Draft EIS and 

Supplemental Draft EIS were considered when preparing the Final EIS. The Final EIS, 

published April 1, 2011, addressed changes to the DesertXpress Project as a result of 

public and agency comments on the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS and an 

evaluation of the potential environmental effects of the Preferred Alternative. The 

Preferred Alternative was selected by the Lead and Cooperating Agencies from the range 

of alternatives presented in the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft EIS. Mitigation 

measures for the Preferred Alternative were included in the Final EIS to reduce or 

eliminate adverse environmental effects of the Preferred Alternative. 

3.0 Purpose and Need 

As articulated in the Draft EIS and reconfirmed in the Final EIS, the purpose of the 

privately proposed Project is to provide reliable and safe passenger rail transportation 

using proven high-speed rail technology between southern California and Las Vegas that is 

a convenient alternative to automobile travel on the I-15 freeway, or air travel to and from 

Las Vegas, and that adds transportation capacity in the I-15 corridor. 

It is estimated that the Project would divert approximately 3 million annual automobile 

trips from Interstate 15 (I-15) each year. This transportation shift would reduce air 

pollutant emissions from automobiles, reduce fuel consumption for automobile use on the 

I-15 corridor, limit the need to expand the I-15 highway, and improve highway safety. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 11 

Future increases in ridership demand for the high-speed train would be handled by adding 

more trains to the service as needed. 

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

anticipated increases in travel demand amidst lagging capacity on the I-15 corridor, 

constraints to the expansion of air travel in Southern California, and frequent accidents in 

the I-15 corridor. In part, the need this Project will address is the increase in travel 

demand between southern California and Las Vegas that has placed increasing pressures 

on the highways and airports serving the region. For motorists traveling to Las Vegas 

from southern California, the major highway systems, including Interstate 215 (I-215), 

Interstate 10 (I-10), U.S. Route 395 (U.S. 395), Interstate 210 (I-210)/California State 

Route 210 (SR 210), and California State Route 138 (SR 138), converge with the I-15 

freeway near Victorville. Figure 2 illustrates this transportation connection. The 

convergence of major transportation corridors funnels automobiles onto the I-15 freeway 

corridor, which results in traffic congestion on the I-15 freeway near Victorville and along 

the I-15 freeway corridor between Victorville and Las Vegas. The number of automobiles 

traveling on the I-15 corridor between these two locations has been steadily increasing and 

the projected growth will add more automobiles to the existing roadway system. It is 

estimated that approximately 75,000 automobiles will use this portion of the I-15 freeway 

every day in 2015 and up to 100,000 automobiles per day in 2025.5 Given these vehicle 

volumes, projections for DesertXpress assuming a Victorville passenger station show an 

anticipated ridership of over 2.4 million riders during the opening years of operation, 

increasing to over 6.5 million riders by 2030. Please see Final EIS Sections 1.3.1 and 2.2.2 

for further discussion of travel demand and ridership projections. 

4.0 Alternatives 

4.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND DISMISSED IN THE 

DRAFT EIS AND SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS 

In the EIS Documents, FRA and the Cooperating Agencies considered alternative rail 

routing alignments, facilities, and technologies. These alternatives were evaluated against 

a series of environmental, technical, operational, and financial criteria developed 

cooperatively between FRA, the Cooperating Agencies, and the Applicant and identified in 

the EIS Documents. Based on a thorough evaluation against these criteria, 

 

5 Initial Study/Environmental Assessment, Victorville to Barstow-Add Southbound Mixed-Flow Lane, 

Caltrans, FHWA, County of San Bernardino, May 2001. 
182 Miles

to Las

Vegas

DesertXpress

Record of Decision Federal Railroad

Administration

Converging Transportation

Corridors Near Victorville

Source: Geografika Consulting, 2011.

2

15

15

15

215

215

210

10

10

395

18

138

60

From

PALMDALE

AREA

From

SAN

DIEGO

VICTORVILLE

182 Miles

to Las Vegas

from Victorville

LOS

ANGELES

AREA
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 13 

FRA and the Cooperating Agencies dismissed from further consideration several 

alternatives, summarized below. 

4.1.1 ALIGNMENT

Several rail alignment segments were considered in the Draft EIS but dismissed from 

further consideration based on a thorough evaluation of environmental, technical, 

operational, and financial criteria. These are summarized below. 

Between Victorville and Barstow, routing options along the existing Burlington 

Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad were considered but dismissed due to numerous 

environmental constraints, including potential impacts to environmental justice 

communities, sensitive biological resources, and historic architectural resources along 

Historic Route 66. 

From Barstow to Primm, a routing option following the existing Union Pacific Railroad 

(UPRR) corridor on new tracks through the Mojave National Preserve was considered but 

dismissed based on potential effects to sensitive biological resources in the Preserve, the 

Preserve’s status as a Section 4(f) resource and the longer travel time of this route. In 

addition, the possibility of sharing these tracks was not considered further due to the 

heavy freight railroad traffic on these tracks, resulting in a substantial impairment to 

reliable high-speed rail service as well as existing and future freight service. 

Between Mountain Pass and Primm, a routing option remaining within the I-15 

corridor was dismissed due to the existing steep grade of this area and the related adverse 

effects on rail operations. To create the grade of 4.5% or less in this area, which is 

required as a technical criteria for the high-speed operations of the Project, extensive 

grading and/or tunneling would be required, which could disrupt freeway operations 

during construction and impair an existing hydrological resource, with potential 

downstream effects. 

Within the urbanized Las Vegas area, routings outside existing transportation 

corridors (namely, the I-15 freeway and the UPRR corridor) were considered but 

dismissed based on extensive areas of existing or planned residential development, which 

would have required substantial displacements. 

4.1.2 FACILITIES

During public review of the Draft EIS, the Clark County Department of Aviation (CCDOA) 

advised that the Sloan Road Maintenance and Storage Facility (MSF) would result in a 

conflict with the location of a proposed “super arterial” roadway that would provide future 

vehicle access to the planned Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport (SNSA) to be located 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 14 

north of Primm. As described in Section 2.2.5 of the Supplemental Draft EIS, the 

Applicant proposed a modified location for the Sloan Road MSF in response to comments 

on the Draft EIS. The Supplemental Draft EIS evaluated the “Relocated Sloan MSF,” 

replacing the Sloan Road MSF considered in the Draft EIS located approximately two 

miles further south. 

4.1.3 TECHNOLOGY 

The Applicant considered various proven train technologies for the DesertXpress Project, 

and sought particularly to identify a system with proven reliability that could be readily 

adapted to a desert environment and deliver reliable and rapid performance on the long 

and relatively steep grades along portions of the route. The Applicant found steel-wheel 

train systems with distributed propulsion (meaning that most of the passenger cars on the 

train are powered) to be the only viable technology. 

A conventional locomotive-hauled train with non-motorized passenger cars was initially 

studied by the Applicant, but this technology was eliminated after train simulation models 

projected unsatisfactory results in performance and reliability on the route’s long, steep 

grades. 

The magnetic levitation (maglev) technology option was also considered but rejected 

because it does not meet the Project’s purpose and need and was therefore not a 

reasonable technology alternative. In part, the Project’s purpose and need is to provide a 

“reliable and safe passenger rail transportation using proven high-speed rail technology.” 

Currently there is no existing high-speed rail train system employing magnetic levitation 

of the type of intercity service and over a similar distance proposed by the Applicant 

anywhere in the world, let alone the United States. In addition, designing and 

constructing such a system would require a substantially different safety regulatory and 

oversight regime than for existing rail technology as well as the associated change in 

projected development time. The absence of a high-speed train system demonstrating the 

technical feasibility of maglev technology and the difference in the safety regulatory 

approach and Project development creates conflicts with the Project’s purpose and need to 

select a “proven rail” technology. Magnetic levitation technology would also limit the 

potential for future system expansion and interoperability with other planned rail systems. 

In addition, the Applicant determined magnetic levitation technology is too costly for a 

private company to implement in terms of design, construction, and operations. While 

there is a possibility that Applicant may pursue a federal loan, the Project remains 

privately proposed and the range of reasonable action alternatives were informed by those 

which that the Applicant is willing to construct and operate, taking into account its 

legitimate business interests. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 15 

4.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN THE DRAFT EIS, 

SUPPLEMENTAL DRAFT EIS, AND FINAL EIS 

4.2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

In each of the EIS Documents, FRA and the Cooperating Agencies considered a no-build 

alternative, which would not provide high-speed passenger rail service between southern 

California and Las Vegas. Travel demand between the two points would continue to be 

met by existing modes, including automobile, air, and bus travel. Accordingly, the No 

Action Alternative is comprised of existing physical characteristics plus planned and 

programmed (funded) improvements to the freeways and air facility systems serving 

people traveling between Southern California and Las Vegas. The No Action Alternative 

assumes the construction and use of several planned and programmed improvements that 

would increase freeway capacity or otherwise improve freeway operations. Such planned 

and programmed improvements include I-15 freeway interchange improvements in 

Victorville and Barstow and several in the Las Vegas areas; widening of the I-15 freeway 

near Barstow and in Clark County, Nevada. The vast majority of these planned and 

programmed improvements would occur within or immediately adjacent to the I-15 

freeway right-of-way, largely the same physical area in which much of the proposed rail 

alignment would be constructed and operated. The construction of new freeway lanes 

would lead to many of the same temporary environmental effects associated with 

construction of proposed rail alignments, including but not limited to impacts to 

biological, cultural, and hydrological resources; temporary emissions of localized air 

pollutants; and other short-term impacts. Operations of such new facilities would result 

in permanently increased automobile traffic and associated increased levels of noise and 

air pollutants, permanent impacts to biological, cultural, and hydrological resources, and 

other effects as described more specifically in Sections 4.3 and 5.0 below. 

4.2.2 ACTION ALTERNATIVES: RAIL ALIGNMENT OPTIONS

For evaluation purposes, the distance between Victorville and Las Vegas was divided into 

seven segments. For each segment, one or more action alternative alignment routing was 

considered in addition to the No Action Alternative. The various segments were then 

grouped into the following general categories: 

 Action Alternative A: primarily in the I-15 median 

 Action Alternative B: primarily along the north/west side of the I-15 freeway, 

within the freeway right-of-way, typically a fenced area. 

 Option C: other action alternative alignment options 

Table 3 summarizes the alignment options considered. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 16 

Table 3: Summary of Alignment Routings Considered 

Segment Action Alternative A Action Alternative B Option C 

1: Victorville to 

Lenwood 

Starting from the Victorville Station, Segment 1 would run along the 

west side of the I-15 corridor 

NA 

2: Lenwood to 

Yermo 

Segment 2 A/B, would cross 

the Mojave River and run 

through northern Barstow, then 

Segment 2A would continue 

about 1 mile north of I-15 to 

Yermo 

Segment 2 A/B, would cross the 

Mojave River and run through 

northern Barstow, then Segment 2B

would continue about 0.5 mile north 

of I-15 to Yermo 

Segment 2C, within 

the I-15 corridor 

through Barstow; side 

running and median

options considered; 

then same as 

Segment 2A from Old 

Hwy 58 to Yermo. 

3: Yermo to 

Mountain Pass 

Segment 3A: Within I-15 

median 

Segment 3B: West of I-15, running 

alongside freeway, except where 

modified near Halloran Springs 

Road 

NA 

4: Mountain 

Pass to Primm 

Segment 4A: 1.55 miles of 

alignment would divert from I15 corridor via the Mojave 

National Preserve, rejoining I15 corridor near Primm 

Segment 4B: Through new tunnels 

northwest of I-15, then overland until 

rejoining I-15 corridor at Primm 

Segment 4C: similar 

to Segment 4B, but 

avoids planned solar 

energy projects north 

and west of Primm 

5: Primm to 

Sloan Road 

Segment 5A: Within I-15 

median 

Segment 5B: Along east side of I15 

NA 

6: Sloan Road 

to Las Vegas6 Segment 6A: Within I-15 

median 

Segment 6B: Varying from east to 

west side of I-15, except for 1.5 

miles in an adjacent county 

transportation corridor 

Segment 6C: Along 

UPRR Corridor, on 

new tracks, separate 

from existing railroad 

7: To 

Downtown Las 

Vegas Station 

Segment 7A: Within I-15 

median 

Segment 7B: West side of I-15 Segment 7C: UPRR 

Corridor, on new 

tracks, separate from 

existing railroad 

Source: CirclePoint, 2009-2011. 

4.2.3 ACTION ALTERNATIVES: FACILITIES

Built facilities evaluated included passenger stations and operations and maintenancerelated facilities. The following action alternatives were considered, along with the No 

Action Alternative. 

 Victorville passenger station: Three site options on the west side of the I-15 

freeway corridor between Stoddard Wells Road and Dale Evans Parkway. 

 

6 Option C cannot terminate at the Southern Station but could connect to the other three station site options. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 17 

Victorville Station Sites 1, 2, and 3 (VV1, VV2, and VV3). For VV3, two site 

layouts were evaluated (VV3A and VV3B), differing mainly in the location of 

surface parking lots. 

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

site options (OMSF 1 and OMSF 2), in close proximity to the Victorville station 

site options on the west side of the I-15 freeway. 

 Baker Maintenance of Way (MOW) facility: One site option adjacent to the 

I-15 freeway near the community of Baker. 

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

options: Sloan Road MSF, Relocated Sloan Road MSF, Wigwam Avenue MSF, and 

Robindale Avenue MSF. 

 Frias Substation: To provide electrical power in the Las Vegas area for train 

operations. 

 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). 

In addition to these permanent facilities, 29 sites for Temporary Construction Areas 

(TCAs) were considered. Several of these sites would be located within permanent facility 

areas, such as OMSF and station sites. TCA sites range in size from less than 1 acre to 

about 15 acres, excepting the larger TCA sites that would be located at permanent facility 

locations. Every OMSF and Station site evaluated was secondarily considered a TCA with 

the caveat that only the OMSF and Station sites included in the Selected Alternative would 

ultimately be used for temporary construction purposes. Other sites would be outside 

permanent facilities but would be occupied only for the duration of rail construction, 

estimated to be approximately 3 years. Several of the TCA sites could serve any of the 

proposed rail alignments for a given area; several, however, were unique to specific 

alignments. For example, Segment 4C diverges substantially from the other Segment 4 

rail alignments; accordingly, TCAs unique to Segment 4C were proposed. Accordingly, the 

Selected Alternative incorporates 16 of the 29 TCAs considered. 

4.2.4 ACTION ALTERNATIVES: TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

Two locomotive technologies were evaluated to serve the action alternative alignment and 

facilities options: DEMU and EMU. The two technologies have similar ROW width 

requirements and largely the same construction footprint. However, the EMU option has 

the following added features, all of which have been considered. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 18 

 Overhead catenary wires and supports located along the length of the rail 

alignment. 

 Three electrical substations, co-located on maintenance facility sites except for the 

proposed Frias Substation near Las Vegas. 

 Three electrical utility connection corridors between existing power sources and 

the proposed three electrical substations. 

 About 17 transformers located along the rail corridor at about 10 mile intervals. 

4.3 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE 

The Selected Alternative is the alternative which the FRA finds would most closely align 

with FRA’s statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, 

environmental, technical and other factors. The Selected Alternative is the same as the 

Preferred Alternative as identified in the Final EIS. 

FRA as Lead Agency consulted with the Cooperating Agencies (FHWA, BLM, NPS, and 

OEA) and considered the Draft EIS, including the analysis of the No Action Alternative, all 

action alternatives, and all Project modifications and additions presented in the 

Supplemental Draft EIS, as well as all public and agency comments received during the 

review periods for the EIS Documents in identifying the Selected Alternative. The 

cooperating agencies will issue their own decision documents, as appropriate, consistent 

with their statutory and regulatory responsibilities. 

As further articulated in detail below, the FRA did not identify the No Action Alternative 

as the Selected Alternative because it would not meet the purpose and need and it would 

not produce the benefits that would only occur as a result of constructing and operating an 

action alternative and the associated reduction in automobile traffic from I-15, including 

reduced traffic congestion, improved air quality, and reduced energy consumption. The 

No Action Alternative is discussed in each part of the discussion below. FRA concluded 

that the beneficial effects of any of the Action Alternatives (including reduced traffic, 

improved air quality, and more efficient use of energy, among others) outweighed the 

adverse effects associated with constructing the rail line and the passenger stations and 

maintenance facilities in Victorville and Las Vegas. 

