have been omitted. we also removed names and...

Email comments received (or postmarked) from September 23 to October 23, 2015

For HSRA GI Proposal

Note: Beginning and ending sentences such as “thank you for …” and “please feel to contact me

…” have been omitted. We also removed names and addresses.

I was sent a copy of an email about the HSR application for a geotechnical application to drill

test wells. I tried to locate that site on the website you provided, but was unsuccessful. Would

you please provide me with a detailed method for obtaining the HSR permit application.

Depending on the application, I may have comments about the need for surface casing, blowout

preventers, drilling bit sizes, the location and size of the mud pits, the location of the bore sites in

relation to existing water wells and springs, the possible de-watering of the surface in the

locations of the drill site and the question of whether this project will be a platform drilling

project with multiple wells drilled from the same borehole. I have a background in drilling wells

and will be most interested in commenting on the technical aspects. Additional it will be critical

to have ALL of the information, including the raw technical data available to the public within

two weeks from completing the drilling.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tunneling through the largest intact wilderness in the greater LA area sounds like a sucky idea.

Those in favor of said move also suck. Thank you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wanted to comment that I do not think the Forest Service should approve the feasibility study

for the High Speed Rail. How does this feasibility study benefit the forest? It doesn't. Boring

holes (let alone tunnels) is disruptive to wildlife and groundwater.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I support the HSR project in California. I don't know if the tunnel routes under the national

forest are the best options, but I fully support test drilling in the forest to determine the feasibility

of building the tunnels based on environmental studies that include evaluations given the

conditions that are found from the drilling.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I favor allowing HSR to drill tests in the Angeles National Forest and San Gabriel Mountains

National Monument provided they cause no harm. Drilling on existing roads seems a safe choice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The request to drill bore holes or even a tunnel through a Federal Wilderness Area is totally out

of line and should be denied.

The high speed rail project is in itself a big mistake. It should be cancelled and the funding be

redirected towards water conservation.

Please deny permission to further this idiotic project.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These mountains are the only protected environmental ecosystem left here. I can't believe this

land will be destroyed and for what. This is a critical area for wildlife especially animals. I can't

believe the forest service is on board with this. These mountains are already fragile. We a,ready

have poor displaced wildlife living in our community because of the drought and the devastating

fires. It already sickens many of us the murder of the massive oak ecosystem in alta dena that

we all just allowed. I am appalled that this is even a thought.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm writing to express my support for the California High-Speed Rail Authority's request to

explore through drilling test holes the possibility of a tunnel for the high-speed rail line.

The tests will help determine the issues and risks, and should go ahead. If the tests lead to results

that support going the tunnel route, I think that would be exciting to have a faster connection

between Santa Clarita and Burbank, with less pollution and congestion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is needed is control on the HSR. This just isn't a practice run where operations are started

and stopped. They need to do the correct environmental studies.

We the communities in opposition to this operation have given important and valid data, which

is being ignored.

Experimental drilling in the Angeles National Forest is not an option. This will disrupt the entire

environment and recreational uses of the Forest and go completely against President Obama's

proclamation for the Forest in October 2, 2014.

No experiments, at the cost of the Angeles National Forest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We strongly oppose the idea of a tunnel through the San Gabriel mountains. The environmental

impact would be devestating and, in this increasingly difficult region to afford, the funds (we all

know where they will come from) need to go to water resources, infrastructure and education--

Directly. It is time to stop spending money we don't have and time to serve people who work

hard and struggle to make ends meet.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I think the California high speed railway will be a vital part of our future. Please consider

allowing them to study the impact of building tunnels under the forest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We need to allow the boring!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this request. My comments regarding the CaHSR

Authority's request to drill deep test holes "near" roads in the Angeles National Forest are as

follows:

First and foremost, why would you allow anyone to drill into an area rife with underground

springs and waterways that provide drinking water to not only well owners in the Angeles

National Forest, but that feed the San Fernando Groundwater Basin - the largest source of locally

sourced drinking water for Los Angeles and environs?

There are 20-30 legally-recognized tributaries of the Los Angeles River Watershed in Little

Tujunga, Big Tujunga, and Pacoima Canyons alone, according to official California Water

Resources Board documentation. I have attached a spread-sheet of these legally-recognized

tributaries and have sorted out the tributaries by Canyon that are threatened by HSR's proposed

E1, E2, and E3 routes through the ANF.

Please look through all the tabs in the attached Excel sheet to see all of the drinking water

sources potentially threatened by HSR. Water runs at any depth from 0' to 3-4,000' throughout

these ANF canyons. Based on this alone, HSR should not be drilling anything anywhere within

the Angeles National Forest because they could damage, disrupt or pollute any of these sources.

Secondly, drilling "near" a road does not mean they will not be damaging critical plant and

animal habitat to move equipment to their drilling site, setting up their equipment, and drilling

and discharging core material with other associated activities. In Big Tujunga, the Santa Ana

Sucker has a Federal protection order for example. The San Fernando Spine Flower hangs on

tenuously in this area. Although not locally rare, the only place in the world other than some

canyons in Northern California where the rare Davidson's Bush Mallow grows is HERE, in Little

Tujunga, Big Tujunga, Kagel/Lopez and Pacoima Canyons. NO WHERE ELSE.

HSR can build their project without impacting any of the precious resources in the Angeles

National Forest and they should not be allowed to have one single impact on this important

national resource.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I feel it would be a waist of time and monet to drill in the Angeles National forest.

We need to take care of what we have and complete what we have started before we waist

money on other projects.

If we have extra money to drill and build tunnels I am sure we have spent enough money on

building water shead storage so we never run into the problems we are having now.

If Brown needs to pay back his suporters use the money on projects that would benifit all not just

a few.

High speed rail same thing what a waist. If we were tild the truth at first would have never

passed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't have any problems letting them drill for possible routes through the forest. Let them

proceed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please do not approve the request to drill holes for a tunnel feasibility study. I think it's horrible

idea.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand you are accepting public comment on a feasibility study for an underground tunnel

system for a rail route under the San Gabriel Mountains.

I believe this project is WRONG for a number of reasons:

1. Basic geology has indicated that the San Gabriel Mountains were formed by the collision of

two plates of the Earth's crust. Additionally the San Gabriel Mountains are underlaid with many

earthquake faults--known and unknown. Obvious ground movement has occurred in the past and

will continue forever. Any rail tunneling will be continually exposed to collapse from such

movement.

2. Any underground collision or fire will be catastrophic in such a tunnel, with massive loss of

life, contamination, etc..

3. The National Forest, and later, the National Monument, were both created to limit

development ON the public's land, ABOVE the land, and UNDER the land. As new mining has

been prohibited in the Monument, tunneling should likewise be prohibited.

4. Maintenance outlets--including ventilation shafts-- would be constructed along the length of

any such tunnel, with infrastructure, parking lots, buildings, and supplies--all on Monument

lands. Paved access roads would also be needed where none exist today. Any and all of this

would be disruptive of native animals, and obstruct the scenic vistas and enjoyment of Forest

visitors. The Environmental Impact of all this is patently obvious BEFORE any drilling or

activity is begun.

5. Underground works will disrupt geologic water flows and affect millions of water users

downstream of the National Monument. Longstanding water rights would be affected and the

Federal government challenged in Court, all at taxpayer expense.

6. The construction of such a tunnel will create massive amounts of debris, and the extraction,

and future deposition of such material cannot be within the Monument.

