Skip to main content
Welcome!Help Us Improve

You are here

California High Speed Train - Fresno to Bakersfield - Central Valley

California High Speed Train - Fresno to Bakersfield - Central Valley (Nationally or Regionally Significant Projects)

Coordinating Agency
Department of Transportation
Accountable POC
Stephanie Perez
Project Status
In Progress
Estimated Cost
$ 7,000,000,000
Project Website
The Fresno to Bakersfield section of the California High Speed Train (HST) System extends approximately 114 miles in California's Central Valley and is a portion of Phase 1 of the HST system. Stations are planned at Fresno and Read More
Expedited Process
FRA and the Authority entered into an MOU for the integration of NEPA, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 408 of the Rivers and Harbors Act for the HST System in December of 2011. The integration MOU was developed to ensure a Read More

Reviews, Approvals and Permits

Click on the Description Drop Down Arrow icon to view more information.
Title Responsible Agency Responsible Agency POC Name Target Completion Date Status Description Public Participation Address Public Participation Email Public Participation State Public Participation Website Public Participation Zip
Record of Decision Department of Transportation Stephanie Perez 06/13/2014 Complete

Final action by the lead Federal agency in the NEPA process selecting an alternative and resolving mitigation measures.

Description Drop Down Arrow
Section 408 Permit Approval/Section 208: CVFPB Encroachment Permit Approval Department of Defense Paul Maniccia 12/31/2015 In Progress

That the Secretary may, on the recommendation of the Chief of Engineers, grant permission for the alteration or permanent occupation or use of any of the aforementioned public works when in the judgment of the Secretary such occupation or use will not be injurious to the public interest and will not impair the usefulness of such work.

Description Drop Down Arrow
NHPA Section 106 Compliance - MOA Signed Department of Transportation Stephanie Perez 04/28/2014 Complete

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act mandates federal agencies undergo a review process for all federally-funded and permitted projects that will impact sites listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places. Specifically it requires the federal agency to "take into account" the effect a project may have on historic properties. It allows interested parties an opportunity to comment on the potential impact projects may have on significant archaeological or historic sites. The main purpose for the establishment of the Section 106 review process is to minimize potential harm and damage to historic properties.

Description Drop Down Arrow
Checkpoint C: Checkpoint Concurrence Department of Defense Paul Maniccia 01/13/2014 Complete

NEPA/404/408 MOU for California HST Program - Checkpoint C is the identification and concurrence on the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative (LEDPA), USACE Section 408 Draft Response and Draft Mitigation Plan for the proposed Section. USACE and USEPA issue letters for Checkpoint C after considering all information submitted, resolving the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative and other issues.In an effort to thoroughly address public comments and provide for further stakeholder discussions, the CAHRSA is taking additional time to meet with the local jurisdictions before the identification of a preferred project alternative. While this effort will delay submittal of Checkpoint C documentation to the USACE and USEPA, the CAHSRA believes it is in the best interests of the project to do so.

Description Drop Down Arrow
Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit Department of Defense Kathleen Dadey 12/15/2015 In Progress

Clean Water Act Section 404 regulates the discharge of dredged and fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.In general, to obtain a Section 404 permit, applicants must demonstrate that the discharge of dredged or fill material would not significantly degrade the nation's waters and there are no practicable alternatives less damaging to the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences. Applicants should also describe steps taken to minimize impacts to water bodies and wetlands and provide appropriate and practicable mitigation, such as restoring or creating wetlands, for any remaining, unavoidable impacts.

Description Drop Down Arrow
Final EIS Department of Transportation Stephanie Perez 03/14/2014 Complete

Completion and distribution of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement.

Description Drop Down Arrow
ESA Section 7 Biological Opinion Department of the Interior USFWS 02/28/2013 Complete

ESA Section 7 consultation required for projects connected to Federal agencies, w/ possible Biological Opinion and possible Incidental Take Statement; may also obtain Incidental Take Permit (Section 10) after submission of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), which triggers an FWS consultation and possible NEPA review. Voluntary consultation reduces Section 9 liability.

Description Drop Down Arrow
Air Quality Conformity Determination Department of Transportation Stephanie Perez 06/13/2014 Complete

Transportation conformity is a way to ensure that Federal funding and approval goes to those transportation activities that are consistent with air quality goals.

Description Drop Down Arrow