The Selected Alternative is composed of certain rail alignments, facilities, and a 

propulsion technology option, all of which are listed below. Following is a discussion of 

the reasoning for selections by Project element. 

 Alignments 

 Segment 1 

 Segment 2C Side Running 

 Segment 3B (Modified) 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 19 

 Segment 4A, if legislative action allows; otherwise Segment 4C 

 Segment 5B 

 Segment 6B 

 Facilities

 Victorville Station: VV3B 

 Las Vegas Station: Las Vegas Central Station B or Las Vegas Southern 

Station 

 Victorville OMSF: OMSF 2 

 Las Vegas MSF: Wigwam Avenue MSF 

 Las Vegas Substation: Frias Substation 

 Technology 

 EMU: Electric Multiple Unit 

Segment 1 

The alternatives evaluated for this segment were the Action Alternative (Segment 1 rail 

alignment) and the No Action Alternative. As discussed in Section 4.1.1 above, other 

alignments from Victorville to Barstow were considered and ultimately rejected from 

further analysis based on feasibility constraints and possible substantially adverse 

environmental impacts. 

The No Action Alternative is comprised of intersection improvements in the Victorville 

area that are proposed to improve operations of the I-15 freeway at the local level and the 

introduction of the High Desert Corridor roadway project, which would ultimately link the 

Victorville and Palmdale areas, providing enhanced regional mobility. The construction 

and operation of these facilities would likely result in temporary and permanent physical 

environmental effects associated with new or expanded freeway facilities. These effects 

include but are not limited to increased levels of air pollutants and ground disturbance 

that would likely result in adverse impacts to adjacent biological, cultural, and/or 

hydrological resources. For Segment 1, the No Action Alternative would result in 

worsened traffic, air quality, and energy impacts relative to the Preferred/Selected 

Alternative. 

Taking all of the above into consideration, FRA chose the Segment 1 rail alignment action 

alternative as the Selected Alternative, owing to superior environmental effects in terms of 

air quality, energy, and traffic. 

Segment 2: 2C Side Running 

The Alternatives evaluated for Segment 2 were Segment 2A/2B, Segment 2C Median, 

Segment 2C Side Running, and the No Action Alternative. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 20 

The No Action Alternative consists of widening a 1-mile portion of I-15 to 6 lanes and 

reconstructing an I-15 interchange in Barstow. Although not immediately in Segment 2, 

the High Desert Corridor project (linking Victorville to Palmdale) would likely contribute 

to increased levels of traffic on the I-15 corridor beyond Victorville, and by extension, 

between Victorville and Las Vegas. 

The City of Barstow has stated to FRA that it is heavily reliant upon visitor-serving 

commerce (retail outlets, eating and drinking places, and gas stations) for tax revenues. 

The No Action Alternative is assumed to result in no immediate or direct downward effect 

on automobile travel between Southern California and Las Vegas; accordingly, the No 

Action Alternative is projected to have less of a downward economic growth effect on the 

City of Barstow than any of the Action Alternatives. 

Segment 2C, including both the Side Running and Median options, were proposed in 

direct response to comments/concerns from officials from the City of Barstow with regard 

to Segment 2A/2B. In April 2009, the City of Barstow submitted numerous comments on 

the Draft EIS; one specific comment requested that Segment 2 be moved to the I-15 

freeway corridor so as to avoid potential impacts to a proposed industrial park in the 

Lenwood area. The Segment 2C Side Running rail alignment would run within the I-15 

freeway corridor and accordingly would avoid any potential for the cited land use conflicts 

in Lenwood. In its comment on the Draft EIS and in subsequent correspondence, the City 

of Barstow stated that this land use conflict would discourage development of the 

proposed industrial park, thereby adversely affecting the tax revenue stream the City 

anticipates from the possible future development of this area. 

Relative to Segment 2A/2B, the Segment 2C Side Running alignment would have fewer 

adverse land use effects, would avoid impacts to farmland and grazing lands, would affect 

fewer sensitive cultural resources, would affect fewer linear feet of surface water resources, 

would have lesser visual quality impacts, and would result in less adverse impacts to 

sensitive biological resources, including plant and wildlife species/habitat areas. In 

addition, Segment 2C (Side Running or Median) would allow for a more direct route of 

travel relative to Segment 2A and Segment 2B, remaining within the I-15 freeway right-ofway, whereas Segments 2A and 2B would have utilized lands not in a current 

transportation use. In terms of noise, Segment 2C Side Running would have similar or 

lesser noise effects than Segment 2A/2B, but would result in more severe noise impacts 

than Segment 2C Median, owing to the side-running alignment’s closer proximity to 

sensitive receptors. 

Taking all of the above into consideration, FRA chose Segment 2C Side Running as part of 

the Selected Alternative. Segment 2C Side Running (similar to all other action 

alternatives) would lead to the beneficial environmental effects associated with lower 

levels of traffic, including reduced air pollutant emissions and more efficient use of energy 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 21 

resources. In addition, Segment 2C Side Running would also have the advantage of 

fostering beneficial economic growth. Direct and indirect benefits from construction of 

the rail line would likely accrue to the City of Barstow and the region during the years of 

anticipated construction. The No Action Alternative has lesser adverse economic growth 

impacts to the City of Barstow, but FRA believes that the beneficial effects of the Project as 

a whole would also benefit residents of Barstow. Segment 2C Side Running was also 

found to be preferable to Segment 2C Median, as constructing the train in the median 

would be more costly, more difficult to construct and maintain, and would pose more 

highway and rail operational and safety concerns than the side-running option. The 

Segment 2C Side Running option would also ultimately be more harmonious with 

proposed widening of I-15 travel lanes in Barstow. 

Segment 3: 3B (Modified) 

The Alternatives evaluated for Segment 3 were Segment 3A, Segment 3B, Segment 3B 

(Modified), and the No Action Alternative. 

An approximately 10 mile portion of Segment 3B as examined in the Supplemental Draft 

EIS was further modified in the Halloran Springs area to reduce impacts to sensitive 

resources in the area and incorporated into the Preferred Alternative identified in the 

Final EIS. This modification, Segment 3B (Modified) involves rerouting the rail line from 

the north side of the freeway right-of-way to the south side of the freeway right-of-way and 

was evaluated in detail in the Final EIS. 

The No Action Alternative does not include any proximate programmed transportation 

system improvements. In much of the I-15 corridor for the extent of the Segment 3 area, 

the freeway offers just two travel lanes in each direction, although work has been 

completed on the addition of programmed truck climbing lanes on steep grades, in 

particular on eastbound I-15 east of Baker towards Halloran Summit. There are no 

planned but unfunded improvements for this corridor identified in long-range planning 

documents. While there are no planned or programmed capacity improvements specific 

to this Segment, the I-15 freeway through this area is part of a larger system influenced by 

changes made in offsite locations. The No Action Alternative would result in increased 

traffic over either of the Action Alternatives, as traffic levels are expected to continue to 

increase without the introduction of passenger rail service. Along these lines, the No 

Action Alternative would also result in worsened air quality and a less efficient use of 

energy resources. 

In regard to the Action Alternative rail alignments, Segments 3B (Modified) and 3A would 

result in essentially similar potential environmental effects in the areas of land use, 

growth, farmlands and grazing lands, utilities and emergency services, traffic, visual 

resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, air quality, and energy resources. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 22 

For the following environmental topic areas, Segments 3B (Modified) and 3A differ in 

potential effects relative to cultural resources, hydrology and water resources, and 

biological resources, as described below. 

Compared to Segment 3A, Segment 3B (Modified) has somewhat greater potential to 

affect archaeological resources eligible or assumed eligible for listing in the National 

Register. This is due largely to the disturbed nature of the freeway median in which 

Segment 3A would have been constructed. Freeway construction either removed or 

severely damaged archaeological resources in what is now the freeway median. The vast 

majority of Segment 3 traverses non-urbanized areas; consequently, lands adjacent to the 

freeway, such as in the area proposed for Segment 3B (Modified), are somewhat more 

likely to yield intact resources than freeway median areas. However, Segment 3B has been 

designed to avoid both direct and indirect effects on sensitive cultural resources identified 

in Segment 3, which meet criteria for Section 4(f) protection. 

Segment 3B (Modified) would affect more linear feet of water resources than Segment 3A. 

This is due in part to the location of Segment 3B at lesser distances from such resources. 

While Segment 3A would be bounded on both sides by freeway lanes, Segment 3B 

(Modified) would have freeway lanes only to one side, allowing for greater proximity to 

existing water resources. In addition, Segment 3B (Modified) would impact 2.7 acres of 

the 100-year floodplain, relative to zero acres for Segment 3A. 

While some effects are similar between Segments 3B (Modified) and 3A (including the 

extent to which the Project imposes a barrier to wildlife movement), Segment 3B 

(Modified) would result in a greater extent/degree of biological resource impacts for many 

types of resources. This is the result of Segment 3B’s closer proximity to substantial 

resource areas outside freeway right-of-way as well as the degraded/limited nature of 

resources within freeway right-of-way. 

Constructing Segment 3A in the median would be more costly, more difficult to construct 

and maintain, and would pose more highway and rail operational, safety, and 

maintenance concerns than Segment 3B (Modified). In addition, Segment 3B (Modified) 

was selected because it would be located immediately adjacent to the I-15 freeway, would 

better allow for possible future widening and improvement activities on I-15 relative to 

Segment 3A, and reduces impacts to known sensitive resources. 

Taking all of the above into account, FRA chose Segment 3B (Modified) as part of the 

Selected Alternative, acknowledging that the benefits of Segment 3B(Modified) outweigh 

the impacts relative to Segment 3A in terms of biological, cultural, and hydrological 

resources. FRA has also identified mitigation measures to address and minimize the 

potential adverse impacts of Segment 3A. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 23 

Segment 4: 4A, if legislative action allows; otherwise 4C 

The Alternatives evaluated for Segment 4 were Segment 4A, Segment 4B, Segment 4C, and 

the No Action Alternative. 

The No Action Alternative does not include any proximate programmed capacity 

expansion improvements. A new I-15 Joint Point of Entry is to be constructed between 

Nipton Road and Yates Well Road, replacing the existing agricultural inspection facility 

near Yermo. Otherwise, there are no planned or programmed improvement or expansion 

projects contemplated for the I-15 corridor between Mountain Pass and the California/ 

Nevada state line.7 Accordingly, effects associated with the construction/expansion of 

freeway facilities would not be expected to occur in this vicinity. 

In much of the I-15 corridor for the extent of the Segment 4 area, the freeway offers just 

two travel lanes in each direction. There are no programmed or planned capacityenhancement improvements for this corridor in any long-range planning document. The 

I-15 freeway through this area is nonetheless part of a larger system influenced by changes 

made in offsite locations. Proposed freeway expansions on I-15 in Nevada (see the 

discussion of Segment 5 below) could have effects on portions of Segment 4. With no 

planned or programmed capacity improvements for this area, the No Action Alternative 

would result in increased traffic over any of the Action Alternatives, as traffic levels are 

expected to continue to increase without the introduction of passenger rail service. The 

No Action Alternative would also result in worsened air quality and the less efficient use of 

energy resources. 

For several environmental topic areas, the three Action Alternatives would result in 

similar potential environmental effects. These topic areas include growth, utilities and 

service systems, transportation, geology, hazardous materials, air quality, noise and 

vibration, and energy. 

The three Segment 4 Action Alternatives differ in terms of the potential effects relative to 

land use and community impacts, farmlands and grazing lands, visual resources, cultural 

resources, hydrology and water resources, and biological resources, as described below. 

Segment 4C was developed specifically to avoid the Preserve, the Ivanpah Desert Wildlife 

Management Area (DWMA), and the planned solar power energy project. A 1.55 mile 

portion of Segment 4A would traverse the Mojave National Preserve near Nipton Road as 

well as a portion of the nearby Ivanpah DWMA. Segment 4B would avoid the Preserve 

 

7 Segment 4C extends into the State Nevada for about 2 miles, the remainder of the 14 to 20 mile length of the 

Segment 4 action alternatives would be in the State of California. For this reason, roadway improvements to 

the I-15 corridor in Nevada are considered as part of the No Action Alternative for Segment 5. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 24 

and the DWMA, but would create adirect conflict with a planned solar power project 

located to the west of Ivanpah Dry Lake that could not be mitigated. 

The Segment 4C rail alignment is the longest route of the Segment 4 rail alignment 

options. At 20 miles, Segment 4C is about 6 miles longer than Segment 4A. Segment 4C 

diverges substantially from the existing I-15 freeway right-of-way and is less compatible 

with the undisturbed, natural land uses. In a contrast, except the portion that would 

encroach into the Mojave National Preserve, Segment 4A would be primarily located 

within the existing I-15 freeway right-of-way, which is disturbed by the existing 

transportation corridor and has more compatible land uses. 

Both Segment 4B and 4C pass through a large grazing allotment located to the north of I15. This allotment includes lands managed by the BLM as well as portions of the Clark 

Mountain Unit of the Mojave National Preserve. The NPS advised FRA that water sources 

within this grazing allotment as a whole are largely concentrated within lands of the Clark 

Mountain Unit. The introduction of a rail line into this allotment would result in potential 

severance effects; given the known location of water sources, the NPS indicated that the 

rail line would also have the effect of intensifying cattle usage/grazing activities within the 

Clark Mountain Unit. Segment 4A avoids this area and therefore has substantially fewer 

potential impacts to Farmlands and Grazing. 

Segment 4C and Segment 4B each traverse currently undeveloped areas, resulting in a 

more substantial overall visual change. Except for the 1.55 mile portion of Segment 4A 

that would traverse the Preserve, Segment 4A otherwise most closely adheres to the 

visually disturbed I-15 corridor area. 

Compared to Segments 4A and 4B, Segment 4C has somewhat greater potential to affect 

archaeological resources eligible or assumed eligible for listing in the National Register. 

This is due in part to the fact that Segment 4C would diverge the furthest from the freeway 

of all alignment options considered. Segments 4A and 4B are closer to the freeway 

corridor and freeway adjacent areas that have seen a somewhat greater level of 

disturbance than the lands identified for Segment 4C. Because Segment 4C is longer than 

the other segments and traverses lands less likely to have been disturbed, Segment 4C is 

more likely to involve intact cultural resources than the other segments. 

Segment 4C involves substantially greater impact to water resources, as measured in 

linear feet, relative to the other routing options. This is a function of the location of 

Segment 4C closer to water resources as well as its longer length. Segment 4C involves a 

higher number of stream crossings than either Segment 4A or 4B. Similarly, Segment 4C 

may impact more sensitive plant and desert tortoise habitat than either of the other 

routing options. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 25 

While Segment 4C would avoid the Ivanpah DWMA, Segment 4C would nonetheless result 

in adverse effects to desert tortoise habitat north of the I-15 freeway. However, legislative 

action is required to grant a ROW through the Mojave National Preserve to implement 

Segment 4A. As of June 2011, no legislation is pending that would facilitate any such 

grant. 

Stakeholder agencies in the area have recommended selection of Segment 4A over 

Segment 4C. In a February 2011 letter to FRA, the NPS acknowledged the lack of 

legislative authority at present to grant such a ROW, but indicated the NPS’s preference 

for Segment 4A because the vicinity of Segment 4A would adhere more closely to the I-15 

corridor than Segment 4C and would traverse lands that have been largely disturbed, 

unlike portions of Segment 4C. In addition, in its April 2011 BO, the USFWS 

recommended that FRA select Segment 4A over Segment 4C, citing that Segment 4A 

would result in far fewer impacts to desert tortoise and would result in less 

fragmentation/disturbance of desert tortoise habitat relative to Segment 4C. Segment 4B 

was not chosen as part of the Selected Alternative because of the insurmountable conflict 

of this alternative with a solar energy project. 

Segment 4A has several environmental advantages over Segment 4C, and as such, 

Segment 4A is selected by the FRA as the superior alignment alternative in consideration 

of the economic, environmental, and technical factors used to identify the Selected 

Alternative. However, since Segment 4A cannot be implemented at present due to a lack 

legislative authorization, FRA also included the Segment 4C rail alignment as part of the 

Selected Alternative, as a contingency. In making this selection, FRA considered the 

adverse effects of Segment 4C (including biological, cultural, and hydrological resources 

impacts) and adopted mitigation to address these impacts. 