I could go on with this. The sheer folly of such a project is obvious from the start. The end

result of an Environmental Impact Report is likewise obvious. Maintaining the pristine nature of

our National lands is a responsibility of the Federal government. Despite construction

devastation of huge areas of public lands, to say that a tunnel peacefully and quietly lies

underneath our mountains and would in no way affect anything above it, is pure bunk.

I urge you to STOP this feasibility study BEFORE it goes any further and creates a problem that

cannot be reversed. The Federal government is being ASKED for permission to do core testing

on Federal public lands. The Federal government on behalf of the public trust should DENY

such a request in the strongest of terms.

Thank-you for considering my opinion.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, you should allow geotechnical borings on existing forest roads for HSR. The impact of

drilling borings is minimal, and the information gained is invaluable in making decisions for the

location of the HSR route. The more infrastructure we can get below ground the better for the

environment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How is the forestry service ok with plans to drill under the SGM range? This is the stupidest idea

EVER and was not what was voted for 7 years ago.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I urge you to consider the unforeseen consequences of allowing the HSRA to tunnel underneath

the Angeles National Forest. The area is already heavily damaged from the Station Fire in 2009

and the devastating drought has crippled the watershed. This delicate riparian climate is in dire

shape. As a a result, it has cost millions to remove the sediment that has choked the major

waterways and dams, like nearby Pacoima dam.

The need for surface ventilation facilities along the route and the need for roads to connect those

facilities will result in significant surface disturbance and disruption to hydrology. If the boring

machine gets stuck, as happened in Seattle, it will be an enormous operation to remove it from

the surface. The complexity of stratum below the surface cannot be adequately studied to ensure

that no damage will be caused to natural springs, waterways and aquifers. Noise and light

pollution will also dramatically increase. The necessary effort to excavate Pacoima dam will only

exacerbate congested roadways and pollution caused by construction of HSR.

The amount of trucking required to clear the tunnel will leave an enormous carbon footprint,

negating carbon savings supposedly gained by fewer commuters on the road. The advent of

affordable electric cars and a healthy infrastructure have made this project obsolete and

irrelevant to the future of transportation. By the time the HSR is finished, our electric cars will

autonomously drive us to San Francisco with solar power.

It has far exceeded the cost originally voted on by taxpayers by tens of billions of dollars and

will continue to inflate over time. It fundamentally strips the protections of a National Forest by

allowing a disproportionate amount of ecological disturbance. Fault lines intersect with all of the

proposed routes, causing additional safety concerns for drilling, excavation and eventual

operation.

Replanting and remediation will not replace what this development would take away. Do not

allow this to happen on your watch! HSR will leave a gaping scar for decades during

construction and a legacy of shortsighted decision making.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am extremely upset that drilling may happen in places above my well. First of all, is this the

reason why the San Gabriel Mountains became a national monument? Secondly, this is not what

voters asked for. What happened to the original plans?

Is it safe to drill so deeply in a place that is expected to have a very large earthquake in the near

future? There are many tests being done that are proving that deep drilling sets off seismic

activity.

It has also been proven that groundwater could be affected.

I truly feel that I am being bullied. If the testing happens, I could lose my well water. We could

have seismic activity, which could cause untold trauma. I can't believe that my government or

forest service could ever allow this. It's a nightmare, that I want to say is only a dream, but it

isn't.

We need to wake up, stop dreaming, and do what is right! Please cancel all drilling!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No.

Let me be more clear.

Hell no.

As a backpacker I spend roughly 40 nights a year in a tent in the ANF. I was opposed to the

National Monument distinction after learning of the different entities involved in the process of

“divvying up” the area. It’s about one thing and that’s MONEY. I’m quite certain that we will

now see more buildings and more pavement. The types of things bureaucrats feel will increase

visitor ship and therefore revenue. Of course, that also means more litter, more S&R and more

fire risk. And by the way, LESS of an opportunity for people who value a NATURAL

experience. So the people who really know what they’re doing and value and care for the

environment are the very people who will be hurt the most.

But this is different. This is a proposal to fundamentally alter the geographical makeup of a

location. If they need to do a study then there are clearly risks.

Take away the natural elements of the environment now and you might as well kiss the entire

freaking forest goodbye. But, in all honesty, I think that would be just fine for many. It seems the

rush is on to turn it in to a mall or, better yet, continue to rape it in the name of “conservation.”

Not that my opinion means anything because we all now MONEY will be the determining factor,

but I sure as hell hope there is SOMEONE in the Forest Service with the stones to fight for what

really matters.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We were appalled to read that there is the potentiality of testing under the now recently national

monument , the San Gabriels for feasiblity of the high speed rail line.

First, regardless of what testing proves as far as geological information, does not guarantee

safety.

Second, the ideology to invade a national monument , whether its 2000 feet below or not, is

almost sacrilegious. At what exact point , has the U.S. Forest Service determined that our San

Gabriel National Monument no long exists-- 500 feet below the surface, 1000 feet below ...

apparently 2000 feet below the surface is the benchmark. So perhaps , if needed in the future,

drilling 2000 feet below Mt. Rushmore will be acceptable? The U.S. Forest, if it does grant this

exploratory drilling, has now set precedent for opening the flood gates to reducing the stature of

what is considered a National Monument in the U.S. Forest's library of National Monuments.

Third, many, many communities through out Southern California, have been disrupted in the

name of transportation. When the 210 Freeway was constructed in Pasadena, yes, homes were

bought in order that the freeway be constructed. While I understand the communities along the

14 freeway being distraught over high speed rail destroying parts of their community , perhaps

the anger should be directed toward the building of the high speed rail. The high speed rail ,

over and over has been found to be fraught with issues that make high speed rail not only not

cost effective, prohibitively beyond comprehension in terms of cost and most of all , lacks the

functionality to actually be a mode of transportation connecting Northern and Southern

California in a manner that is considered significantly faster.

And fourth, while we agree the disruption to the communities living along the 14 Freeway would

be abhorrent for high speed rail to encroach upon, it would be just as abhorrent to have the San

Gabriel Mountains be disrupted. Both options perpetuate the the "idealized" concept of high

speed rail in California rather the reality that it has not been proven cost effective or benefecial

to the majority of citizens of California. It just has not been proven that high speed rail will be

utilized by enough people to justify the cost or the disruption of cities , let alone the San Gabriel

Mountains National Monument being tainted.

In conclusion, we implore the U.S. Forest Service to not grant permission to drill under our San

Gabriel Mountains that are cherished and appreciated as an integral element of Southern

California.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The more we know, the better decisions we can make! Provided sufficient safeguards are in

place to protect the forest, nothing should stop us from getting better data.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a past Forest Service volunteer. I saw the article about the proposed high speed rail system

study on the Big Pines Information Station's Facebook page just now.

I think the only thing a rail system through the Angeles National Monument/Forest will do is put

money in the proposers pockets. It will pollute, disturb and destroy the forest and it's wildlife.

Eventually it will open the door for more greedy people who want to put businesses in the forest.

The forest is a respite for humanity. A place to go to get away from the city and remember what

this world was meant to be in the beginning. It's not the cement sidewalks, paved roads, traffic

jams, trash and dead animals lying on the side of the roads and freeways. It's a speck of the past

and a little of what this earth was meant to be. It's a place where mountain lions, bighorn sheep,

bears, birds and hundreds of other creatures depend on for their safety and food. It's already

being assaulted by bikers, racing cars, hunters, and the homeless. Isn't that enough?

Los Angeles is completely overcrowded because people can't control their desires to tear up the

earth and build on it for the almighty dollar.