Segment 5: 5B 

The Alternatives evaluated for Segment 5 were Segment 5A, Segment 5B, and the No 

Action Alternative. 

In terms of the No Action Alternative, several transportation system improvements are 

programmed or planned for the area between Primm and Sloan. Programmed 

improvements include a new interchange at mile 3 of I-15, intended to serve the SNSA, 

even though planning efforts for the SNSA were halted in 2010. A planned but unfunded 

improvement would widen I-15 from six lanes to eight lanes between the California State 

line and Sloan Road. 

The construction and operation of these roadway system improvements would likely result 

in temporary and permanent physical environmental effects associated with new or 

expanded freeway facilities. Ground disturbance within the I-15 corridor associated with 

the expansion of freeway lanes would have many similar effects to biological, cultural, and 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 26 

hydrological resources as those associated with constructing a rail alignment in the same 

general location. 

For several environmental topic areas, Segment 5B and 5A would result in generally 

similar potential environmental effects. These topic areas include land use, growth, 

farmlands/grazing lands, utilities and service systems, transportation, visual resources, 

geology, hazardous materials, air quality, noise and vibration, and energy. 

The Segment 5 alignment routing options differ in terms of potential effects relative to 

cultural resources, hydrology, and biological resources, as described below. Compared to 

Segment 5A, Segment 5B has somewhat greater potential to affect archaeological 

resources eligible or assumed eligible for listing in the National Register. This is due 

largely to the disturbed nature of the freeway median in which Segment 5A would be 

constructed. Freeway construction has been found to have either removed or damaged 

archaeological resources in what is now the freeway median. The vast majority of 

Segment 5 traverses non-urbanized areas; consequently, lands adjacent to the freeway, 

such as in the area proposed for Segment 5B, are somewhat more likely to yield intact 

resources than freeway median areas. 

In terms of hydrology, the two alignment routings are generally similar, but Segment 5B 

would impact about 1 acre of the 100-year flood plain, whereas Segment 5A would involve 

no use of the 100-year flood plain. 

Owing to its distance from the freeway and thus closer proximity to relatively undisturbed 

lands, Segment 5B would result in more substantial impacts to biological resources (in 

particular, desert tortoise habitat) than Segment 5A. Other notable biological resource 

effects are similar, including the extent to which the Project would impose a barrier to 

wildlife movement. 

Constructing Segment 5A in the median would be more costly, more difficult to construct 

and maintain, and was determined by the FHWA and the Nevada Department of 

Transportation (NDOT) to pose more highway and rail operational concerns than 

Segment 5B. The Segment 5B rail alignment would be on the outside edge of the I-15 

freeway right-of-way, more readily accommodating of the anticipated future widening of 

the I-15 freeway. 

Taking all of the above considerations into account, FRA chose Segment 5B for the 

Selected Alternative, acknowledging that the potential adverse effects associated with 

Segment 5B are outweighed by the substantial feasibility, operations, maintenance, and 

safety concerns of Segment 5A. FRA has also identified mitigation measures to address 

and minimize the potential adverse impacts of Segment 5B. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 27 

Segment 6: 6B 

The Alternatives evaluated for Segment 6 were Segment 6A, Segment 6B, Segment 6C, and 

the No Action Alternative. 

In terms of the No Action Alternative, NDOT has programmed or planned numerous 

capacity expansion/system enhancement projects for the I-15 corridor between Sloan and 

metropolitan Las Vegas. These improvements include widening the I-15 corridor from 6 

to 10 lanes between Sloan Road and Blue Diamond Road, several new or reconstructed 

interchanges, and improvements to adjacent roadways. Between I-215 and I-515 to the 

north (near downtown Las Vegas), NDOT has programmed widening the I-15 freeway 

from 10 to 14 lanes. These improvements, albeit considerable, would primarily serve 

existing and anticipated future traffic needs in the metropolitan Las Vegas area. These 

improvements would not expand freeway capacity outside the metropolitan area and thus 

would have marginal benefit to traffic on the larger I-15 corridor towards southern 

California. 

The construction and operation of these roadway system improvements would likely result 

in temporary and permanent physical environmental effects associated with new or 

expanded freeway facilities. These effects include but are not limited to increased levels of 

air pollutants and adverse impacts to any adjacent or proximate biological, cultural, 

and/or hydrological resources. When in operation, these improvements are expected to 

lead to additional automobile traffic, which would result in related increased air pollutant 

emissions and continued inefficient use of energy resources. 

For several environmental topic areas, the three Segment 6 Action Alternative routing 

options would result in generally similar potential environmental effects. These topic 

areas include growth, farmlands/grazing lands, utilities and service systems, 

transportation, visual resources, geology, hazardous materials, air quality, and energy. 

The Segment 6 routing options differ in terms of potential effects relative to land use, 

cultural resources, hydrology and water resources, noise and vibration, and biological 

resources, as described below. 

Near McCarran International Airport, the alignment options differ in terms of potential 

effect relative to preserving adequate clearance under “one engine inoperative” (OEI) 

conditions associated with aircraft on takeoff. Segment 6A would be the closest of the 

three rail alignments to the runway and would result in the most substantial impact 

relative to OEI. Segment 6B is further west of the airport than Segment 6A, resulting in 

less intrusion into the OEI area compared to Segment 6A. Given its substantial distance 

from the airport, Segment 6C was found to be outside the OEI area of concern; however, 

the Union Pacific Railroad, which owns the corridor in which Segment 6C is proposed, 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 28 

advised FRA that it would not allow the construction of additional tracks for DesertXpress 

in its corridor. This represents a substantial land use conflict for Segment 6C. 

Much of Segment 6 is in the developed metropolitan Las Vegas area. Segments 6A and 6B 

traverse the core of metropolitan Las Vegas; extensive development throughout this area 

has resulted in substantial disturbance and consequentially, FRA found relatively few 

intact cultural resources eligible or assumed eligible for listing in the National Register. 

Freeway construction and freeway adjacent development has been found to have either 

removed or damaged archaeological resources. On the other hand, Segment 6C would 

follow the Union Pacific Railroad corridor from Sloan toward central Las Vegas, following 

a somewhat less developed route. Accordingly, Segment 6C has the greatest potential to 

result in effects to cultural resources owing to the relatively less disturbed nature of the 

Union Pacific Railroad corridor, particularly near Sloan. 

Segment 6B would affect more linear feet of water resources (about 3,900 feet) than 

Segment 6A (zero feet) or Segment 6C (77 feet). Segment 6B would have freeway lanes 

only to one side, allowing for greater proximity to existing water resources than Segment 

6A, which would be bounded on both sides by freeway lanes. In addition, Segment 6B 

would utilize more acreage of the 100-year floodplain than either Segment 6A or 6C. 

Segment 6B would have fewer impacts and severe noise and vibration impacts on sensitive 

receptors compared to Segment 6A. While Segment 6B would have impacts to sensitive 

receptors to the west of the I-15 corridor, Segment 6A (median) would have impacts to 

sensitive receptors on both the west and east sides of the I-15 corridor. Segment 6C would 

result in no noise or vibration impacts; it would traverse an existing rail corridor that does 

not include a substantial number of nearby sensitive receptors. 

Owing to greater distance from the freeway and thus closer proximity to relatively 

undisturbed lands, Segments 6B and 6C would result in more substantial impacts to 

biological resources (in particular, desert tortoise habitat) than Segment 6A. Other 

biological resource effects are generally similar, including the extent to which the Project 

would impose a barrier to wildlife movement. 

Taking all of the above into account, FRA chose Segment 6B for the Selected Alternative. 

FRA acknowledges that the adverse effects identified for Segment 6B are outweighed by 

other factors, including the infeasibility of constructing Segment 6C in the Union Pacific 

right-of-way, the substantial feasibility and safety concerns of constructing and operating 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 29 

Segment 6A in the median.8 FRA has also identified mitigation measures to address and 

minimize the potential adverse impacts of Segment 6B. 

4.3.1 FACILITIES

As part of composing a complete Selected Alternative, FRA identified facilities needed for 

rail construction and operation. 

Victorville Station and Maintenance Facility Site Options - Victorville Station 

Site 3B and OMSF2 

FRA and the Cooperating Agencies evaluated a total of 4 Victorville Station site options 

(VV1, VV2, VV3A, and VV3B) and two Victorville maintenance facilities (OMSF 1 and 

OMSF 2). 

FRA and the Cooperating Agencies also considered the No Action Alternative, which 

would not construct a new high-speed rail passenger station and a new ancillary 

maintenance facility in Victorville. Freeway system improvements would be constructed 

as discussed above with regard to Segment 1. The No Action Alternative would result in 

ongoing expanded use of the I-15 freeway corridor with no reduction in traffic associated 

with the introduction of high-speed passenger rail service. The No Action Alternative 

would entail few if any of the physical environmental impacts associated with any of the 

action alternatives, as transportation demand in the I-15 corridor would continue to be 

served by existing modes (auto, bus, airplane) with no foreseeable need to construct 

transportation-related facilities in the Victorville area. However, the No Action 

Alternative would result in increased traffic over either of the Action Alternatives, as 

traffic levels are expected to continue to increase without the introduction of passenger 

rail service. Along these lines, the No Action Alternative would also result in worsened air 

quality and a less efficient use of energy resources. 

Given the proximity of the Victorville station and maintenance facility site options, the 

action alternatives would result in generally similar environmental effects for most topics 

considered. Areas in which the action alternatives would result in substantially different 

effects are summarized below. 

Passenger traffic associated with VV3 (both A and B) and VV2 would result in local 

intersection impacts that can be adequately mitigated. Expected passenger traffic 

associated with VV1 would result in local intersection impacts that cannot be adequately 

avoided or lessened with mitigation measures. 

 

8 As further articulated below, the Southern and Central B Stations were included in the Selected Alternative. 

Consequently, the rail alignment would terminate with Segment 6. Therefore, the Selected Alternative does 

not include any Segment 7 rail alignment. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 30 

Relative to other action alternatives, VV3 (both A and B) and OMSF2 would result in 

substantially greater impacts in terms of linear feet of affected water resources and 

alteration of existing drainage patterns. This is because these sites are located over an 

existing natural wash. 

Relative to the other site options considered, VV3 (A or B) and OMSF 2 would impact a 

greater total acreage of desert tortoise habitat, related in part to the larger size of VV3 (A 

or B) and the presence of the aforementioned wash within the facility footprints. 

FRA thus ultimately chose VV3B for the Selected Alternative due to the reduced traffic 

impacts at local intersections and cumulative effects compared to VV1 and VV2. 

Furthermore, VV3B was selected because it avoids locating the parking areas and 

structures beneath the LADWP electric utility corridor, as associated with VV3A. 

In selecting VV3B for the Victorville Station, FRA also opted for its paired, immediately 

adjacent maintenance facility site option, OMSF2. OMSF 1 was rejected due to its 6-mile 

distance from VV3B to allow for a greater efficiency of land use and more efficient rail 

operations. An additional benefit of the selection of VV3B is that it is the closest of the 

three station options to the City of Barstow, and accordingly, residents of both the City of 

Victorville and the City of Barstow would be realistic candidates for operational period 

jobs at the station and/or the maintenance facility. 

Las Vegas Station and Maintenance Facilities – Southern Station or Central 

Station B; Wigwam Avenue MSF, and Frias Substation 

FRA and the Cooperating Agencies evaluated a total of four Las Vegas area station site 

options (Southern, Central A, Central B, and Downtown); four maintenance facility sites 

(Sloan Road, Relocated Sloan Road, Wigwam Avenue, and Robindale Avenue); and a 

substation site (Frias Substation). Two of the maintenance facility sites (Sloan Road and 

Relocated Sloan Road) included substations and associated electrical utility corridors 

needed to deliver electrical power to the Project from the existing energy network in the 

event the EMU technology option was selected. The Wigwam Avenue and Robindale 

Avenue facility sites did not include substations or electrical utility corridors. Accordingly, 

a stand-alone substation site (Frias Substation) was also evaluated so that either the 

Wigwam Avenue or Robindale Avenue sites could be selected in the event the EMU 

technology was also selected. 

Following publication of the Draft EIS, the Sloan Road site was found to be incompatible 

with proposed roadway improvements associated with the planned Southern Nevada 

Supplemental Airport (SNSA). Owing to this conflict, FHWA and NDOT requested that 

the facility site be relocated. To this end, the Applicant identified a new site for the facility 

(Relocated Sloan Road MSF); the new site was evaluated in the Supplemental Draft EIS. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 31 

Because of the conflict with the planned roadway improvements associated with the 

SNSA, FRA rejected the Sloan Road site from consideration as part of the Selected 

Alternative. 

For these and all built facilities, FRA and the Cooperating Agencies also considered the No 

Action Alternative, which would not construct a new high-speed rail passenger station and 

new ancillary maintenance facilities in Las Vegas. In the area proposed for these built 

facilities, freeway system improvements would be constructed as discussed above with 

regard to Segment 6. The No Action Alternative would result in ongoing expanded use of 

the I-15 freeway corridor with no reduction in traffic associated with the introduction of 

high-speed passenger rail service. The No Action Alternative would entail few if any of the 

physical environmental impacts associated with any of the action alternatives, as 

transportation demand in the I-15 corridor would continue to be served by existing modes 

(auto, bus, airplane), taking into consideration planned expansions and improvements. 

However, the No Action Alternative would result in increased traffic over either of the 

Action Alternatives, as traffic levels are expected to continue to increase without the 

introduction of passenger rail service. Along these lines, the No Action Alternative would 

also result in worsened air quality and a less efficient use of energy resources. 

As noted in the Final EIS, the environmental effects associated with the station sites are 

generally similar with a few notable differences, further discussed below. 

The Southern Station is in close proximity to the southern end of the Las Vegas Strip as 

well as McCarran International Airport. The Southern Station site is undeveloped and 

would not require displacement or demolition of any existing development. There is also 

no residential development in proximity to the Southern Station. The Southern Station 

would also result in an overall shorter alignment length of about 2 to 6 miles when 

compared to the Central A/B or Downtown station sites. As most of Segment 6B through 

metropolitan Las Vegas would be placed on elevated structures within or immediately 

adjacent to the I-15 corridor, the Southern Station would avoid the need to construct a 

substantial amount of elevated trackway that would be needed to access the Central or 

Downtown station sites. 

The Central A and B stations are also proximate to the visitor-serving attractions of the 

Las Vegas Strip. The Central B station would require the displacement of existing 

industrial businesses and is near residential development; an apartment complex lies 

immediately across the Union Pacific Railroad tracks adjacent to the Central B site. 

Central A and B require a smaller facility footprint than the Southern Station and would 

produce less stormwater runoff. 

The Downtown Station would require the longest track length of all the station sites 

considered and would terminate the train the furthest from the visitor-serving attractions 

of the Las Vegas Strip. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 32 

FRA included the Las Vegas Southern Station as well as the Central Station B site as part 

of the Selected Alternative. While the environmental effects of both station sites were fully 

analyzed, FRA opted to allow for flexibility in the design-build process while 

simultaneously addressing the assumed lower cost to construct at the Southern Station 

site (due to lower overall track mileage). 

FRA then selected the Wigwam Avenue MSF as the Las Vegas area maintenance facility 

site. The Wigwam Avenue MSF site option was selected because it would result in fewer 

impacts to sensitive biological resources compared to the Relocated Sloan Road MSF and 

Robindale Avenue MSF site options. 

As the Wigwam Avenue MSF would not include a substation or utility corridor on site, the 

Frias Substation would be required in addition to this MSF to provide electricity to the rail 

alignment. The Frias Substation would be located west of the I-15 freeway at the 

intersection of West Frias Avenue and South Dean Martin Drive. The Frias Substation is 

located immediately adjacent to an existing electrical transmission line. 

Because FRA selected action alternatives for the rail alignment and the built facilities, the 

Selected Alternative also incorporates associated Temporary Construction Areas (TCAs). 

TCA sites were identified specific to various rail segments and/or facilities. In identifying 

specific rail segments and facilities, FRA included associated TCAs as part of the Selected 

Alternative. The rail segments and facilities associated with the Selected Alternative entail 

the need for a total of 16 TCAs, a subset of the 29 evaluated. Several TCA sites are colocated on the sites of permanent facilities. 

4.3.2 TECHNOLOGY

FRA and the Cooperating Agencies considered the EMU and DEMU technology options as 

the two proven train technologies, having rejected other technologies as cost-prohibitive 

for a private project or unsuitable to provide reliable high-speed service given the terrain. 

The No Action Alternative was also considered, consisting of all planned and programmed 

transportation system improvements as identified in Final EIS Section 2.3.1.1. 

Both the DEMU and EMU options would result in beneficial effects relative to the No 

Action Alternative. The use of either technology option would reduce the number of 

automobiles on I-15, improving traffic conditions, reducing auto-related air pollution, and 

resulting in a more efficient use of energy resources. The No Action Alternative would 

perpetuate the existing transportation system and not provide any new alternative that 

could reduce auto travel between Southern California and Las Vegas. 

Relative to the DEMU technology, the EMU technology would result in faster top and 

average train speeds, which would reduce overall travel time and would thus be expected 

to have a positive effect on projected ridership. The EMU trainsets also serve larger 

passenger capacities than the DEMU trains, further enhancing ridership and contributing 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 33 

to a further reduction in freeway vehicle miles traveled. The EMU’s greater reduction in 

freeway vehicle miles traveled relative to the DEMU allows for related improvements in 

terms of energy consumption and air pollutant emissions. However, the EMU option 

requires additional facilities not necessary with the DEMU option. These include utility 

corridors linking Project facilities to external sources of electricity, the catenary system 

needed to provide continuous electric power to the trains along the entire route, a total of 

17 autotransformers located at intervals immediately adjacent to the alignment, and a 

free-standing electrical substation in the Las Vegas area (at Frias Avenue). The additional 

facilities and catenary system would result in the EMU option having greater visual effects 

than the EMU option. 

Considering the EMU would result in greater ridership, an estimated 1.4 million more 

riders than the DEMU option by 2030, and have the greatest potential benefit in terms of 

air quality and energy, which would outweigh the greater visual effects of the EMU, FRA 

chose the EMU over the DEMU for the Selected Alternative. 

4.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE 

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA require 

that a ROD specify the alternative or alternatives considered to be environmentally 

preferable.9 “Environmentally preferable” is defined as “the alternative that will promote 

the national environmental policy as expressed in the NEPA, Section 101.”10 Ordinarily 

this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical 

environment; it also means the alternative that best protects, preserves, and enhances 

historic, cultural, and natural resources. 

FRA, FHWA, BLM, NPS and OEA identified an environmentally preferable alternative in 

Chapter 2.5 of the FEIS. 

In determining an environmentally preferable alternative, FRA and the Cooperating 

Agencies considered all action alternatives as well as the No Action Alternative. FRA and 

the Cooperating Agencies weighed and balanced the physical environmental effects 

associated with the action alternatives as well as those associated with the No Action 

Alternative. FRA determined that the adverse environmental effects associated with the 

Selected Action Alternative were less substantial than the consequences associated with 

the No Action Alternative in terms of air quality, energy, and traffic, and thus identified an 

action alternative as environmentally preferable. 

 

9 40 CFR 1505.2 

10 Forty Most Asked Questions Concerning CEQ’s National Environmental Policy Act Regulations, 46 FR 

18026 (March 23, 1981)., 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 34 

In addition, numerous economic, environmental, technical and other factors led the FRA 

to deviate from the environmentally preferable alternative in favor of the Selected 

Alternative identified above. The environmentally preferable alternative identified by FRA 

and the Cooperating Agencies is discussed in detail below: 

4.4.1ALIGNMENT: ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE

Segment 1: Segment 1, the only action alternative in this location, is environmentally 

preferable. 

Segment 2: 2C, Median. The “median option” for Segment 2C reduces the degree of 

noise, vibration, and visual effects from the perspective of the northern side of the I-15 

corridor through Barstow. Similarly, lands in the freeway median area are more highly 

disturbed (as a result of freeway construction) relative to areas alongside the freeway or 

outside the I-15 corridor entirely. To this end, the Segment 2C Median alignment would 

result in the lowest level of impacts to biological, cultural, and hydrological resources, 

owing to substantial existing ground disturbance in the I-15 freeway median. However, 

Segment 2C Median would result in noise and vibration impacts occurring on both sides of 

the I-15 corridor, not solely on the north side, because it would be close to additional 

sensitive receptors. In addition, constructing the train in the median is more costly, is 

more difficult to construct and maintain, and poses more highway and rail operational and 

safety concerns than the side-running options in general. 

Segment 3: 3A (Median). Outside the urbanized areas, Segment 3A typically results in 

fewer impacts to biological and cultural resources, insofar as the median of the freeway is 

usually a highly disturbed area with relatively few resources. However, in the Halloran 

Springs area, the median option would result in a greater degree of effects to sensitive 

resources relative to Segment 3B (Modified). Moreover, Segment 3A’s location in the 

median would be more costly and difficult to construct and maintain and poses more 

highway and rail operational and safety concerns than side-running options. 

Segment 4: 4A, via Nipton Road. Segment 4A is the shortest of the three options for 

Segment 4, and adheres most closely to the I-15 corridor, but a 1.55 mile portion of 

Segment 4A would traverse the Mojave National Preserve near Nipton Road. Segment 4A 

would avoid and/or minimize many of the impacts associated with Segment 4C, including 

fragmentation of wildlife/habitat areas, severance of grazing lands, and impacts to 

hydrological features. Segment 4C was designed to avoid the approved Ivanpah Solar 

Electric Generating System (ISEGS) utility project. 

As described above, FRA has included Segment 4A as the Selected Alternative and 

Segment 4C as a contingent Selected Alternative in the absence of legislation permitting 

the implementation of Segment 4A. At present there is no legal mechanism for the NPS to 

grant a transportation right-of-way use through the Mojave National Preserve. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 35 

Nevertheless, both the NPS and the USFWS in its BO stated a preference for Segment 4A 

over Segment 4C. As of May 2011, however, no legislation is pending before Congress that 

could, if enacted, allow the use of the Preserve as a transportation right-of-way. 

Segment 5: 5A (Median). Outside the urbanized areas, constructing and operating the 

train in the freeway median (where Segment 5A would be located) typically results in 

fewer impacts to biological, cultural, and hydrological resources, because the 

developed/disturbed nature of the median has eliminated or compromised the integrity of 

such resources. However, Segment 5A would be more costly and difficult to construct and 

maintain and would pose more highway and rail operational and safety concerns than 

Segment 5B, running along the freeway corridor. 

Segment 6: 6A (Median). Segment 6 comprises an area that transitions from relatively 

undeveloped desert in the south to the core of metropolitan Las Vegas in the north. 

Outside the urbanized areas, constructing, and operating the train in the freeway median, 

as proposed in Segment 6A, would typically result in fewer impacts to biological, cultural, 

and hydrological resources, because the developed/disturbed nature of the median has 

eliminated or compromised the integrity of such resources. However, Segment 6A would 

be more costly and difficult to construct and maintain and poses more highway and rail 

operational and safety concerns than either of the side-running options considered 

(Segments 6B and 6C). 

4.4.2 FACILITIES 

Victorville Station Site Option: VV2. This site has a smaller footprint than both 

VV3A and VV3B; both VV2 and VV3B (the latter included in the Selected Alternative) and 

avoids potential land use conflicts with lands beneath Los Angeles Department of Water 

and Power overhead electrical utility lines. The selection of VV2 would result in 

significant traffic impacts to the Stoddard Wells Road interchange, but these impacts 

could be mitigated successfully. VV3B was identified as preferable because Caltrans 

expressed concern about VV2 having potential conflicts with planned freeway 

improvements in the area. 

Victorville OMSF Site Option: OMSF 2 (same as Selected Alternative). In identifying 

VV2 as the environmentally preferable station site option, the proximity of OMSF 2 to VV2 

makes it the environmental preferable Victorville OMSF option. 

Las Vegas Station: Generally, the four Las Vegas Station Site options do not 

substantially differ in terms of potential environmental impacts. All Las Vegas Station 

options would be located within the existing urban context of the metropolitan Las Vegas 

area. However, the Central Station B and Downtown Station sites would result in the 

displacement of industrial uses, whereas the Central Station A and Southern Station sites 

are currently used for surface parking or are undeveloped, with no business 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 36 

displacements. The Southern Station would allow for the shortest overall rail length while 

achieving reasonable proximity to the visitor-serving attractions of the Las Vegas Strip 

and also proximity to McCarran International Airport. 

Las Vegas Maintenance and Storage Facilities: Wigwam MSF and Frias Substation 

(same as Selected Alternative). Although the Wigwam MSF option requires the relocation 

of existing businesses, the Robindale MSF site is closer to residential development, posing 

a potential land use conflict. Moreover, the Relocated Sloan Road MSF site is outside the 

boundary of urban infrastructure districts, such as water and wastewater, thus requiring 

either connections to urban infrastructure or costly transport of water/sewage to and from 

the site. 

4.4.3TECHNOLOGY 

The EMU technology option is both the Selected Alternative and the environmentally 

preferable alternative because the EMU option would result in greater ridership and have 

the greatest potential benefit in terms of air quality and energy. 

5.0 Summary of Potential Effects and Measures to 

Avoid and Minimize Harm 

FRA and the Cooperating Agencies conducted a comprehensive review and analysis of the 

potential impacts of the Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS, building upon the impact 

analysis of the Draft and Supplemental Draft EIS documents. This included impacts to 

both natural and human resources. Consistent with NEPA, FRA and the Cooperating 

Agencies identified and compared both adverse and beneficial effects associated with the 

Preferred Alternative, all other action alternatives and the No Action Alternative. The 

effects of the Selected Alternative (which is the same as the Preferred Alternative from the 

Final EIS), which is approved as the “Project” in this ROD, are summarized below. 

Beneficial Environmental Effects 

 Reduce traffic along the I-15 freeway 

 Economic growth near station areas 

 Reduced air pollutant emissions, resulting in improved operational period air 

quality 

 Reduced operational period energy consumption 

Adverse Environmental Impacts: 

 Sensitive biological resources, including protected species and habitat areas 

 Cultural resources, including archaeological resources 

 Hydrologic resources 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 37 

 Increased traffic near stations 

 Land use and community impacts, including business displacement 

 Water supply and service 

 Noise level increase 

 Emissions of air pollutants during construction 

 Disruption/severance of grazing land allotments 

Consistent with 40 CFR 1505.2(c), all practicable means to avoid or minimize 

environmental harm from the Project have been identified and included as mitigation 

measures in Appendix A, which are formal commitments associated with Project 

approval. 

In designing, constructing, and operating the proposed railroad, the Applicant is required 

to adhere to all mitigation measures described Appendix A. FRA and the Cooperating 

Agencies will incorporate this requirement in Project approvals. 

Consistent with 40 CFR 1505.3, FRA as Lead agency and certain Cooperating Agencies will 

monitor construction and operation of the Project to ensure that all Agency decisions are 

carried out. This will include but is not limited to a comprehensive mitigation and 

monitoring plan that FRA and certain Cooperating Agencies will require and oversee as a 

means to ensure that all commitments identified in Appendix A are upheld during 

construction and operation of the Project. It is anticipated that the mitigation and 

monitoring plan, comprised of the mitigation measures in Appendix A, will be developed 

by the Applicant in close coordination with FRA and the Cooperating Agencies. The 

Applicant will submit the completed plan for FRA review and approval prior to 

implementation. In approving the comprehensive mitigation monitoring plan, FRA will 

coordinate with relevant agencies on mitigation issues within their specific area of 

expertise. This will include FAA’s Regional Administrator’s Office, Airports Division, and 

Flight Standards Division for construction activities near McCarran International Airport 

in Las Vegas and the proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport between Primm 

and Jean, Nevada. 

5.1 LAND USE AND COMMUNITY IMPACTS 

Land use and community impacts could occur if the Project resulted in incompatibility 

with adjacent land uses, incompatibility with land use plans, a substantial number of 

housing units displaced, extensive community disruption/severance, or a substantial 

number of environmental justice communities crossed or within one mile of facilities. 

Where the Project is within or close to the existing I-15 corridor, the Project is most 

typically compatible with adjacent land uses. The Project is generally compatible with 

several land uses typical along the I-15 corridor, including industrial lands, most public 

facilities, and certain commercial uses. Lower compatibility is associated with both 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 38 

Segment 4A and Segment 4C. Segment 4A would traverse through a portion of the Mojave 

National Preserve; both Segment 4A and Segment 4C would result in low compatibility 

with BLM Multiple Use Class M and L lands. At several locations along the Project 

corridor, residential development is located in close proximity to the I-15 freeway, in some 

locations without any protective sound barriers or other separation. Such existing 

residential uses are considered incompatible with the existing freeway use. The Project’s 

addition of a secondary transportation use in the freeway corridor would increase the 

degree of existing incompatibility. Where the Project would have a noise impact, the 

installation of soundwalls that fully mitigate identified impacts is a commitment associate 

with project approval. Mitigation is also provided to fully address other compatibility 

impacts, including locations where the DesertXpress rail alignment would conflict with an 

existing or proposed aviation use; see additional discussion below. Appendix A of this 

ROD details the mitigation measures detailed in the Final EIS and incorporates these 

mitigation measures as formal commitments associated with Project approval. 

Similarly, effects related to compatibility with land use plans are highly location-specific. 

For much of the Project corridor, existing land uses are consistent with what governing 

land use plans permit. As noted above, the additional transportation use is generally 

compatible with several existing land uses; by extension, the Project is also compatible 

with planned land uses. One exception to this relates to the extensive amount of land 

identified for residential uses outside of established communities. In particular, 

substantial areas of land along the I-15 corridor near Segment 3B are designated for 

residential use in governing land use plans. Both Segment 4A and Segment 4C would 

have low compatibility with residential land use designations near Mountain Pass along 

the I-15 freeway corridor. However, very little residential development exists in these 

areas. The lack of necessary infrastructure in these areas, particularly related to water 

delivery, strongly suggests that any additional residential development in these isolated 

areas would be at a very small scale, thus leading to minimal future compatibility 

concerns. 

Potential incompatibility with existing and proposed aviation facilities were the only 

significant adverse land use effects identified in the analysis requiring mitigation. A 

mitigation measure was modified to address a potential identified conflict between the 

DesertXpress rail alignment and the “one engine inoperative” zone associated with 

Runway 25R at McCarran Las Vegas International Airport. The modified mitigation 

measure would ensure that the rail alignment does not penetrate the one-engine 

inoperative zone. In addition, this ROD includes a modified mitigation measure to 

address identified conflicts between the DesertXpress rail alignment in a designated 

Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) for the planned Southern Nevada Supplemental Airport 

(SNSA) near Primm. The modified mitigation measure would involve further 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 39 

coordination with FAA during the Project’s detail design phase to ensure the Applicant 

complies with FAA Airport Design Standards. 

FRA also notes that planning for the SNSA was indefinitely suspended in June 2010 with 

no clear indication as of June 2011 as to when work may resume. In the event that the 

SNSA project is more formally canceled or modified, this mitigation measure may be 

changed. Appendix A of this ROD incorporates these mitigation measures as formal 

commitments associated with Project approval. 

The Project would not require the removal or displacement of any housing units. There 

are no existing housing units within the path of the rail alignment, nor in areas where 

permanent facilities or temporary construction areas are proposed. The extent of 

displacement is limited to business displacement in metropolitan Clark County in the 

locations of the Wigwam Avenue MSF and Las Vegas Central Station B. The Applicant 

would be responsible for complying with all applicable federal, state, and local laws 

pertaining to the displacement of these businesses. 

A severance or community disruption impact would occur if any element of the Project 

resulted in the physical division of an existing community. With the exception of a portion 

of Segment 2C east of Barstow and most of Segment 4C, the entire rail alignment would be 

located within the existing I-15 corridor. All of the rail alignment would be fully gradeseparated and would otherwise not pose any new barrier or physical division in a 

community. Where the alignment deviates from the I-15 corridor, such as the eastern 

reaches of Segment 2C or all of Segment 4C, grade-separations would still be required to 

maintain local access, limiting the potential for any severance effect to occur. Further, no 

Project facility would cause or result in community disruption or severance. 