Animals need a place to go too. We've already made our wild animals victims in their own

habitat (hunting, killing for the fun of it, automobiles, off road vehicles, etc.). Are we going to

let commercial interests destroy the forest too? When will it end if it doesn't end now.

We don't need trains in the forest. We need the forest. Mans innate soul is tied to it and we will

become more soul-less and unfeeling if we give in to letting it go.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I encourage the Forest Service to permit drilling to test feasibility for a high speed rail tunnel. I

am sure the Forest Service can mitigate and impacts at the surface.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing in response to your request for comments related to the issuance of a permit to the

High Speed Rail Authority to conduct geotechnical investigations in the Angeles National

Forest.

Residential wells located in upper Kagel Canyon have never been accurately plotted by the High

Speed Rail Authority. This is especially concerning since they have been made aware of this at

various community outreach meetings in the past. I have no confidence in the accuracy of their

analysis due to their lack of due diligence in obtaining this information from the County of Los

Angeles.

The directive requires that all property owners in upper Kagel Canyon be contacted about this

tunnel study so that they may submit comments. As of today, I am the only property owner who

has been contacted and this was only because I attended a meeting on the management plan for

the San Gabriel National Monument. I have alerted my closest immediate neighbors but an

official letter must be sent to each property owner and proper time allowed for them to respond.

Los Angeles County records can easily be obtained to locate the property owners in this area.

The residents in upper Kagel Canyon must also be provided the opportunity to have their

residential wells tested for water quality as well as water quantity before any test holes are bored

to establish a baseline for measuring the cumulative effects in the months or years ahead when

the noticeable drop in water level is expected to occur. Each residential well produces water at

different volumes and from different depths. A drop in water level of 2” may be the difference

between a well that produces water and one that does not. Finally, the plans for this study must

include compensatory mitigation allowances for all property owners whose well water is

adversely affected.

The examples of similar testing activities provided by High Speed Rail is inadequate as none of

those projects were a mile upstream from residential water wells. I would also like to receive a

list of all ingredients from the products and additives being used for this operation.

The risk of damaging our drinking water through additives, vertical merging and lowering the

water levels in our residential wells downstream from these proposed test locations threatens our

health and safety. I have attached a map of the location of preferred bored holes based on the

coordinates provided in their document. The attached map allows you to see the proximity to the

property owners in upper Kagel Canyon.

Also, the trucks and heavy equipment that will be used to perform deep drilling for this tunnel

study on protected lands within the Angeles National Forest will impact the California condor

and the golden eagle and there is no plan provided for mitigating this.

For these and other reasons already mentioned the special use permit should not be allowed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a short coming of high speed rail not plotting the locations of residential wells in upper

Kagel Canyon on their Palmdale to Burbank project maps. They MUST notify all property

owners whose well water will be impacted downstream from these activities. It would be willful

negligence not to do so. Only the residents in upper Kagel Canyon rely on residential water

wells, not the entire Kagel Canyon area.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing to express my support for the Forest Service to allow the California High Speed

Rail (HSR) Authority to conduct geotechnical explorations in the Angeles National Forest. The

HSR program is vital to the economy of California, and the proposed investigations in the Forest

are a critical first step in the planning of the rail tunnels. I encourage the Forest Service to work

cooperatively with the HSR to permit these investigations to be conducted in a prompt and

environmentally responsible manner.

Thank you for this opportunity to comment on this proposal.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My name is [ ] and I am a resident of Los Angeles County in the San Fernando Valley. It has

come to my attention that you are taking comments for whether or not the CHSRA should be

allowed to drill in the Los Angeles national forest to further study alignment options. My input

is a resounding YES! I personally do not like to fly and I see this as a viable alternative. Having

been in an airplane that almost went down years back I have vowed not to touch another airplane

unless I really have to and even when I do for work I can only go through the experience heavily

sedated. I know trains come with their own set of safety issues but tell that to my body as the

airplane takes off and I cant stop sweating (so embarrassing). Anyway please allow for the

continuation of this project; please allow for the drilling process to continue.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This note is to share w/you our full support for the proposed drilling in the San Gabriel

Mountains.

The proposed drilling activities include minimally invasive procedures that will cause little or no

environmental damage – and considering the importance of the findings – they are well worth

the risk.

I run an environmental engineering firm (please see description below) and I am a firm believer

that the proposed high speed rail is essential to California and the US.

Thank you for considering my comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The CA High Speed Rail Authority must not conduct drilling in order to procure soil samples in

the Angeles National Forest and/or San Gabriel Mountains. The reason is because many

scientists are certain drilling is causing seismic activity. Please see the following link to an

article on the subject:

Scientists certain that drilling is causing earthquakes

http://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/27/scientists-certain-that-drilling-is-causing-earthquakes.html

Even though the article references "oil and gas drilling", drilling for soil samples and drilling

tunnels through miles of mountain laced with earthquake fault lines, is probably just as

dangerous.

Moreover, there are many watersheds in the Angeles National Forest and/or San Gabriel

Mountains. Drilling for soil samples and drilling train tunnels will most likely contaminate the

watersheds. Please see the following link to an article on the subject:

Authority invests in study to save watershed land from drilling contamination

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/content.detail/id/550775/Authority-invests-in-study-to-save-

watershed-land-from-drilling-contamination.html?nav=742

Even though the article references "shale drilling", drilling for soil samples and drilling tunnels

through miles of mountain with watersheds, will probably put the watersheds at risk for

contamination.

Please take the aforementioned under consideration and urge the CA High Speed Rail Authority

to NOT drill in the Angeles National Forest and/or San Gabriel Mountains because the risks are

too great.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all I am totally against this GI study simply beause the only reason they want to do this is

to see how difficult it would be to tunnel thru the national forest. They say this drilling would not

affect ground water beyond 1000 feet but I do not believe them. This drilling is uneccessary and

would only cause damage to the national forest. Please deny this application because the only

reason they are doing this is to see if it would be feasible for the HSR to tunnel thru and destroy

the Angelus National Forest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I object to this permit be issued due to the threat it poses to the health and safety of the nearby

property owners residential well water. Furthermore, the new forest supervisor Jefrey Vail is

failing the people of California and should be removed immediately. We need a forest supervisor

who is going to protect our Angeles National Forest lands from this type of infrastructure

development. This land belongs to the people of California, your job is to protect it.

I am a filmmaker with vast resources and plan to document this event if it goes forward.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This letter is being written to voice my objection to tunnels being created under the San Gabriel

Mountains. The U.S. Forest Service should not allow this type of destruction to occur on

National Forest lands. The unknown, long term consequences of a tunnel through these

mountains far outweighs any benefit. The efforts to build the tunnel could cause irreparable

damage to trees and local wildlife. The time to construct such a tunnel would create havoc on

existing animal trails and habitat; permanently changing wildlife behavior in the area.

Clearly this tunnel would only be the beginning of the destruction of the mountains. At some

point the argument would be made to add additional tunnels for cars. If you allow a train, then

transportation businesses would argue, and lobby, that this route should be available to them as

well.

Saying no now is the only way to preserve the forests and wildlife that live in the San Gabriel

Mountains.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please let them build the high speed rail through the San Gabriel, Los Padres, and connecting

wilderness areas.

The train is electric. So, it leaves no pollution as it passes!

Make them build tunnels for animals to walk under the track - and walls to protect the animals if

necessary.