An effect related to environmental justice would occur if the adverse environmental effects 

of the Project were disproportionately borne by one or more defined “environmental 

justice” communities. These are defined as U.S. Census block groups with majority 

populations of lower-income people or ethnic minorities. The analysis identified 

numerous environmental justice communities in the immediate Project area between 

Victorville and Las Vegas. In several locations, portions of the rail alignment and certain 

permanent facilities (such as VV3B) would be located within or immediately adjacent to 

an environmental justice community which could result in adverse environmental effects 

in terms of air quality, noise, and traffic impacts. However, required mitigation, as 

detailed in Appendix A, will avoid or minimize any residual environmental effects so 

there is no potential for disproportionate air quality, noise, and traffic impact to 

environmental justice communities in the vicinity of the Project. The Project would in fact 

result in several beneficial impacts to regional air quality and traffic that would be of a 

general benefit, including to environmental justice communities. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 40 

Appendix A of this ROD details the land use and community impact mitigation 

measures, which are formal commitments associated with Project approval. No residual 

impacts from the Project are anticipated after implementation of mitigation. 

5.2 GROWTH 

Growth impacts could occur as a result of the Project in association with changes to 

permanent employment, removal of growth obstacles, fostering transit-oriented 

development, or effects to economic vitality. 

The Project’s stations and maintenance facilities would provide several hundred new 

permanent job opportunities in and near their respective communities. The Victorville 

Station and maintenance facilities would create approximately 361 to 463 permanent jobs 

in the area. In the Las Vegas area, the Las Vegas Station and maintenance facilities would 

create approximately 154 to 251 permanent jobs. These permanent jobs could cause an 

increase in spending in each area, resulting in a secondary regional economic benefit. 

Lack of utilities and urban facilities are the most common impediments to growth of 

undeveloped areas. The Project would traverse significant areas of undeveloped lands that 

have little to no utilities or urban services, it would not extend utilities to these areas in a 

way that would remove an impediment to growth. The Project would construct additional 

transportation, electrical and communications infrastructure; however, this infrastructure 

would not remove an impediment to growth because it would not be readily available to 

adjacent land uses, with the exception of areas in close proximity to stations and 

maintenance facilities. Such facilities would all be located within already urbanized areas 

or areas planned for urbanization. 

The Project could foster limited transit-oriented development (TOD) within the vicinity of 

the station facilities, but the amount is anticipated to be small. Unlike other rail lines, the 

Project would primarily serve non-work trips between the two stations; use of the rail line 

for frequent commute trips is expected to be minimal. Notwithstanding, the Project could 

potentially attract people to live in the near vicinity of one of the stations in order to take 

advantage of high-speed rail service between the two ends. Although anticipated to be 

small, there is potential for the Project to result in beneficial TOD effects within the 

vicinity of the stations. 

The addition of new permanent jobs through operation of the Project may indirectly affect 

the economic vitality of the local economy in the greater Victorville and metropolitan Las 

Vegas areas. With new employment opportunities, spending in the areas could increase, 

thus contributing to local economic growth, potentially of benefit to surrounding areas. 

The Project’s economic effects in the City of Barstow elicited substantial commentary. 

With its comments on the Supplemental Draft EIS, the City of Barstow submitted a report 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 41 

assessing the economic impact of DesertXpress to the City of Barstow (“Barbieri Report”). 

After careful consideration and analysis of the Barbieri Report, FRA identified concerns 

over the methodology of conclusions of this report in its own economic study prepared by 

regional economist John Husing, Ph.D. (“Husing Study”; Final EIS Appendix F-E), which 

was prepared for FRA to provide further insight into the potential economic impacts of the 

Project on the City of Barstow. The Husing Study acknowledged that over the long term, 

rail operations are projected to result in a modest negative influence on the Barstow 

economy. The Husing Study notes that the Barstow economy is heavily dependent upon 

revenues generated from taxable retail sales attributed to people driving through Barstow 

via the I-15 freeway to and from Las Vegas, the Colorado River, and other regional 

destinations. Taxes collected from fuel sales and retail stores catering to passing travelers 

contribute substantially to the City’s revenues. With the anticipated shift of freewayrelated traffic to the high-speed passenger train, the Husing Study projected fewer 

automobile passengers would travel through Barstow, which would in turn reduce the 

City’s capture of tax revenues associated with certain visitor-serving uses. However, the 

Husing Study also demonstrated that the Project would not be expected to substantially 

alter the volume of tractor-trailer traffic through Barstow since DesertXpress trains would 

carry only passengers, not freight. Therefore, there would be no foreseeable downward 

influence on the substantial complement of Barstow’s tax revenue attributable to highvolume sales of diesel fuels and services to commercial operators. While some adverse 

economic growth effects would be experienced in Barstow, the projected effect is well 

below a level that would result in secondary physical environmental effects, such as urban 

decay. Notwithstanding, the Applicant has proposed a voluntary mitigation measure 

entailing the close coordination with the City of Barstow and San Bernardino County 

economic development authorities in an effort to match available construction period and 

permanent jobs with appropriately qualified local residents. 

With a subsequent comment letter on the Final EIS, the City of Barstow included a second 

report from its economist (“Barbieri Commentary”) that sought to rebut several 

conclusions of the Husing Study. To this end, FRA commissioned a subsequent review to 

address issue raised within the Barbieri Commentary (“Husing Review”); the results of 

this review are included as Appendix B to this ROD. The Husing Review directly 

addresses each substantive point of the Barbieri Commentary and provides additional 

detail and evidence to support FRA’s previous conclusions regarding the economic impact 

of DesertXpress upon the City of Barstow. 

5.3 FARMLANDS AND GRAZING LAND 

Impacts to farmlands and grazing lands could occur if the Project directly uses farmlands, 

is in such proximity to farmland to have an indirect effect, or severs or otherwise impairs 

the use of grazing lands. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 42 

The Project would not directly impact any farmlands. Approximately 0.008 acres of 

farmland would be indirectly impacted by the Project due to the alignment’s proximity to 

an orchard in the Newberry Springs area. Construction activities would result in a 

temporary increase in dust that could affect those portions of the orchard closest to the 

rail alignment. Measures requiring the Applicant to acquire conservation easements over 

agricultural lands of equal quality procured at a 1:1 ratio would mitigate these impacts. 

The rail alignment would cross through several designated grazing land allotments, all 

within California. Approximately 442 acres of grazing lands would be directly and 

permanently converted to transportation uses, assuming the construction of Segment 4C. 

Most of this acreage consists of the VV3B site (205 acres) and the Segment 4C rail 

alignment north of I-15 in the Mountain Pass area (176 acres). Segment 4A would greatly 

reduce the direct effect on grazing lands because it would avoid impacts to grazing lands in 

the Mountain Pass area by following the existing I-15 freeway ROW rather than traversing 

a grazing allotment. 

Indirect impacts to grazing lands may result when the Project has secondary effects, such 

as severance of a larger grazing allotment that could limit movement on either side of the 

rail alignment. The Project may cut off or impede livestock access to water sources or 

result in the removal of livestock fencing, which would allow livestock to trespass or 

become lost. Specifically, Segment 4C may create a barrier within the Clark Mountains 

Allotment, which includes lands within the Mojave National Preserve, in addition to BLMmanaged lands. Segment 4C could have the effect of concentrating livestock closer to the 

water sources of the allotment, which are disproportionately located on NPS lands in the 

Mojave National Preserve. This could in turn result in overuse of the Preserve via grazing 

activities. Segment 4A would avoid these indirect effects on grazing lands in the Mountain 

Pass area. Mitigation is provided to address these indirect effects; the BLM and NPS 

indicated to FRA that an acceptable mitigation would be for the Applicant to purchase the 

Clark Mountain Allotment, effectively ceasing grazing activity in this area. Alternate 

mitigation, in lieu of purchasing the allotment, would require modifications to the rail 

alignment to permit adequate opportunities for cattle undercrossing of the rail alignment 

such that no concentration of use in the Mojave National Preserve would be foreseeable. 

Appendix A of this ROD details the farmlands and grazing land mitigation measures, 

which are formal commitments associated with Project approval. Implementation of the 

mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIS would minimize effects to farmlands and 

grazing lands, including the indirect effects to grazing lands and activities. However, even 

with mitigation, the Project would result in residual impacts from the direct conversion of 

442 acres of grazing lands to transportation uses. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 43 

5.4 UTILITIES/EMERGENCY SERVICE 

Impacts to utilities/emergency services could occur if the Project resulted in an 

exceedance of the capacity of utility or service systems or if it conflicted with existing 

utility distribution systems, such as pipelines or electrical transmission lines. 

Permanent facilities (passenger station sites and maintenance facilities) would require 

extended infrastructure, such as electricity and gas, water, sewer/wastewater, stormwater, 

and solid waste disposal as well as public services like police, fire, and emergency 

response. Electrical energy would also be needed as a power source for the EMU trains. 

The Project includes two electrical utility corridors near Victorville and Baker that would 

be used to deliver electrical power from existing transmission lines to Project facilities. (In 

the Las Vegas area, the Frias Substation is immediately adjacent to and would be directly 

connected to the existing Arden-Tolson electrical transmission line; no separate utility 

corridor would be needed). Both Southern California Edison (SCE) and Nevada Power 

have indicated the ability to provide electrical service. Southwest Gas Corporation (SGC) 

anticipates that current operating conditions are sufficient to provide gas service to the 

stations and maintenance facilities. 

Water services to the Victorville Station and maintenance facility (OMSF 2) would be 

provided by Victorville Water District (VWD). Due to the distance of the Victorville 

Station and maintenance facility from existing VWD water mains, construction and/or 

expansion of new water facilities (including storage facilities, wells, and/or transmission 

and distributions pipes) would be required for service. Mitigation would require the 

Applicant to pay for connection and/or user/service fees established by the utility 

provider. 

Las Vegas Valley Water District (LVVWD) would provide water services to the Las Vegas 

Station and maintenance facility. The location of Project facilities and the amount of 

water demanded by these facilities would not require the construction of any new 

infrastructure. Mitigation requiring the Applicant to obtain a “water commitment” from 

the LVVWD would ensure these facilities would have enough water for operational use. 

Further mitigation would require the Project facilities to minimize water usage through 

the incorporation of water saving devices wherever required or feasible and to use 

drought-tolerant landscaping at all facilities. 

Wastewater services at the Victorville Station and maintenance facility sites would be 

provided by the Victor Valley Wastewater Reclamation Authority (VVWRA). The VVWRA 

anticipates that the additional demand created by the Project facilities would not require 

additional wastewater equipment, facilities, or personnel, but a service area expansion 

would be required to serve these facilities. Mitigation would require the Applicant to bear 

the cost of connection and/or user/service fees established by the utility provider. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 44 

The Clark County Water Reclamation District (CCWRD) would provide wastewater 

services to the Las Vegas passenger station and maintenance facilities. CCWRD indicated 

that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s Las Vegas facilities without the need of 

additional equipment, facilities, or personnel. 

The Project would have the potential to generate stormwater at stations, maintenance 

facilities, and along rail segments. Mitigation would require rail segments within the I-15 

freeway right-of-way to tie into the existing freeway stormwater conveyance devices, 

upsizing such conveyances as warranted by the amount of the incremental increase. 

Where it is not possible to connect to existing freeway stormwater conveyance devices, 

mitigation requires the Applicant to coordinate with local agencies to develop appropriate 

stormwater conveyance structures/systems to serve such areas. 

Construction and operation of the station and maintenance facilities could convert 

unimproved lands to paved and/or built facilities, decreasing permeability and potentially 

creating stormwater runoff. Mitigation is included to develop appropriate conveyance 

systems. 

Landfills in the vicinity of the Project were found to have sufficient capacity to 

accommodate the predicted solid waste generated by both the construction and the 

operation of the Project. Construction waste would include a mix of hardscape, plant 

material, and metal. The Applicant has indicated some hardscape, such as tunneling 

spoils, will be repurposed for sub-grade or as ballast in track construction. For any 

construction waste not recycled or reused, area landfills indicate that the one-time 

generation of Project-related construction waste could be accommodated given the 

landfill’s substantial remaining capacity. 

The Project would be served by police and fire agencies in several involved jurisdictions. 

Several of these agencies advised FRA that the Project could lead to an increased need for 

services and expressed concern about protocols during emergency events. Mitigation is 

included to require Applicant payment of fees for the incremental demand associated with 

the Project and to develop a comprehensive emergency operations plan, including a 

training of local first responders. 

The Project rail alignments and other facilities could overlap/intersect with numerous 

utility conveyance systems, such as gas pipelines, electric transmission lines, and 

water/wastewater infrastructure. Some overlaps could result in safety concerns, such as 

where a Project rail segment intersected with a high-pressure gas pipeline. Mitigation is 

included to avoid or minimize such conflicts, including protecting infrastructure in place 

or including minor relocations of facilities. 

Incorporation of the mitigation measures mentioned above would minimize permanent 

effects related to the adequate provision of utilities and public services as well as conflicts 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 45 

with utility crossings. Appendix A of this ROD details the utility/emergency service 

mitigation measures, which are formal commitments associated with Project approval. 

There would be no permanent or residual impacts to utility/emergency services following 

implementation of the mitigation measures. 

5.5 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION 

The Project passenger stations and maintenance facilities would be the only points of 

access for people to interface with the DesertXpress system. Project railways would be 

fully grade separated from all existing roadways. Moreover, the Project would require no 

modifications to existing roadways affecting capacity. Therefore, the Project could only 

result in impacts to traffic and transportation if Project-related traffic resulted in a 

substantial traffic increase to (1) freeway mainlines or (2) at intersections near station 

areas. 

By providing an alternative to automobile transportation between southern California and 

Las Vegas, operation of the Project would reduce traffic volumes on the I-15 freeway, 

particularly during peak weekend travel periods. The Project would reduce approximately 

500 vehicles per peak hour in the peak direction in the opening year, increasing to 1,400 

vehicles in the horizon year. This would relieve congestion along the I-15 freeway between 

Victorville and Las Vegas, resulting in a beneficial effect. The reduction in traffic volumes 

on freeway mainlines could potentially improve safety in a freeway corridor known to have 

a higher-than-average accident rate, attributable in large part to excessive levels of 

congestion. Traffic reduction also contributes to improved air quality, as fewer vehicles on 

the road would result in a corresponding reduction emission of air pollutants. 

In addition to these beneficial effects, rail operations would also have certain adverse 

traffic effects. Project trackways, trains, and associated facilities could constitute potential 

new visual obstructions for motorists, thus impairing roadway safety. Mitigation is 

included to ensure that final design-build plans take into account such potential 

obstructions and include design solutions to avoid or minimize all such effects. 

Near Project stations, increased traffic on roadways associated with passenger activity 

could degrade the level of service at selected intersections. The increased traffic 

associated with passenger stations would worsen delays, potentially resulting in a 

degraded level of service. Mitigation was developed in close coordination with the FHWA 

and both State DOTs that would successfully address all identified effects. Mitigation 

measures would reduce the delay at affected intersections so that all intersections would 

operate at an acceptable level of service. Appendix A of this ROD details the 

traffic/transportation mitigation measures, which are formal commitments associated 

with Project approval. No permanent or residual traffic and transportation adverse 

impacts are anticipated from the Project after implementation of mitigation measures. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 46 

5.6 VISUAL RESOURCES 

The Project would create a new rail alignment and associated facilities through a variety of 

existing landscapes, primarily within or immediately adjacent to an existing freeway 

corridor. The degree of effects to visual resources in the Project area was evaluated in 

terms of the established visual impact criteria of two of the Cooperating Agencies, the 

BLM and the FHWA. 

Visual effects were found to vary widely, depending on two key factors based on the 

Federal agency criteria: the existing visual quality of particular locations and the proposed 

design at such locations. 

In urbanized areas including Barstow, Baker, Primm, Jean, and metropolitan Las Vegas, 

motorists and pedestrians on nearby and adjacent local roadways and motorists traveling 

on the I-15 freeway would represent the primary viewer groups of the Project. In these 

areas, the Project would introduce railway elements such as elevated trackways and 

passing trains into motorists’ views from the I-15 freeway and would not substantially 

degrade the relatively low visual quality of the I-15 freeway area. 

The majority of lands within the urbanized areas are designated as BLM Class III or IV, 

which allow for partial to major modifications to the existing character of the landscape. 

With few exceptions, visual effects of the Project would be mostly consistent with BLM 

criteria. In addition, the Project is mostly consistent with the FHWA’s visual 

quality/sensitivity guidelines in urban areas. 

The second type of landscape within the Project area is found outside existing urban areas, 

where motorists traveling on the I-15 freeway would be primary viewers of the Project. In 

areas where the rail alignment would be adjacent to the existing I-15 freeway, the concrete 

barriers, trackways, bridges, overpasses, underpasses, and passing trains would detract 

from the vividness, intactness, and unity of views from the I-15 freeway towards the nonurbanized lands with low lying shrubs, desert soils, and rolling hills. The overhead 

catenary features and fencing structures would hinder views of the existing landscape 

features. Since the majority of these views would remain relatively unobstructed when a 

train is not present, the overall visual quality rating for the undeveloped portions of the 

Project rail alignment would remain moderate. 

The third type of landscape within the Project area is non-urbanized lands outside the I-15 

freeway corridor, particularly the area near Segment 4A and Segment 4C. Segment 4A 

would adversely affect the visual quality within the boundaries of the Preserve. However, 

both FRA and the NPS have noted that the area proposed for the Segment 4A rail 

alignment, including areas within the Preserve, has already been disturbed and used for a 

local mine and as a ROW for several underground utilities. Segment 4A would also 

remain in relatively close proximity to the I-15 freeway corridor as it passes through the 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 47 

Preserve. Segment 4C would diverge several miles from the I-15 freeway corridor and 

traverse undeveloped lands. However views of the Segment 4C rail alignment would be 

relatively distant appearing as a distinctly subordinate visual feature in the overall 

landscape. The intactness, unity, and vividness of the existing environment would be 

slightly diminished due to the placement of the Segment 4C rail alignment in an 

undeveloped area, thereby reducing the existing high quality visual environment to a 

moderate visual environment, representing an adverse effect. 

Overall, the Project would reduce the existing visual quality outside some urban areas and 

would be somewhat inconsistent with the FHWA’s visual quality/sensitivity guidelines. 

Mitigation measures would require that design-build plans include treatments to ensure 

that rail, station, and maintenance facility features would be minimally disruptive to the 

surrounding environment. Further mitigation would require contour grading to reduce 

the visual appearance of cut and fill slopes associated with the Project and light/glare 

reduction strategies to reduce adverse impacts to visual resources. 

Appendix A of this ROD details the visual resources mitigation measures, which are 

formal commitments associated with Project approval. Implementation of the mitigation 

measures outlined in the Final EIS would minimize effects to visual resources. However, 

the Project would result in the permanent introduction of new elements to the Project 

area, ultimately resulting in a permanent visual change within the viewshed, despite the 

incorporation of the aforementioned mitigation measures. The primary residual impacts 

would be expected to occur in areas with the greatest visual quality and sensitivity, such as 

areas designated as having high visual quality or areas designated as BLM Class I and II 

lands. While the majority of the Project rail alignment would be within the I-15 freeway, 

residual visual impacts to the sensitive visual environments north of Yermo and north of 

the Clark Mountains would experience the greatest residual visual effects following 

mitigation. 

5.7 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Impacts to cultural and paleontological resources would occur if the Project would directly 

or indirectly affect cultural resources eligible or assumed eligible for listing on the 

National Register of Historic Places (National Register), or adversely affect paleontological 

resources. 

FRA conducted a literature review, pedestrian surveys, and extensive consultation with 

BLM archeologists and tribal representatives to catalogue existing cultural resources 

potentially affected by the Project as well as all other action alternatives. All of these 

resources are archaeological sites. No historic architectural resources (buildings or other 

structures) were found in the APE for the Project and thus no such resources would be 

affected. FRA evaluated paleontological resources following the guideline of the Society of 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 48 

Vertebrate Paleontology using published geologic and paleontological literature and 

museum databases. 

Construction of the Project would involve extensive ground disturbance, primarily but not 

exclusively within the I-15 freeway corridor. Construction and operation of the freeway 

have, in many cases, compromised the intactness and/or integrity of many archaeological 

resources closest to the freeway. Generally, the degree of intactness of such resources 

increases with distance from the previously disturbed freeway corridor. 

In fulfillment of obligations under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

(16 USC 470 et seq., as amended), a Programmatic Agreement (PA) was developed for the 

Project. The PA identifies the process for the formal determination of eligibility of cultural 

resources. Following an approach consistent with 36 CFR 800.4(b)(2), the PA stipulates 

that formal eligibility determinations will be made after the Selected Alternative is 

identified and ratified by the Lead and Cooperating Agencies via Records of Decision or 

other appropriate decision documents on the proposed action. The PA also sets forth 

numerous other requirements, including the potential for Tribal monitoring of grounddisturbing activities, cultural resource training for all construction personnel, and periodic 

reporting of findings during construction. The PA also includes an outline of the Historic 

Properties Treatment Plan, a requirement under Section 106, which will provide specific 

avoidance or minimization and, as appropriate, curation/disposition measures for every 

identified and potentially affected resource. The PA further includes the outline for the 

required “Plan of Action” under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation 

Act (25 USC 3001 et seq., “NAGPRA”). The Plan of Action will establish protocols to 

address the potential discovery of human remains during the ground disturbance 

associated with construction. 

The Final EIS includes a fully-executed copy of the PA, signed by the Lead and 

Cooperating Agencies, the State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) for California and 

Nevada, and the Project Applicant. In addition, one Native American Tribe, the Las Vegas 

Paiute, signed as a concurring party. The Area of Potential Effect (APE) for the Project 

assuming construction of Segment 4A includes a total of 225 cultural resources comprised 

of 37 resources previously determined eligible; 90 resources assumed to be eligible; and 

98 that were either previously found ineligible or are otherwise assumed ineligible The 

total number of cultural resource in the APE for the Project assuming construction of 

Segment 4C includes a total of 239 11,12 comprised of 38 resources previously determined 

 

11 The Final EIS incorrectly identifies 254 sites within the APE for the Project (with Segment 4C). The correct 

number of cultural resources sites in the APE for the Project with Segment 4C is 239 sites. 

12 The Final EIS incorrectly identifies 8 sites within the APE for Segment 4A. The correct number of cultural 

resources sites in the APE for Segment 4A is 11 sites as identified in Table 3.7-9 of the Draft EIS. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 49 

eligible; 92 resources assumed to be eligible; and 109 that were either previously found 

ineligible or are otherwise assumed ineligible.13 

Final determinations of the eligibility of archaeological resources are phased under the PA. 

All of these resources could be directly or indirectly affected by train construction. The 

aforementioned stipulations of the PA set forth a program of extensive mitigation 

designed to avoid and/or minimize adverse effects to these resources. All effects to 

cultural resources associated with the Project can be mitigated through avoidance, 

evaluation and data recovery, or other mitigation through investigation and monitoring 

during construction as described above. 

Construction of the Project would likely result in adverse effects on paleontological 

resources in situations where (1) the Project rail alignment or facility would cross 

paleontologically sensitive geologic units exposed at the surface or (2) where the Project 

rail alignment or facility would be situated on relatively recent fill materials that overlie 

highly sensitive materials, and ground disturbance would be deep enough to affect 

underlying sensitive strata. Mitigation is included to avoid or minimize such effects. 

Appendix A of this ROD details the cultural and paleontological resources mitigation 

measures, which are formal commitments associated with Project approval. The 

Applicant is also bound to all provisions within the fully executed PA, which encompasses 

more specific measures to avoid or minimize effects to cultural resources. Collectively, 

these measures include training of construction workers, ongoing monitoring during 

construction, and appropriate pre-construction evaluation of specific sites. In the event 

resources are encountered, further mitigation requires a stop to construction to allow for 

resource evaluation, and measures to ensure appropriate recovery and curation. 

5.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY 

Hydrology and water quality impacts could occur if the Project results in a violation of 

water quality standards or otherwise substantially degrades water quality, places 

structures within a 100-year floodplain or otherwise impedes or redirects flood flows, 

results in substantial new sources of stormwater discharge, or uses water resources in an 

inefficient manner. 

The rail alignment and other facilities would cross the Mojave River, Bell Mountain Wash, 

and numerous other named and unnamed ephemeral washes, some of which meet criteria 

under the CWA to be considered “waters of the US” (also known as jurisdictional waters), 

 

13 The Final EIS incorrectly identifies the Project (with Segment 4C) as impacting 36 resources as previously 

determined eligible; 99 resources are assumed to be eligible; and 119 were either previously found ineligible or 

are otherwise assumed ineligible. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 50 

potentially affecting water quality. The Project would have direct permanent effects on 

approximately 20,100 linear feet of hydrological resources assuming Segment 4A is 

constructed; the number increases to approximately 20,851 linear feet if Segment 4C is 

constructed instead of Segment 4A. As its own component, Segment 4A would impact 734 

linear feet of hydrological resources and Segment 4C would impact 1,485 linear feet of 

hydrological resources. Segment 4A would cross 29 streams, whereas Segment 4C would 

cross 48 streams. No wetlands are located in the vicinity of the rail alignment and other 

facilities, so there would be no effect to wetlands. Construction of the Project would 

permanently affect an estimated 5.96 acres of waters of the US. 

Drainage patterns will not be significantly altered as a result of the Project. Within the I15 freeway area, the rail alignment will at minimum match all existing culverts. Segment 

4A would follow the existing I-15 freeway and would have the potential to connect with 

existing I-15 drainage facilities. Where the rail alignment diverts from the freeway, 

particularly in Segment 4C, mitigation developed in the CWA Section 404 permitting 

process and Section 7 consultation process (and included as a requirement within 

Appendix A of this ROD) requires the rail alignment to span all existing natural 

drainages 4 feet in width or greater, thus avoiding substantial interference with natural 

drainage functions. However, the Victorville Station and OMSF would impact portions of 

Bell Mountain Wash and related drainages, potentially altering existing drainage patterns. 

Mitigation is included to address these potential water quality effects, including adherence 

to best management practices during construction, the development of site-specific water 

quality treatment devices, and compliance with requirements under the National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit. Further mitigation requires 

preparation of a spill prevention control, and countermeasure plan and proper design of 

drainage systems. Further, the Applicant will be required to comply with all conditions 

and mitigation requirements that result from the pending permit from the USACE under 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251 et seq.). 

Portions of the Project would cross or be located adjacent to 100-year floodplain areas 

associated with the Mojave River or certain washes. The Project would encroach upon 

51.68 to 57.48 acres of 100-year floodplain, depending on which Las Vegas passenger 

station is constructed; the longer alignment to Central Station B involves approximately 

six additional acres of floodplain area. Mitigation is included to reduce encroachment into 

100-year floodplain areas, by means of elevating facilities or relocating certain facilities 

within the identified footprint/area of potential effects. Mitigation also prohibits the 

storage of construction equipment or material within the floodplain. 

At-grade portions of the rail alignment would not produce considerable amounts of 

stormwater runoff given the relatively permeable nature of track on ballast (crushed rock) 

construction. On elevated rail alignments, the Project would include drainage elements 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 51 

along the trackway that would capture and direct runoff to existing designated drainage 

features. Passenger stations and maintenance facilities would create additional runoff. 

Many of the mitigation measures related to water quality effects would also address the 

quantity and quality of stormwater associated with the Project. Additional mitigation is 

included to minimize the impact of specific facilities on existing natural drainages. 

Appendix A of this ROD details the hydrology and water quality mitigation measures, 

which are formal commitments associated with Project approval. In addition to the 

mitigation measures outlined in the Final EIS, the Project will also be required to comply 

with all conditions and mitigation requirements resulting from the SWA Section 404 

permit and Section 401 Certification. While required mitigation would reduce both 

construction and operational effects to water resources, the Project would nonetheless 

result in permanent impacts to existing channels, streams, drainages, and ephemeral 

washes; the Project would also result in an increase in impervious area, increasing the 

amount of stormwater runoff. 

5.9 GEOLOGY AND SOILS 

An adverse impact could occur if the Project were located in an area of high risk for one or 

more geologic and soils concerns. These concerns include surface fault rupture, ground 

shaking, liquefaction, dam inundation, differential settlement, corrosive and/or expansive 

soils, or landslides. Construction-related impacts would include the potential for hardrock excavation (including tunneling), shallow groundwater, and/or ground fissures. 

Generally, the California portions of the Project would be located in a seismically active 

region near active faults. These active faults may result in tectonic activities (i.e., 

earthquakes) in the region. The Nevada portion of the Project also includes some active 

and potentially active faults but these faults are attributed to land subsidence rather than 

tectonic activity (i.e. earthquakes). With few exceptions, all components of the Project 

face at least some risk of several of the identified geologic and seismic hazards during both 

operations and construction. Mitigation to address potential geologic and soil related 

impacts includes conducting pre-construction surface reconnaissance and subsurface 

assessment for surface fault ruptures and landslides and a site-specific evaluation for 

ground shaking hazards. Additional construction period mitigation would address 

concerns associated with hard rock excavation, introduce protections to ensure safe 

tunneling, and measures to address shallow groundwater or fissures, if encountered. 

All potential geologic and seismic hazards can be controlled successfully through the 

application of standard engineering methods and practices identified in the mitigation 

measures above. Appendix A of this ROD details the geology and soil mitigation 

measures, which are formal commitments associated with Project approval. Following 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 52 

implementation of these mitigation measures, the Project would not result in any residual 

impacts to geology and soils. 

5.10 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

An adverse hazardous materials impact could occur if the Project were near a property 

identified as having potential contamination (also known as a property of environmental 

concern) and thus may require disturbance of contaminated soils or groundwater. 

Impacts could also occur if the Project required the demolition of structures potentially 

containing hazardous materials (such as lead paint or asbestos) or entailed the use, 

storage, or transport of hazardous materials. 

Construction activities associated with the facilities and rail alignments may encounter 

contaminated soils and/or groundwater or other previously identified hazardous materials 

that must be removed, disposed of, and/or remediated. Investigations, including 

environmental database and aerial photography reviews and field reconnaissance, 

identified several sites where the presence of such contaminated materials is known or 

suspected. Any ground disturbance activity comes with the risk of encountering 

unanticipated areas of contamination. To protect against such risks, mitigation sets forth 

appropriate protocols consistent with accepted professional standards to ensure the safe 

excavation, treatment, and/or encapsulation/disposal of contaminated materials. 

Construction of the Project may also entail the demolition of structures suspected to 

contain asbestos and/or lead paint. Mitigation is included to ensure that demolition 

avoids or minimizes the release of any such hazardous material. 

To ensure the safe use and transport of hazardous materials needed for operations (such 

as solvents, paints, compressed gases, and waste products), mitigation requires the 

preparation of a Hazardous Materials Management Plan and the securing of any required 

Federal, state, or local permits for the installation and operation of any chemical or fuel 

storage tanks. 

All potential effects related to hazardous materials can be controlled successfully through 

the application of standard safety planning methods and practices identified in the 

mitigation measures. Appendix A of this ROD details the hazardous materials 

mitigation measures, which are formal commitments associated with Project approval. 

No residual effects from hazardous materials would remain. 

5.11 AIR QUALITY AND GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE 

Adverse air quality impacts could result if operation of the Project exceeded a state or 

federal air quality standard or resulted in a localized concentration of emissions (a carbon 

monoxide (CO) “hotspot.”) Adverse construction period effects would occur if the Project 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 53 

resulted in the release of air pollutants in excess of de minimis thresholds under the 

General Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93). 

Operation of the high-speed passenger rail system is expected to reduce the number of 

automobiles traveling on I-15 between Victorville and Las Vegas. This expected reduction 

in vehicle trips would reduce the emissions of several air pollutants and greenhouse gases 

relative to existing conditions and a resulting beneficial effect to regional air quality as a 

result, no Federal or State air quality standard would be exceeded. 

At the local level, automobile and bus activity at the Project stations would have the 

potential to result in concentrations of air pollutants associated with vehicle exhaust. 

Within the urban settings where such facilities would be located, the increase in vehicles 

associated with new Project-related traffic at already congested intersections could result 

in concentrations of carbon monoxide (CO hotspot).14 Analysis in the Final EIS 

documented that the increase in Project-related traffic would slightly increase the 

concentration of CO at certain intersections near the Victorville and Las Vegas facilities, 

but the resultant level of CO concentration would remain below the threshold of 

significance set forth in the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). 