We NEED to move beyond fuel guzzling cars and planes. High speed electric trains are the way

to go!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing this email to express support for allowing CAHSRA to drill test bores and final

tunnels through the Angeles National Forest. The alternatives that go under the national forest

will likely be less expensive to build and will save travelers time, reducing the energy use by the

project and overall greenhouse emissions. The impacts of the test drilling are likely to be small -

far smaller than the impacts of other activities allowed in National Forests. I can see no reason

not to let this project move forward.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The reason the San Gabriel Mountains exist is that they were thrown up by the San Andreas

Fault, which they parallel. I think it's tempting fate to put a tunnel through them. I, for one,

would never ride through such a tunnel.

I fail to see why a bullet train mounted on a platform on the center divider of a freeway would be

a problem for communities, since the freeway would already be a traffic artery.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello sir! I am OPPOSED to drill holes in the Angeles National Forest and San Gabriel National

Monument. I think that it is a very bad idea to drill holes for any project that is not

environmentally-friendly! I am opposed to the proposed bullet train in the great State of

California. I ask that you please take my concerns seriously. Thank you!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand that the U.S. Forest Service has invited public input on whether to allow the

California High Rail Authority to test whether it would be feasible to tunnel beneath the San

Gabriel Mountains.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The U.S. Forrest Service should absolutely allow the CAHSR Authority to proceed with it’s

tunnel study. Weighing all of the factors, and the fact that the impact of the test drilling will be

negligible, the test should proceed. We want the best possible alignment choice, and these tests

are necessary to come to the proper choice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These mountains are an important source of water and a habitat for wildlife. The process of

getting equipment to the proposed bore holes will damage habitat and threaten protected species

and could possibly pollute ground and surface water. Ultimately the Angeles National Forest is

the wrong place for High Speed Rail. This community does not want this HSR.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I really don't understand, why? in the world, are you doing this? There are NATURAL

ARTESIAN WELLS in the Angeles National Forest. You don't know where they all are, some

never discovered yet. That is a Natural Water Resource. You want to destroy them??? really????

This is a Destruction!!!! for how many miles?? "Our Wildlife will be ALL GONE!!!!!" Our

National Forest, National Parks, Trees, Our Wildlife, even the Birds. "" IT WILL>>> ALL BE

GONE,"" What don't you Understand???? "You are Killing us, and our WILDLIFE. WoW!!!!

Please look into the Denver Rail System...it runs along the interstate, they have Stations along

the way, place to park,or ride a bus to the Stations. It's not a bullet train, but you could do the

same thing as Denver, Colorado, without DESTRUCTION!!!!!!! I put up a few words for you if

you don't understand!!!! If you run that train thru the Angeles NATIONAL FOREST, My Heart

Hurts for all the Children of the World. Remember they are your Children and your GRAND

CHILDREN too.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing to let you know that I am opposed to any geotechnical investigative drilling in the

Angeles National Forest. Aside from implying consent to any underground alignments for high

speed rail, allowing any geotechnical drilling disturbs the forest and it’s ecosystem, including it’s

natural waterways from which Los Angeles derives it’s only local source of drinking water.

This constituent is vehement and adamant in her opposition to any geotechnical drilling in

Angeles National Forest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a BAD idea on so many levels. Beside the concerns and impact on the people who live

there and the environmental impacts. It is too expensive. You can get from LA-SFO (bay area)

faster and cheaper by flying!! How much will a train ticket cost? $69 each way like on

Southwest? I don’t think so. Please stop it!

Please do not drill in my mountains! It will cause more than just environmental issues. We are in

a draught and need all the water we can! Do not disturb it or containment it!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing in response to your request for comments related to the issuance of a permit to the

High Speed Rail Authority to conduct geotechnical investigations in the Angeles National

Forest.

Residential wells located in upper Kagel Canyon have never been accurately plotted by the High

Speed Rail Authority. This is especially concerning since they have been made aware of this at

various community outreach meetings in the past. I have no confidence in the accuracy of their

analysis due to their lack of due diligence in obtaining this information from the County of Los

Angeles.

The directive requires that all property owners in upper Kagel Canyon be contacted about this

tunnel study so that they may submit comments. As of today, Carol is the only property owner

who has been contacted and this was only because she attended a meeting on the management

plan for the San Gabriel National Monument. Carol alerted her closest immediate neighbors but

an official letter must be sent to each property owner and proper time allowed for them to

respond. Los Angeles County records can easily be obtained to locate the property owners in

this area.

The residents in upper Kagel Canyon must also be provided the opportunity to have their

residential wells tested for water quality as well as water quantity before any test holes are bored

to establish a baseline for measuring the cumulative effects in the months or years ahead when

the noticeable drop in water level is expected to occur. Each residential well produces water at

different volumes and from different depths. A drop in water level of 2” may be the difference

between a well that produces water and one that does not. Finally, the plans for this study must

include compensatory mitigation allowances for all property owners whose well water is

adversely affected.

The examples of similar testing activities provided by High Speed Rail is inadequate as none of

those projects were a mile upstream from residential water wells. I would also like to receive a

list of all ingredients from the products and additives being used for this operation.

The risk of damaging our drinking water through additives, vertical merging and lowering the

water levels in our residential wells downstream from these proposed test locations threatens our

health and safety. I have attached a map of the location of preferred bored holes based on the

coordinates provided in their document. The attached map allows you to see the proximity to the

property owners in upper Kagel Canyon.

Also, the trucks and heavy equipment that will be used to perform deep drilling for this tunnel

study on protected lands within the Angeles National Forest will impact the California condor

and the golden eagle and there is no plan provided for mitigating this.

For these and other reasons already mentioned the special use permit should not be allowed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a thinking person, I am opposed to any permit for investigative borings and excavations in the

Angeles NF and SG NM. The risk of fire, of contamination and permanent damage to this

fragile area is too high. Sure you could condition the permit o minimize the risk, however, as

you must be aware through experience, permit conditions rarely live up to the promise of

mitigation, and forest fires are routinely started by individuals who have permits to clear land or

conduct other activities. As well, significant impacts to wildlife movement corridors, habitat and

watersheds would all result from the hundreds of bornigs under consideration. If the borings do

not deliver the desired results, even more bornigs would be proposed, and unless the permit

specifically restricts the number, size and location of the borings an EIS is warranted.

Any tunnels that could result from these investigative activities must be considered as part of any

NEPA review of the proposed activity, and since tunnels could be considered reasonably

foreseeable after the borings demonstrate feasibility, the environmental review must include

them.

Thank you for your consideration of these fair arguments in opposition to the proposed activity.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I want to voice my support for the California HIgh Speed Rail Authorities' request to dig in the


If the feasibility study finds that a tunnel could be dug under the Forest from Palmdale to

Burbank, I would support the digging of that tunnel as well.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This whole project looks to be a great waste of taxpayer money that could be used better

elsewhere. If the project went through I for see destruction of the natural mountain environment

and most likely another "bridge to nowhere" failed construction project.