Construction of the Project would temporarily generate emissions of fugitive dust 

(particulate matter -PM10 and PM2.5), construction equipment tailpipe emissions (reactive 

organic compounds, nitrous oxide, and carbon monoxide), and volatile organic 

compounds associated with paving and painting. Modeling of all construction-related 

activities, including the transport of materials to and from construction sites was 

conducted for the Final EIS, with results calculated for both of the air basins spanned by 

the Project area (the Mojave Desert Air Basin and the Clark County Air Basin). Prior to 

mitigation, these results exceeded de minimis standards for CO under the General 

Conformity Rule. After identifying appropriate mitigation which will be implemented 

during Project construction, all construction-related emissions fell below the de minimis 

standards. These mitigation requirements include the use of off-road equipment meeting 

the most newest and most stringent air quality standards, the use of low-VOC paints, and 

the use of composite fuels. 

All potential effects to air quality resulting from construction-related activities can be 

controlled successfully through the application the mitigation measures mentioned above. 

Appendix A of this ROD details the air quality mitigation measures, which are formal 

 

14 The Project is not subject to the Transportation Conformity Rule (codified at 42 U.S.C. 7506(c), Section 

176(c)) as it is not a highway or transit project of the FHWA or the Federal Transit Administration. 

Transportation Conformity Rule requirements apply exclusively to the project sponsored by those agencies. 

Among the requirements under the Transportation Conformity Rule are analysis of concentrations of 

particulate matter (PM); there are no similar requirements for projects subject to the General Conformity Rule 

(58 FR 63214). 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 54 

commitments associated with Project approval. Overall, the Project would result in a 

beneficial operational effect with regard to regional emissions, no substantial localized 

concentration of carbon monoxide, and construction period emissions below the de 

minimis standards of the General Conformity Rule. No residual air quality effects would 

remain. 

5.12 NOISE AND VIBRATION 

Adverse impacts to noise and vibration could occur if the Project resulted in a substantial 

operation or construction period noise or vibration effect on identified sensitive recievers. 

Operation of the Project would result in increased noise levels associated with passing 

trains on the rail alignment and increased activity and traffic near the station and 

maintenance facilities. Under FRA’s established criteria, noise and vibration effects 

require the nearby presence of a sensitive receptor. 

Noise associated with passing trains would increase noise levels for sensitive receptors, 

such as residential, commercial, and hotel uses, in the Barstow, Yermo, and the 

metropolitan Las Vegas areas, potentially resulting in adverse effects under FRA’s noise 

criteria. As the Project rail alignment would be located primarily within the existing I-15 

freeway corridor, the high-speed train passbys would incrementally add additional noise 

along the I-15 corridor expanding the areas affected by transportation noise. The amount 

the Project would expand the areas affected by transportation noise varies depending on 

location. In Barstow, the Project would extend the 65 dBA contour an additional 200-250 

feet from the centerline of the I-15 in both directions. In metropolitan Las Vegas, where 

existing noise levels are generally much higher than in Barstow, the existing 65 dBA 

contour would be extended an additional 20 feet in both directions from the centerline of 

the I-15 freeway. This expansion of the existing noise contour may impact nearby 

sensitive receptors, such as residential uses, particularly in Barstow. Noise impacts were 

then re-analyzed with the incorporation of mitigation in the form of specialized noise 

reducing equipment and appropriate physical noise barriers along the rail alignment. The 

effectiveness of these types of mitigation has been verified through previous uses on 

surface transportation project (freeways and railroads) around the country. The noise 

modeling conducted for the Project showed that all construction and operation period 

adverse noise effects (all “impacts” and “severe impacts” as defined by FRA’s criteria) will 

be fully mitigated. For those areas where noise barriers or specialized equipment would 

not be feasible to implement, alternative mitigation methods will be implemented, 

including the installation of appropriate sound insulation within buildings along the rail 

alignment and/or the acquisition of properties if ultimately necessary. 

Analysis indicated that rail operations would not result in any vibration impacts. Where 

the rail alignment travels through urbanized areas like Barstow and metropolitan Las 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 55 

Vegas, tracks are located on elevated structures, which minimize the potential for trainrelated vibration as experienced by people in nearby buildings. 

Project construction could result in localized noise and vibration effects, including effects 

associated with pile driving, motorized construction equipment, or construction activities 

occurring during noise-sensitive time periods (i.e. nighttime in residential areas). 

Mitigation is included that requires construction to conform to the few applicable local 

noise regulations, perform ongoing monitoring, and limit the timing and location of 

certain activities to avoid the disturbance of sensitive receptors. 

Implementation of the noise and vibration mitigation measures would fully mitigate noise 

and vibrations impacts, including severe noise impacts, associated with operation of the 

Project. Appendix A of this ROD details the noise mitigation measures, which are formal 

commitments associated with Project approval. No residual noise or vibration effects 

would remain. 

5.13 ENERGY 

An adverse impact relative to energy would occur if the Project resulted in a significant 

change in energy consumption either through construction and/or operations. 

Implementation of the Project would lower operation energy consumption relative to 

projected future conditions under the No Action Alternative without the addition of rail 

service. This change is associated with an expected shift from automobile usage to train 

usage. By reducing automobile traffic on the I-15 corridor and allowing for inter-regional 

mobility via electric-powered trains, the Project would result in a net decrease in energy 

consumption, equivalent to about 440,000 barrels of oil each year. This is a beneficial 

effect. 

Construction of the Project would require the temporary commitment of energy resources. 

The Final EIS analyzed whether this commitment could be recovered through the energy 

savings associated with ongoing operations. The analysis indicated that the energy 

savings after about two years of train operations would account for all of the energy spent 

on construction. This is also a beneficial effect. 

Overall, implementation of the Project would result in a beneficial overall reduction in 

total energy consumption (electric power demand and petroleum-based consumption). 

The Project would continue to result in a reduction in automobile energy use that would 

be greater than the new energy required by the railway. 

5.14 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Construction of the Project has the potential to result in effects to various biological 

resources, including sensitive animal and plant species (and habitats associated with such 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 56 

species), native vegetation, special management lands, or wetlands or waters of the United 

States. Operation of the Project has the additional potential to result in a new barrier to 

wildlife movement. 

Project biologists initiated their investigation with a review of available literature sources 

and databases documenting the presence of biological resources in the potentially affected 

area. The scope of the biological resources analysis for the Project was developed in close 

consultation with several resource management agencies with responsibilities and/or 

special knowledge of the area, including the BLM, the US Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS), the California Department of Fish and Game, the Nevada Department of 

Wildlife, and others. This scoping helped identify areas of potential effect for different 

species and habitats and thus served to focus subsequent fieldwork and analysis for each 

resource type considered. 

Following identification of the Preferred Alternative, FRA formally initiated consultation 

under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act with the USFWS through the submittal of a 

BA for the Project, focused on federally listed species, which in this area concerns the 

desert tortoise, whose status is identified as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. 

In April 2011, the USFWS issued its BO for the Project, included as Appendix D of this 

ROD, which included several additional protective measures that have been incorporated 

as mitigation commitments in this ROD. With regard to other agency review and 

comment, the Nevada Department of Wildlife (NDOW) issued a comment on the Final 

EIS noting its support of the Project (See Final EIS Comment F-41 within Appendix C of 

this ROD). 

The Final EIS set forth mitigation intended to avoid or minimize impacts to biological 

resources generally. These required measures include a mandatory training program for 

all construction workers, appropriate pre-construction surveys particular to certain 

species and habitat areas, the use of appropriate construction fencing around sensitive 

resources to avoid damage, construction period monitoring and controls, the confining of 

construction equipment to designated work zones, adherence to best practices to avoid the 

unintentional dispersal of invasive weeds and excessive erosion, requirements to restore 

topsoil and natural site topography upon completion of construction, requirements to 

obtain tree/plant removal permits where necessary from appropriate agencies, and to 

compensate for the loss of sensitive vegetation communities, special-status plant 

populations (if unavoidable), and species habitat. These measures would mitigate 

potential effects to several identified sensitive species, including banded gila monsters, 

Mojave fringe-toed lizards, big horned sheep, American badger, plus several protected bat 

and bird species. Please see below for potential effects related to the desert tortoise. 

The Project would have effects on several specific types of biological resources. Among 

these are sensitive vegetation communities and special-status plant populations. To avoid 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 57 

or minimize such effects, required mitigation includes the requirement for 

preconstruction surveys to pinpoint sensitive areas, incorporation of avoidance measures 

into final design-build plans to avoid special status plan populations, and, in the event 

avoidance cannot be achieved, compensation for any loss of sensitive vegetation 

communities at a ratio to be determined by a governing resource agency. 

The Final EIS and the BO focused extensively on potential effects to the desert tortoise, a 

species considered “threatened” under the Endangered Species Act. Construction and 

operation of the Project have the potential to harm or kill individual tortoises and to have 

permanent or temporary impacts to tortoise habitat. The effects to desert tortoise habitat 

differ substantially for the two Segment 4 alignments included in the Selected Alternative. 

Segment 4C would impact desert tortoise relocation areas for the ISEGS project, further 

degrading the tortoise habitat in this area. Segment 4A would impact the Ivanpah DWMA 

and Mojave National Preserve. In total, Segment 4A, if constructed, would permanently 

impact 42.2 acres and temporarily impact 371.7 acres of desert tortoise habitat. In 

comparison, Segment 4C would permanently impact 167.7 acres and temporarily impact 

722.23 acres of desert tortoise habitat. Substantial mitigation requirements are 

incorporated in this ROD to address potential impacts to this species. Preemptive 

requirements include the preparation of a tortoise relocation plan to avoid harm to 

tortoises from construction activities, the installation of exclusion fencing to ensure 

tortoises do not enter active construction areas, and the integration of appropriate culverts 

into final design-build plans to allow continued passage of tortoises following 

construction. Additional mitigation requirements are included to address the potentiality 

of direct harm to tortoises, including requirements for monitoring construction areas and 

protocols for the treatment/disposition of injured or killed tortoises. Other mitigation 

requirements include compensation for the disturbance of tortoise habitat by providing 

for suitable habitat elsewhere,15 measures to limit the roosting of common ravens (a 

predator of tortoise eggs and juvenile tortoises), and measures to monitor and report on 

the effectiveness of mitigation measures. 

Appendix A of this ROD details the biological resources mitigation measures, which are 

formal commitments associated with Project approval. Collectively, these measures would 

mitigate many impacts to biological resources, but residual effects would remain. Even 

with adherence to these mitigation requirements, the Project would result in the 

permanent loss of native vegetation communities, sensitive plant communities, special 

status plant populations, BLM special management lands, and sensitive habitat areas for 

 

15 Current requirements for the loss of desert tortoise habitat are based on a formula of 5:1 inside DWMAs and 

1:1 outside DWMAs. For the purposes of the Project change to the compensation formula must be reviewed by 

the USFWS, NPA, and CDFG. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 58 

several species (desert tortoise, banded gila monster, reptile species protected under the 

Clark County MSHCP, burrowing owl, American badger, and bighorn sheep). 

5.15 SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION 

The Final EIS included an evaluation required by Section 4(f) of the Department of 

Transportation Act of 1966 (23 USC 138 and 49 USC 303(c)). Adverse impacts to Section 

4(f) resources could occur if the Project results in a direct or constructive use of an 

identified Section 4(f) resource. Section 4(f) resources include parks and recreational 

lands, Clean Air Act Class I Areas, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic 

architectural or archeological sites. A direct use occurs when a property protected by 

Section 4(f) is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility or is temporarily 

occupied. A constructive use can occur when there is no direct use, but the proximity 

impacts (factoring in mitigation measures) of the project on the property or resource 

protected by Section 4(f) are so severe that the activities, features, or attributes that 

qualify the property or resource for protection are substantially impaired. 

Two types of Section 4(f) resource classes were screened out, due to lack of existence 

within proximity to the project. There are no wildlife or waterfowl refuges within twenty 

miles of the Project; accordingly, FRA concluded that no uses of any such resource would 

occur. Additionally, there are no historic architectural resources within the APE of the 

Project. Accordingly, the Project would not result in any uses of any such resource. 

There are approximately 19 parks and recreational lands, including the Mojave National 

Preserve, within one mile of Project facilities and rail alignments. None of these parks 

would be directly used, as Project facilities would be located outside the boundaries of 

such lands. Therefore, the evaluation focused on the potential for constructive use. FRA’s 

investigation examined the potential for the Project to result in noise, vibration, visual, 

access, or ecological intrusion impacts on park lands, ultimately concluding that none of 

these impacts would occur, primarily owing to substantial distance between Project 

facilities and existing park and recreation lands. 

With respect to Segment 4, at present construction of Segment 4A is not possible absent 

legislative authority because it requires an approximately 1.55 mile encroachment in the 

Mojave National Preserve which is a 4(f) resource. FRA believes, any legislative authority 

is likely to include a land swap that would remove such property from the Preserve 

boundaries which would avoid a direct 4f use. Ideally, such a land swap would include 

enough property to allow the Project to be designed to avoid any potential proximity 

effects to the Park. 

The closest Class I area to any portion of the Project is the Cucamonga Wilderness, more 

than 30 miles south of Victorville. The distance of the Project to these resources would 

not substantially impair any protected activities, features or attributes which qualify them 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 59 

for protection under Section 4(f). Nor would the Project result in severe proximity 

impacts to aesthetics, noise, vibration, access, or ecological resources at these properties. 

There would be no direct or constructive uses of these resources. 

FRA thoroughly examined the potential for the Section 4(f) use of archaeological 

resources. In order for a cultural resource to be protected under Section 4(f), it must be 

eligible for the National Register under specific criteria. Archaeological resource sites 

whose importance as a resource can be fully documented through a data recovery process 

alone are not protected under Section 4(f). Although the preparation of site records as 

well as formal eligibility determinations were phased per the terms of the Programmatic 

Agreement (PA) for the Project, FRA nonetheless consulted with the BLM and interested 

Tribes and ultimately opted to prepare more than 50 site records for resources with the 

potential for protection under Section 4(f). Following a rigorous and collaborative 

preliminary evaluation process, FRA concluded that one archaeological resource site met 

the criteria for protection under Section 4(f). After modifications to Segment 3B, as 

detailed in Segment 3B (Modified), this resource would not be impacted by the Project or 

cause a Section 4(f) use. 

6.0 Summary of Comments on the Final EIS 

During the 30 day waiting period following publication of the Final EIS, FRA received 

substantive comments. FRA received comments from 17 commenters regarding the 

following topics: purpose and need, alternatives, air quality, biological resources, cultural 

resources, cumulative impacts, environmental justice, growth, hazardous materials, 

hydrology, land use, noise, Section 4(f), traffic and transportation, utilities, and visual 

resources. The range and types of comments received are summarized below. 

All substantive comments have been addressed in detail in Appendix C of this ROD. In 

many cases, FRA’s response identifies where in the EIS Documents (DEIS, SDEIS, FEIS) 

the particular issue raised in the comment had been previously addressed. Other 

responses provide minor clarification about Project details or design issues, or mitigation 

measures. Certain comments warranted further review or consultation and in some cases, 

revision/expansion of mitigation measures. The range and types of comments received on 

the Final EIS are summarized below. 

Regarding the Project Purpose and Need and Alternatives considered, commenters raised 

questions regarding the viability of the Project with a terminus in Victorville, asked 

whether other technology or routing alternatives should have been considered, and 

inquired about the implications of a possible federal loan for construction. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 60 

Commenters asked about potential air quality impacts during Project operations, 

particularly in areas near stations, where air quality could be affected by roadway traffic 

accessing the station. 

Comments regarding biological resources asked for clarification on the scope of the 

biological resources assessment and potential effects to certain species. 

Comments regarding cultural resources included clarification regarding the proposed 

phased approach to archaeological resource evaluation through a Programmatic 

Agreement, and raised questions regarding the extent of consultation with Native 

American Tribes. In response to these comments and concerns, the number of mitigation 

measures was expanded from what was included in the Final EIS to more completely 

encompass binding provisions of the Programmatic Agreement. 

Commenters questioned the adequacy of the cumulative impact analysis, noting that 

impacts to certain biological resources (desert tortoise, desert bighorn sheep) should also 

be considered as cultural resource impacts given the significance of these species to 

particular Native American Tribes. 

A commenter inquired whether additional attention was warranted regarding potential 

mobile source air quality impacts near the Las Vegas Central Station B. 