I vote no.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There are natural artesian wells in the Angeles National Forest. Some never discovered yet. This

is a natural water resource. They will be destroyed. This is Destruction!!!! "Our wildlife will be

gone forever" Chemicals used for drilling will affect the wildlife, especially the California

condor and Golden eagle.The noise, dust, chemicals used for drilling will affect the wildlife,The

Angeles National Forest should be protected from this type of infrastructure. Please take a look

into the Denver Rail System...it runs along the interstate, they have stations along the way, place

to park, you can ride the bus to a station. It's not a bullet train, but you could do the same as

Denver, Colorado, without "DESTRUCTION" to our National Forest.The Angeles National

Forest should be protected from this type of infrastructure development. I know one day,

children will never know the feeling of being in the forest or hear the sounds of our wildlife.They

will have to go and see it in a show case. Have you ever been camping or fishing, with the sound

of wildlife around you? My Heart Hurts for all the Children of the World. Remember they are

your grandchildren, and great grandchildren too. Follow the interstate please!!! If you can stop

the drilling, the bullet train, then you can save all National Parks.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm alarmed that the California High Speed Rail Authority wants to bore holes deep beneath the

Angeles National Forest and San Gabriel Mountains to determine the feasibility of constructing a

high speed rail tunnel through these protected lands. I own a home in, and am a 13 year resident

of Kagel Canyon, a rural community in the northern San Fernando Valley, which borders the

National Forest. The charm of this community is it's peace and tranquility, which I feel will be

shattered should drilling be allowed to commence. Moreover, in light of our on-going drought in

this state, the idea of boring holes through precious aquifers is absurd in my opinion. There is a

stream that runs year-round directly behind my property, and is a source of much enjoyment for

me and my family. I can only imagine the stream drying up because of a bored hole carelessly

causing the water source to be diverted or destroyed. Further, I find the idea of an underground

train in earthquake territory very unsettling.

As a long-time resident of Los Angeles--I moved here from Kentucky in 1979--I have paid

my fair share of taxes to this state, and I hate to think our tax dollars are being used to fund what

I'm sure many, myself included, consider to be a boondoggle--namely this "high-speed railway",

which I feel is not worth the cost in terms of money, but especially in terms of the irreversible

damage the infrastructure to support such a railway will invariably cause to our "protected"

National Forest lands.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I oppose allowing HSR to proceed with their tunnel study for the following reasons:

• The 2 locations near Dillon Divide are not along any of the East Corridor alignments.

Their document states that all bored holes are within one of the alignments.

• The 2 locations near the Dillon Divide are one mile upstream from residential wells

• Their is a great risk of lowering residential water levels downstream putting homes and

families in harms way

• The cement and other products being used contain toxic substances and are a threat to

human health as well as animal health. Surely this must be illegal.

• The fire roads are too narrow for the equipment they will be utilizing and these roads will

be torn up to accommodate this testing

• the ANF is protected from this type of infrastructure development so why allow permits

for this at all

• Jeffrey Vail is not protecting our forest lands and he should be removed immediately.

• the noise, dust, vibration, will disturb the wildlife for months at least and this should not

be allowed in the ANF.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing to let you know that I fully support the US Forest Service to allow the California

High Speed Rail organization to perform test drilling and any other needed analysis to study rail

alignment alternatives in the Angeles National Forest. Please cooperate with this organization to

allow them access quickly in a short period of time so that this beneficial project for California

can be built as soon as possible.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please do not let the Calif. High Speed Rail Authority drill in the Angeles National Forest. This

entire project is an ill-advised boondoggle and is a waste of precious tax-payer money. There are

aquifers and earthquake faults all through the mountains that can and will be tampered with, not

to mention the huge amount of water required to drill that will be wasted.

Please don't let them destroy our last bit of wilderness in Southern California.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes they should be allowed to do the test drilling.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I heard that the Forest Service is looking for comments with respect to a proposed feasibility

study on a tunnel through the San Gabriel Mountains in support of California’s High Speed Rail

Authority. I have been living in the Santa Clarita Valley since 1989. I have seen housing and

shopping malls grow like wildfire and in the process, have seen the destruction of habitat all in

the name of progress. California’s High Speed Rail Authority is another misplaced boondoggle

all in the name of progress yet in the process will continue to destroy critical habitat all to enable

us to get from point A to point B in a slightly shorter period of time. I don’t think that the

expense associated with this project and the damage to the environment that it will do is worth

the billions of dollars that it will cost. The San Gabriel Mountains were recently designated a

National Monument (and rightfully so). Even if the right of way for a high speed rail is a tunnel

as opposed to tracks on the surface through the San Gabriel Mountains, the building of that

tunnel will wreak havoc with the local environment that will take millennia to repair. I would

strongly urge the Forest Service to deny even the Feasibility Study and deny any permits to build

a tunnel through these mountains. I don’t doubt that it is feasible – I just don’t think it is wise

and will be spending money that the State of California and even the Federal Government (if

there are matching grants) does not have while causing irreparable harm to the environment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RailPAC sees no possible objection, It is very important to collect data in order to determine the

best route for the High Speed Rail project.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please say no to any development, construction or study in the Angeles National Forest

regarding high speed rail.

I am a resident of Kagel Canyon; my only water supply for my home and my horse stable is a

well. My water supply is from the Angeles National Forest mountains. HSR knows that the

water supply and aquifers in the mountains are necessary, not just for residents like me, but for

all of the city of Los Angeles who rely on water ( oh wait, that is everybody!). We need the

forest intact!

The Angeles National Forest is so important in its natural state it was declared a national

monument. The only reason a portion of the mountains in the west where left out of the

monument declaration is because Governor Brown lobbied for it (so he can have his HSR).

Everyone wants the forest to stay intact.

Please say no to a permit to allow HSR to destroy our mountains and conduct a tunnel feasibility

study. Everyone already knows it is NOT feasible. The study has an incredibly high potential to

ruin the water supply for local residents and all of Los Angeles. In addition, the roads that have

to be graded just to get to where you want to bore holes will greatly adversely affect the

environment. The concrete pads will forever tarnish the mountains. There are so many reasons

not to do this and the only reason to do this: so the governor and his friends can make money!

please say NO!!!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing to express my deep concern for the proposed high speed rail project in the San

Gabriel Mountains, near my home in Tujunga, California. Specifically I want to make you

aware that this project poses a grave threat to this protected national forest through invasive,

environmentally dangerous and totally unnecessary construction activities including:

• Eight 2500 foot deep test holes

• Permanent concrete well pads at each location

• Drilling puncture holes THROUGH AQUIFERS

• Damaging residential wells

• Additives will compromise groundwater quality

Please take a stand on behalf the people who have entrusted you to be the steward of our national

forest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am in support of tunneling under the national forest, as long as precautions are taken to

preserve what lies on the surface. I believe this path would be the least disruptive of people's

homes and lives. It would also be shorter in distance. This would be a win-win solution for all.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe the proposed feasibility study under NEPA is a waste of time and taxpayer money. In

fact, I think the whole project is a waste of time and taxpayer money. A much more sensible use

of both would be to provide more inclusive public transportation where it would relieve the most

amount of traffic. Corridors into LA and West LA are prime examples. Traffic is at a stand still

daily and even those who do take the metro lines have to find transportation to their final

destinations. A mass transit line along the 405 and 101 freeways with buses to drop passengers

within walking distance of work would cost significantly less and get much more use. Who is

going to take even a high speed train to San Francisco when you can fly much faster and I would

have to guess much cheaper? No one I know. It will be expensive as is, train travel always is.

There is no way to ever recoup the 65+ billion the project will cost. Terrible idea altogether.

Please do not waste time on a project that will never be completed and is a huge misuse of public

funds.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for allowing the public to comment regarding HSR's proposal to drill and study the

Angeles National Forest for the purpose of tunneling a high speed rail system through the forest.

I wrote an article awhile back explaining the invasion of the forest and the editor changed the

wording (probably correctly), from raping the mountains to something less ambiguous. I

attended so many meetings of the HSR sales presentations and on more than one occasion their

sales team of professionals assured us there would not be any damage in these studies. One

engineer indicated that a helicopter would drop some kind of drill into the ground in several

places and that would be it.

As you can see from reading the proposal this is far from the truth. I will not point out every

single item because I respect your time; however, drilling from platforms that the national forest

did not grow and create and months of drilling depending on how far into the earth the spot is to

be drilled, trucks to bring in equipment, vibrations from drilling, that effect wildlife and the

possible damage to the aquifers are just a few of these items. I respectfully ask that you deny

HSR's proposal to drill and test in the Angeles National Forest, the area that the Forestry is

assigned by the same government to protect and serve. Again thank you for your time and

consideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Angeles National Forest. Aside from implying consent to any underground alignments for high

speed rail, allowing any geotechnical drilling disturbs the forest and it’s ecosystem, including it’s

natural waterways from which Los Angeles derives it’s only local source of drinking water.

This constituent is vehement and adamant in her opposition to any geotechnical drilling in


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



This is invasive and potentially dangerous in addition to it being wrong to think that we, the

residents affected by this, would consent to not only the drilling, but to having a train run

through our mountains. This is something that will not only upset the animal life, but the water

ways and plant life as well. We also have the fault lines that run through and I don't even want

to think about what this could trigger.

Consider me vehemently opposed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have lived my life in the shadow of the great San Gabriel Mountains in the Sunland-Tujunga

area as a child, then as an adult I moved to Arcadia and Temple City and finally found my lasting

home up in Saugus in the Santa Clarita Valley. I have grown up in the Angeles National Forest

so I am coming to you with 52, almost 53 years of experience living within 40 miles of the area

they are planning to tunnel through. Big Tujunga and Little Tujunga canyons were sacred to the

native Indians of the area.

A tunnel through these mountains is very unwise. Two main reasons are 1. Seismicity-I have

been the veteran of all earthquakes since 1971 February 9th and the subsequent earthquakes and

have literally been thrown across the room by them, 2. Impact on Nature in these pristine areas.

Sunland-Tujunga and Santa Clarita have a wonderful amount of natural animals and fowl still

living here. The noise of this train with hinder any future generations of wildlife. Both areas were

wonderful for people with severe breathing ailments, Sunland-Tujunga lost a lot of their clean air

when the 210 freeway was completed and I am slowly watching the same thing in Santa Clarita

with the population explosion. We already have two Metro Rail stations in the Santa Clarita

Valley.

A suggestion would be to keep it above ground and run it through the Cajon Pass with most of

the railroad travel to Los Angeles.

This might make it take 15 minutes longer that way but will save what is left of natural

wilderness without another smog producer in our area of clean breathing and wildlife which

cannot be replaced.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am the Vice Chair of the Santa Clarita Valley High Speed Rail Community Task Force, formed

at the prompting several years ago by the HSR Authority. I fully support the recommendations of

the Santa Clarita City Council that all potential future HSR alignments be placed underground,

running directly from Palmdale to Burbank, under the national forest.

Therefore I strongly support the proposed underground testing required in the forest for EIR

purposes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please approve the HSRA’s request to conduct geotechnical studies. The methods that will be

used are not anticipated to result in negative impacts to the forest but will yield a great deal of

information regarding the feasibility of tunneling under the Forest.

It is critical that the best route be chosen for this section of the project. Therefore it is imperative

that you approve the request to conduct the geotechnical studies. Please consider this request.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I live in Soledad Canyon, across the street from the Santa Clara River in Acton (also known as

the old mining town of Ravenna.) My area will be devastatingly impacted by High Speed Rail

tunneling into the forest at this point that is just east of Polsa Rosa Movie Ranch. It will take

homes and ranches from Bootlegger Canyon, Maryhill, Arrastre, Aliso Canyon , including the

historical Blum Ranch. Another route through the forest that would not impact homes in Acton

would be to go straight into the forest from Palmdale instead of curving west and crossing over

the above mentioned streets. This area is not only the home of the Santa Clara River that flows

to the ocean but it is home to cougars, raccoons, eagles, bear, deer, and endangered species too

many to mention. Please help save this area from High Speed Rail.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I live in the Los Angeles National Forest in Kagel Canyon. The aquifer would be directly

affected no doubt - I have many

animals, three horses who need their water - not to mention us humans. I have a PRIVATE

WELL which appears to lie

in the path of the aquifer water flow direction. With the drought full blown, I cannot imagine

how STUPID it would be to do

something like this to wildlife and the entire human/domesticated animal population.

I am 62 years old. We are not wealthy enough to just pick up and leave. My husbands work

keeps him in the area.

We do not have positive alternatives if they drill and destroy our property value and our entire

ability to live up here!

NO, NO, NO - absolutely NEVER!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is my understanding that the High Speed Rail Authroity is planning to drill holes in our

national forest beneath the Angeles National Forest and San Gabriel Mountains to determine the

feasibility of constructing a high speed rail tunnel through these protected lands. If allowed to

perform its tests, the rail authority will drill down 2,500 feet below the surface, puncturing holes

through the aquifers on or near existing fire roads. A concrete footing or pad will be formed at

each site forever marking the locations of these bored holes.

I do NOT want this happening!

Please take note that I vote and I am very again this action. Please stop it!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please DO NOT approve a special use permit for HSRA to do drilling and testing in the national

forrest.

The tests they are performing will use TOXIC and CARCINOGENIC chemicals that can, and

eventually WILL affect groundwater.

There are MANY wells near the areas of testing that depend on the water table that extends to

the National Forrest. The wells for the homes in upper Kagel Canyon, Little Tajunga, and other

areas stand a high likelihood of being contaminated, OR having their levels drop, possibly to

even where there is NO WATER, if this drilling and testing is allowed.

HSRA has REFUSED to even acknowledge that there are wells in these areas, and NONE of

their maps accurately show the number or location of the wells. HSRA has been informed

repeatedly about the wells, but they still haven’t done any research on where or how many there

are.

HSRA has also not explained HOW they will mitigate a situation if well levels drop or become

contaminated. They simply claim, “we’ll mitigate that”… which isn’t an answer.

There will also be a huge negative impact to the wildlife in the national forrest, and an increased

risk of fire while workers are running machinery in the forrest.

The fire roads will also be damaged by the months of use by HSRA equipment, and they could

actually block fire fighting efforts, should a fire start.

All of these reasons are reasons why USFS should DENY HSRA a permit for testing.

Until HSRA addresses, acknowledges and shows EXACTLY HOW they will mitigate EACH

and EVERY ONE of these potential problems, a permit for testing should NOT be granted.

HSRA has been playing fast and loose with everyone. IT’s time we protect the national Forrest,

our groundwater, animals, and the overall health and safety of EVERYONE from HSRA.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I am a member of a church in Canyon Country that would be significantly impacted with the

route through Santa Clarita, San Fernando, and Acton. It is important to us that the route under

the mountains and into the desert is able to fully be considered and these tests simply allow for

that possibility to give our community a fair chance to lobby for an alternative.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a request to approve the HSRA’s request to conduct geotechnical studies. From what I

understand, the methods that will be used are not anticipated to result in negative impacts to the

forest but will yield a great deal of information regarding the feasibility of tunneling under the

Forest.