Comments regarding growth issues centered on the anticipated intensity of adverse 

economic impacts on the City of Barstow and the potential for Project stations to induce 

growth in the Victorville area. In response to the comments regarding impacts to the City 

of Barstow, FRA commissioned a supplemental economic impact study to more 

specifically examine the comments of the City of Barstow in a separate economic impact 

study it submitted with its Final EIS comments. This supplemental study (the “Husing 

Review”) is included as Appendix C to this ROD. The supplemental study addressed the 

issues raised by the City of Barstow in its Final EIS comments and further explained the 

reasoning behind FRA’s previous conclusions regarding the extent of adverse economic 

impacts to the City of Barstow. 

Comments regarding hazardous materials issues requested clarification on the scope of 

the evaluations conducted as part of the analysis for the Draft EIS and Supplemental Draft 

EIS. 

Comments regarding hydrology included clarification on the extent of mitigation 

measures that would be included in the ROD, particularly with regard to Segment 4C and 

the Victorville Station. 

Comments regarding land use issues indicated concern regarding compatibility with 

aviation facilities and existing residential land uses in the southwestern metropolitan Las 

Vegas area; and clarification on previously identified impacts in the City of Barstow. In 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 61 

post-Final EIS consultation with the Federal Aviation Administration, FRA revised and 

expanded land use mitigation measures to avoid and minimize impacts to McCarran 

International Airport in Las Vegas and the proposed Southern Nevada Supplemental 

Airport near Primm. 

Comments regarding noise issues sought clarification on the efficacy of noise mitigation 

measures proposed for the Project, particularly near residential areas in metropolitan Las 

Vegas. 

Commenters questioned the methodology of the Section 4(f) evaluation, suggesting that 

certain cultural resources were improperly excluded from consideration as properties 

protected under Section 4(f). 

Comments regarding traffic included questions of the effectiveness of mitigation identified 

in the Final EIS and questions related to safety of people and vehicles in and near the I-15 

corridor, particularly with regard to existing windy conditions in many places along the 

Project corridor. 

Comments regarding utilities questioned the scope of the STB’s preemption authority in 

terms of possible utility system modifications needed to ultimately serve the Project and 

the efficacy of mitigation identified to address impacts to fire and emergency service 

providers. 

Comments regarding visual effects included the potential for light pollution in the 

metropolitan Las Vegas area and possible obstruction of advertising signage along the I-15 

corridor. 

Please see Appendix C of this ROD for FRA’s responses to these comments. In issuing this 

ROD, FRA has considered all comments received on the Final EIS, as well as the previous 

comments received on the Draft and Supplemental Draft EIS. 

7.0 Corrections to the Final EIS 

The following lists minor corrections to the Final EIS. In all of the cases below, 

typographical or editing errors resulted in the misstatement of certain environmental 

effects. None of these errors materially affected the decision-making of FRA or the 

Cooperating Agencies. 

Final EIS p. 3.3-6, Table F-3.3-2 – Farmlands. Table overstated the amount of indirectly 

affected farmland for Segment 3A: the correct amount is 0.0 acres (no effect). The table 

incorrectly stated that 0.31 acres of farmland would be affected by Segment 3A. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 62 

Final EIS p. 3.7-16 and 3.15-24, regarding archaeological resource CA SBR (00)885: Table 

F-3.7-1 on p. 3.7-16 erroneously indicates that this resource is in the APE; Table F-3.15-2 

on p. 3.15-24 correctly states that this resource is outside the APE. 

Final EIS p. 3.7-10, Section 3.7.2.3: The text overstates the total number of cultural 

resources potentially affected by the Project. 

1. “Preferred Alternative”: The count of cultural resources affected by the Preferred 

Alternative assumed the construction of Segment 4C. The accurate numbers of 

cultural resources associated with this alternative are noted below: 

 92 resources assumed eligible 

 38 resources previously identified as eligible 

 109 resources previously identified as not eligible 

 Total: 239 resources (not 254 as noted on Final EIS p. 3.7-10) 

2. Segment 4A: The Selected Alternative identified in the ROD includes Segment 4A 

and notes Segment 4C as a contingent alternative if legislative action to permit the 

implementation of Segment 4A is not adopted. For clarification purposes, the 

number of cultural resources associated with the Selected Alternative 

incorporating Segment 4A instead of Segment 4C is as follows: 

 90 resources assumed eligible 

 37 resources previously identified as eligible 

 98 resources previously identified as not eligible 

 Total: 225 resources 

The Final EIS p. 3.9-7, Table F-3.9-2 – Geology and Soils included two misstatements of 

comparative geologic impacts: 

1. Surface Fault rupture risk: The table overstated the likelihood of surface fault 

rupture for Segments 4A and 4B. These should have been noted as having “low” 

risk of surface fault rupture. 

2. Ground shaking risk: The risk for Segment 6B have been the same as noted for 

Segments 6A and 6C: low to moderate. 

Final EIS p. 3.14-39, Table F-3.14-1, Table 1 of 3. The table overstated the amount of 

desert tortoise impacts related to Segment 6A: the correct amounts are 0.0 for both 

permanent and temporary effects. The table incorrectly stated 40.2 acres of permanent 

impact and 116.6 acres of temporary impact. 

Final EIS p. 3.14-42,Table F-3.14-1, Table 2 of 3. The table overstated the acreage of 

Mohave ground squirrel (MGS) temporarily affected by Segments 3A and 3B. The correct 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 63 

amounts for both Segment 3A and 3B is zero. This same error was made in the Draft EIS 

within Table 3.14-13 on Draft EIS page 3.14-60. 

8.0 Decision 

8.1 BASIS FOR DECISION 

DesertXpress Enterprises proposes to implement high-speed passenger rail service 

between Victorville, California and metropolitan Clark County (Las Vegas), Nevada. The 

purpose of the DesertXpress Project is to offer a safe, reliable alternative to automobile 

and air travel between southern California and Las Vegas using proven rail technology. 

Currently, the overwhelming majority of travelers between southern California and Las 

Vegas travel in automobiles on Interstate 15, contributing to substantial safety and 

congestion concerns on that roadway and in adjacent communities. Projected travel 

demand on I-15 is expected to continue to increase commensurate with projected 

population growth in southern California. Implementation of the DesertXpress Project 

will help address these needs. 

In addition, the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 established 

high-speed rail corridor development as an important component of the Nation’s 

transportation policy. Moreover, on July 2, 2009, U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray 

LaHood announced that the Department of Transportation had officially extended the 

designation of the California High-Speed Rail Corridor to Las Vegas, Nevada.

Implementation of the DesertXpress Project is thus consistent with the Department of 

Transportation and FRA’s vision of the important role high-speed intercity passenger rail 

can play in certain travel markets (see Vision for High-Speed Rail in America, April 2009 

http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/rrdev/hsrstrategicplan.pdf). 

The Selected Alternative identified in this ROD as the Project is composed of rail 

alignments, facilities, and a locomotive technology. Section 4.3 of this ROD articulates in 

detail the considerations and factors balanced by FRA in arriving at this decision. These 

considerations extended to the evaluation of numerous Action Alternatives and a No 

Action Alternative. The components of the Project are as follows: 

 Alignments 

 Segment 1 

 Segment 2C Side Running 

 Segment 3B (Modified) 

 Segment 4A, if legislative action allows; otherwise Segment 4C 

 Segment 5B 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 64 

 Segment 6B 

 Facilities

 Victorville Station: VV3B 

 Las Vegas Station: Las Vegas Central Station B or Las Vegas Southern 

Station 

 Victorville OMSF: OMSF 2 

 Las Vegas MSF: Wigwam Avenue MSF 

 Las Vegas Substation: Frias Substation 

 Technology 

 EMU: Electric Multiple Unit 

The Project also incorporates a total of 16 Temporary Construction Areas (TCAs) 

necessary to construct the selected alignments and facilities. 

FRA, in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA implementing 

regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508) and FRA’s Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999), finds that the requirements of 

NEPA have been satisfied for the DesertXpress Project. 

The environmental record for DesertXpress Project includes the Draft EIS (March 2009), 

the Supplemental Draft EIS (August 2010), the Final EIS (March 2011), and this ROD, 

which includes comments from the circulation of the Final EIS. These documents 

represent the detailed analysis and findings required by NEPA on: 

 The environmental impacts of the proposed Project 

 Alternatives to the proposed Project 

 Irreversible and irretrievable impacts on the environment which may be involved 

in the proposed Project should it be implemented. 

On the basis of the evaluation of social, economic, and environmental impacts contained 

in the Draft EIS, Supplemental Draft EIS, and Final EIS, as well as the written and oral 

comments offered by the public and by other agencies, FRA determines that: 

 Adequate opportunity was afforded for the presentation of views by all parties with 

a significant economic, social, or environmental interest, and fair consideration 

was given to the preservation and enhancement of the environment and to the 

interest of the communities in which the proposed Project is located and 

 All reasonable steps were taken to minimize adverse environmental effects of the 

proposed Project, and where adverse environmental effects remain, they have been 

fully reported in Draft EIS, Supplemental Draft EIS, and Final EIS. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 65 

The extensive opportunities provided for public and other stakeholder involvement in 

planning and decision-making are described in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS. The reasonable 

steps to minimize adverse environmental effects are described in Chapter 3 of the Final 

EIS and are detailed as Project commitments in Appendix A of this ROD. 

8.2 SECTION 106 

Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966 requires that any federal agency having direct or indirect 

jurisdiction over a proposed federal or federally assisted undertaking take into account the 

effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or other object that is 

listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Under this 

provision, in an effort to avoid or minimize adverse effects to cultural resources, a 

Programmatic Agreement (PA) was developed and executed by FRA, all federal 

Cooperating Agencies (BLM, NPS, STB, FHWA), the Nevada and California State Historic 

Preservation Officers (SHPOs), and the Applicant (see Final EIS Appendix F-H). In 

addition, one Native American Tribe, the Las Vegas Paiute, signed as a concurring party. 

Following publication of Records of Decision or other decision documents by the federal 

Cooperating Agencies for the Project, the terms of the PA will be implemented. The PA 

sets forth numerous requirements intended to ensure appropriate treatment of historic 

resources is employed during the ground-disturbing activities associated with Project 

construction. 

The PA also stipulates protocols for how and when formal eligibility determinations would 

be made. Specifically, while extensive efforts have occurred to identify potential historic 

resources, the PA describes a phased implementation approach consistent with 36 C.F.R. 

800.4(b)(2) permitting formal eligibility determinations to be made after the Preferred 

Alternative is identified and ratified by the Lead and Cooperating Agencies via decisions 

on the proposed action. Eligibility determinations will be made by the appropriate agency 

(in this region, either BLM or FRA) based on information presented in completed stateappropriate site records forms. Moreover, the PA sets forth requirements for Tribal 

monitoring of construction activities to help ensure protection of cultural resources that 

may be encountered. 

Adherence to the terms of the PA will fulfill all obligations under Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470f). 

As articulated in Chapter 4 of the Final EIS, FRA conducted extensive consultation with 

Native American Tribes and tribal organizations with known or assumed ancestral 

presence in the area of the proposed action. Several formal government-to-government 

consultations occurred over the course of the environmental review as well as numerous 

informational sessions. FRA invited these 13 organizations to comment on draft versions 

of the PA and subsequently invited them to sign to sign the PA as concurring parties. 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 66 

Notably, the PA stipulates that a signature as a concurring party is not a condition of 

future participation in the implementation of the PA. 

Based upon these findings and implementation of the PA, FRA determines that the Project 

is in accordance with requirements of Section 106. 

8.3 SECTION 4(F) 

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, codified in federal law at 23 

U.S.C 138 and 49 U.S.C. 303, declares that “it is the policy of the United States 

Government that special effort should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the 

countryside and public park and recreation land, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and 

historic sites.” Section 4(f) states that the Secretary of Transportation “may approve a 

transportation program or project . . . requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public 

park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local 

significance, or land of an historic site of national, state, or local significance (as 

determined by the federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the park, area, 

refuge, or site) only if: 

1. there is no prudent and feasible avoidance alternative to the use of the land from 

the Section 4(f) property; and 

2. the program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the 

Section 4(f) property resulting from the use. 

In the Final EIS, FRA prepared a Final evaluation under Section 4(f) in compliance with 

all requirements of the law as well as FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental 

Impacts. 

FRA selected a Project alternative that avoids any use of Section 4(f) properties. Based 

upon this evaluation, FRA concludes that the Project is consistent with the requirements 

of with Section 4(f). 

8.4 SECTION 6(F) 

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA) concerns 

transportation projects that propose impacts, or the permanent conversion, of outdoor 

recreation property that was acquired or developed with LWCFA grant assistance. 

Passed in Congress in 1965, the LWCFA provides grants which pay half the acquisition 

and development cost of outdoor recreation sites and facilities. Section 6(f) of the act 

states that property acquired through this grant money cannot be taken out of recreational 

use without approval of the Department of Interior’s National Park Service (NPS). Section 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 67 

6(f) also holds the NPS “to assure that replacement lands of equal value, location and 

usefulness are provided as conditions of approval of land conversions.” 

The Project would not result in the conversion of any property acquired with funds from 

the LWCFA. The closest qualifying property to the Selected Alternative is the Camp Cady 

Wildlife Area in San Bernardino County, California. Funds from the LWCFA were 

authorized to acquire land for this resource area (a wildlife refuge) in 1979 and 1984. This 

site is approximately 3 miles from the rail alignment; on the basis of this distance, FRA 

also concluded that the site would not be subject to any use under Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act of 1966. 

Therefore, FRA concludes that the Project would not result in any impact or conversion of 

property acquired or developed with LWCFA grant assistance. Based upon these findings, 

FRA determines that the Project is in accordance with requirements of Section 6(f). 

8.5 SECTION 7 ENDANGERD SPECIES FINDING 

FRA requested formal consultation with the USFWS under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act. A BA was prepared for the proposed action addressing potential impacts to 

the federally-listed threatened species affected by the Project, the desert tortoise 

(gopherus agassizii). In response, the USFWS issued a BO on April 26, 2011 stating that 

the proposed action would not jeopardize the continued existence of the desert tortoise, 

nor would the proposed action result in an adverse modification of critical habitat. Based 

upon these findings, FRA determines that the Project is in accordance with requirements 

of Section 7. 

8.6 WETLANDS FINDING 

Presidential Executive Order 11990, “Protection of wetlands,” directs federal agencies to 

avoid to the extent possible the long- and short-term adverse impacts associated with the 

destruction or modification of wetlands and to avoid direct or indirect support of new 

construction in wetlands wherever there is a practicable alternative. 

Construction of the Project would not traverse, modify, or destroy any wetlands. Based 

upon these findings, FRA determines that the Project is in accordance with requirements 

of Executive Order 11990. 

8.7 FLOODPLAINS AND FLOODWAYS FINDING 

DOT Order 5620.2 implements Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management and 

Protection. These orders state that FRA may not approve an alternative involving a 

significant encroachment unless FRA can make a finding that the proposed encroachment 

is the only practicable alternative. The major purposes of Executive Order 11988 are to 
Record of Decision for DesertXpress High-Speed Passenger Train 

 68 

avoid Federal support for floodplain development; to prevent uneconomic, hazardous, or 

incompatible use of floodplains; to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial 

floodplain values; and to be consistent with the standards and criteria of the National 

Floodplain Insurance Program. 

FRA concludes that the Project will not result in any substantial adverse impact on natural 

and beneficial values of the floodplains, will not result in a substantial change in flood 

risks or damage, and will not have a substantial potential for interruption or termination 

of emergency service and evacuation routes. Based upon these findings, FRA determines 

that the Project is consistent with requirements of Executive Order 11988. 

8.8 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FINDING 

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires that each Federal Agency shall make

achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects 

of its programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 

populations. The Department of Transportation (DOT) Order to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations (DOT order 5610.2 (April 15, 1997)) imposes similar 

obligations on DOT operating administrations to promote the principles of Executive 

Order 12898 and incorporate such principles in all programs, policies, and activities 

including the NEPA process. 

The majority of the Project would be within or adjacent to an existing transportation 

corridor and would not bisect minority or low-income neighborhoods nor require the 

displacement of residences in those neighborhoods. The anticipated human and 

environmental effects of the Project would not be disproportionately borne by the 

minority or low-income populations within the study area. Based upon these findings, 

FRA determines that the Project is consistent with requirements of Executive Order 

12898.