It is critical that the best route be chosen for this section of the project. Therefore it is

imperative that you approve the request to conduct the geotechnical studies. Please consider this

request.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a lifetime member of the Sierra Club. I am also a big proponent of the HSR system as it will

help us reduce our carbon footprint going forward and provide clean intrastate transportation and

reduce our dependence on cars and planes. My wife and I both support the test drilling in the

Angeles Forest, and also the eventual tunnel construction under the forest in an environmentally

sound manner.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In my opinion, the entire "bullet train" or high speed rail project is an unnecessary, purely

politically-motivated boondoggle. If it is ever actually completed between major population

centers, it will be stillborn because of the California automobile-centric culture, and will provide

a service that is already adequately covered by other means of transportation. It's construction

and maintenance will be so costly that it will always require subsidies of tax money to keep it

operating, and even with that fares will be so high that it will be barely competitive with airline

travel and not at all competitive with luxury bus travel.

As you might have concluded, I am strongly against the project, believe it is doomed to failure,

and oppose any further expenditure of taxpayers' money on it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since the voter-approved existing transportation corridor continues to be ignored as a possibility

for HSR and the protected Angeles National Forest seems to be the preferred option of those in

control, please register my comments.

Although it is required, the residents in upper Kagel Canyon have not been officially notified so

they can submit comments and concerns.

HSR has never accurately plotted our water wells.

We, the residents of upper Kagel Canyon, must be given the opportunity and necessary time to

have our water wells tested prior to any drilling in order to establish a baseline to determine the

cumulative effects of the damage that will be caused to the aquifers. Each residential well

produces at a different volume and rate.

Property owners with water wells must be provided a list of all additives and ingredients that will

be used during this operation

The plans for this study must also include compensatory mitigation allowances for all property

owners whose wells are affected.

This plan, in due to damaging a protected area, damaging California Condor and Golden Eagle

habitats, damaging a water supply, is an unconscionable act.

How can a permit even be considered??

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been a resident of Canyon Country, California for over 30 years. This letter expresses the

following views regarding the Palmdale to Burbank Project Section of the California High Speed

Rail Project. Please choose the underground tunnel version for Palmdale to Burbank Project

Section of the California High Speed Rail Project.

A. The preferred alignment is direct from Burbank to Palmdale, bypassing the Santa Clarita

Valley all together.

B. Of the two alignments being considered through the Santa Clarita Valley, the tunnel extension

alignment causes less environmental and community damage than the above ground alignment.

C. I definitely oppose the above ground alignment:

1. The above ground alignment is too close to two schools and places over 1000 elementary

school children in danger, and the sound will negatively impact learning in the classroom;

2. The above ground alignment eliminates houses and negatively impacts neighborhoods;

3. The above ground alignment creates sound impacts, which would be negative for all residents

throughout the east end of Santa Clarita; and

4. The above ground alignment creates visual impacts, which would be negative for all residents

throughout the east end of Santa Clarita.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






Also be advised the option of direct link between Burbank and the next stop Palmdale through

the National Forrest of San Gabriel Mountains offers the following benefits:

1. Shortens travel by 10 miles from 45 to 35 miles not going through Cities of San

Fernando, Santa Clarita, Acton, and Aqua Dulce. It will save hundreds of millions and disruption

for life and assets for thousands of residents and many businesses.

2. Eliminates destroying business section of San Fernando causing bankruptcy of City.

3. It will stop the Destruction of the east side of the City of Santa Clarita residential,

churches, schools and businesses.

4. To Preserve the current City of Santa Clarita approved development of Vista Canyon

development for residents, businesses and industry.

5. Eliminates the disrupting of the cities of Acton, and Aqua Dulce their schools,

businesses, and residents.

Thank you for considering these factors in the development of this HSR if it proves beneficial to

continue for all the citizens of California.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for asking for community comments on the proposed drilling. I have three

comments.

1. Tunneling through the Angeles National Forest could put groundwater at risk. Since Los

Angeles is so dependent on that groundwater, it is irresponsible to do any kind of drilling or

construction that could endanger our water supply.

2. New earthquake faults are being discovered all the time. The proposed tunnels will extend

many miles through the mountains, and test drilling at five to eight locations will in no way give

an accurate indication of undiscovered faults.

3. With the lack of sure funding for the HSR project, the changing political will for the project

and the years of litigation the tunnel routes face, the proposed test drilling is a misuse of taxpayer

money at this time. It would be better to wait until after things are better resolved before

spending money on testing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am responding to the concept of allowing HSR drilling and major construction access, even just

for testing, into the Angeles National Forrest. Ironically, as you well know, it now has the status,

as a National Monument.

Gee, let's take a look at HSR's proposal, to carve roads, and construction sites and burrow and

plough up our wildlife, hills, ravines and underwater stream beds in the Angeles Forrest, all for a

massive, long term, boondoggle project.

Let's stir up dust in the Angeles Forrest and sift up Valley Fever and bring back into Los Angles.

Let's have that mining equipment, road equipment and diesel trucks drive deep into the Forrest,

so we can impact, and disturb the wildlife further. Hmmm let's also consider additional fire risks

these HRR folks bring along as well with all their equipment and activities.

I hope the US Forestry Service will not cave into HSR and their unrealistic demands. A Federal

agency should have some Federal jurisdiction, over a foolish Governor, one would believe. I

hope USFS will not even consider the RUSHED schedule of HSR's unrealistic surveying

timetable (of just a few months!), by just refusing them access period!

I would hope the USFS realizes the folly of have a National Monument desecrated by drilling

and spewing matter and particulate deep in the forest.

I hope USFS would seriously consider the seismic geology and water aquifers that could

seriously be impacted and altered forever, by the proposals and actions by HSR.

Otherwise, why call your agency the forestry service, why not just bulldoze everything and sell

off everything, so we can just obliterate life!

Surely, common sense will prevail.

Just say NO to HSR!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a disgusting boondoggle and should be tossed.

It is an insult to anyone with half a brain to pass this off as something California needs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing to you in response to your request for public comment about the special use permit

to do testing to see if the high speed rail is feasible through the national forest. I am very

concerned about the proposed testing in particular as it relates to ground water. All residents

have wells in the upper canyon and the impact on these wells from boring test holes could be

severe. There is the possibility that holes could reduce the water table or contaminate it. The

HSR should be required to do base level testing of wells to determine the current water level so

we can measure the impact of boring. Additionally how will the HSR mitigate the loss or

contamination (due to additives and other materials used during drilling) of water especially in

times of drought? How can they mitigate the loss of or contamination of water that flows in

streams for wildlife that depend on to survive?

The risk of fire is also a concern due to our incredibly dry conditions. Any spark could ignite a

blaze with the potential for loss of life and property as we have seen in play out in Northern

California this past September..

Lastly, please take care to protect our precious resources! I hope that you take the local residents

concerns to heart when considering this special use permit.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As we live within view of the Santa Clara river we are very much in favor (insistent might be a

better term) of the train going underground thru the Santa Clarita area. Just in case anyone is

curious the whole concept of this train matches the stupidity of the main cheerleader! Thanks for

asking for input!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Everything about this rail Project is an embarrassment to all of us. How can this project not have

an negative impact on the environment!!

Suggesting that we have to submit our comments to your agency is a joke! How can your

Agency not Block this project on its own!! That in its self is COMMON SENSE.

We want your Agency to stand up to our Governor, Jerry Brown and tell him NO WAY!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello...I have been a resident of kagel canyon for 25 years now...it is a little precious beautiful

canyon filled with wildlife, a creek, beautiful trees and plants and homes to many! If the high

speed rail comes thru our mountains in could effect all these things in a terrible way!! It can

effect our well which is our only source of water in upper kagel canyon! That would be

devastating to all of us!! Water is vital! Anyway... Thank you for reading this...and please follow

the original route along the freeway!!! It makes more sence!! It will be cheaper!! Don't ruin our

beautiful homes and wildlife!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure what is referred to as "speed rail" ... Recently I took a ride on the "Light Rail" at San

Jose and found it to be a wonderful experience. It was quiet, very clean, stopped at a number of

intervals and people got on and off...I enjoyed the ride and got to my destination without having

to fight traffic, lights, pedestrians running in front of me, and would choose to ride the light rail

any time it was available.

My comment is that, if it can be done, with minimal costs and problems, I am all for it. Also, it

might be a wonder scenic ride through the Los Angeles National Forest! A great tourist

attraction, I'm thinking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am deeply concerned about the implications of the California High Speed Rail Authority

(CHSRA) being granted a Special Use Permit to conduct geophysical/geotechnical tests in the


Our National Forests are a beneficial haven for human residents and local wildlife alike, and

must be treasured and preserved for the wellbeing of current communities and future generations.

Whilst I appreciate the importance of laying down good transport infrastructure to benefit our

society, I am sure there are plausible alternatives to achieve this without destroying an important

natural resource which holds such a deep importance to the local community.

I thank you in advance for considering these concerns in your decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I live in Newhall, CA. I would greatly appreciate having the HSRA come

through Santa Clarita and other locations. It would be wonderful for

commuters and cities to have travelers spend their money to benefit economy.

As you can read, I'm in support of it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are very concerned about the suggested plans to route High Speed Rail through the upper

reaches of Big Tujunga Canyon as well as the Angeles National Forest. Above ground or

underground, we oppose HSR in these sensitive land areas.

When we voted in favor of HSR the ballot clearly stated that the rail line would follow

'established traffic corridors'. For the HSR Authority to now be talking about pushing HSR

through Big Tujunga Canyon and the Angeles National Forest runs completely contrary to what

we voted on.

We support High Speed Rail, but not at the expense of the Angeles National Forest, nor at the

risk of impacting part of our City’s water supply in Big Tujunga Canyon.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a long-time resident of Lake View Terrace and Sunland/Tujunga, and I want to register my

protest against the tunneling project which is part of the High Speed Rail proposal.

I oppose all three East Corridor proposals (E1, E2, E3), all of which involve tunneling between

Palmdale & Burbank under the Angeles Crest Mountains.

Choosing to tunnel through the mountains violates the voters’ intent when they originally

approved HSR under the condition it must follow existing transportation and utility corridors.

I also oppose all “studies” intended to determine the feasibility of such tunnels, which will

involve unnecessary expense and time to drill eight 2,500-foot test holes, and impact on the

surface and on the aquifers and ground below.

Protect our National Forest lands. Just say NO to any HSR tunneling or otherwise through the

National Forest, no studies needed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please cancel the High Speed Rail Project. Please find ways to capture water to fight fires.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please make this ridiculous railway that no one will use....STOP! We are limited to take off road

vehicles on forest land but now they want to put a high speed rail thru???? RIDICULOUS!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a long time resident of Tujunga, and I adamantly oppose the proposed High Speed Rail

Tunnel Study in the Angeles National Forest.

The Angeles National Forest is protected land and poised to become National Recreation or

Monument status. Boring test holes deep beneath the surface for a proposed HSR seems

contradictory to the purpose of protecting the land.

The test drilling will disrupt precious residential groundwater and ancient aquifers. There are

also earthquake fault lines, as noted in the proposal. Additionally, the forest is home to many

species of wildlife, including the California Condor and Golden Eagle.

Regardless of which study area is chosen, I think some type of environmental review should be

required, even for a Test Study. How can they just go in and start boring holes without

considering the consequences?

It is horrific to imagine the impacts that this study, and possibly the HSR, will have on the

mountain environment.

Thank you in advance for your careful review of this project.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I work & volunteer at the Wildlife Waystation, a 501(c)3 Nonprofit Wild & Exotic Animal

Sanctuary located in the Angeles National Forest. I want to express my vehement opposition to

your plans for conducting Geotechnical Investigation #47739. We have over 400 animals that

reside in this sanctuary, and this project would be very detrimental to not only their

psychological health, but potentially their physical health, as well as our employees that work

outside all day long.

Please follow pathways that have already been forged, along the 5 & 14 freeways, for example.

Or better yet, don’t do it at all. It’s like the work that is continuously being done to widen the

freeways that’s been going on for years and years because the work can never catch up to the

increase in people. Technology will most likely surpass this and when it is finally completed, it

will be outdated.

We do not need to continue destroying nature. That is NOT the answer.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

While I absolutely agree that there is a need to better transportation options, I do not agree with

destroying or hindering wildlife and forests.

Our wildlife has no voice. They are more often than not the ones who pay the price for

advancement. I am speaking out for those without a voice today and am asking that the permit

be denied.

I want my grandchildren to know what a wild deer looks like, and how a wolf sounds in the wild.

They will not have this option if we keep destroying their habitat. There is a reason this land is

protected land. It should remain that way.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This high speed rail is unnecessary and is just a way for companies to make millions of dollars at

the expense of land and nature. How much more needs to be destroyed for the comfort of few

and the greed of many? As a resident and taxpayer in Los Angeles I have come to accept the grid

lock traffic, the congestion of our cities, streets, and cramped city housing. Most people living in

Los Angeles have accepted this as well. Tides are changing however, and I can speak for myself

have had enough of the destruction of natural land and habitants of that echo system. Will no hill

be left for wildlife? Will everything look like a concrete jungle? Is the only place to be left to see

an animal (that should be living in its habitat) going to be caged in a zoo? Or will there even be

concern to let them live?

Enough is enough. This high speed rail (geological destructive money train) needs to be stopped.

If citizens of Los Angeles were told of these issues as they should be I can guarantee no one

would vote yes to it. Unfortunately we now have to rely on social media to find out what is really

happening in our community. It is sad.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I urge you to deny this request for a tunnel study in the Angeles National Forest. Wild animals

are already being pushed out of their territories by human encroachment and don't need this

added threat to their survival. For once think of what the animals need instead of some company

that is only interested in boosting their profit line by this move.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing to you in regards to the high speed rail that is suppose to run through the Angeles

National Forest. Many people like myself feel that would be harmful to the environment. The rail

would destroy wildlife and their habitats which are already scarce as it is. There is also a wildlife

sanctuary located in the Angeles National Forest which is a home to many wild animals that

cannot be released into the wild. Please reconsider the permit to allow this to happen. Humans

need to take care of the environment and conserve wildlife not just take over every inch we can

get a hold of.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to add my comment on this project.

I oppose any and all tunneling, drilling and rock extraction in the Angeles National Forest for the

proposed Hi-Speed rail.

We don't need any more of our wild spaces disturbed or changed for human transportation.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

High speed rail is going to be a total boondoggle. HSR authority is completely ignoring all

environmental impacts, destruction of rural communities and lifestyles, all for Jerry Brown’s

legacy.

Please do what you can to stop this madness. Even an underground HSR will have devastating

effects on both the forest environment and Acton/Agua Dulce.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please do not infringe on protected areas; keep the wild places wild. This permit should not be

accepted.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please receive comments from a commuter in Los Angeles county.

I urge you to promote feasibility studies regarding the CA High Speed Train project.

Everyday on our southern California freeways hundreds of thousands of people are stuck in

traffic.

Our leaders need a long-term vision regarding interconnectivity and CO2 reductions.

A bullet train addresses both fundamental issues.

According to the EPI ranking of countries around the world conducted by Yale University,

Switzerland was ranked #1. In the category of Biodiversity and Habit, Switzerland ranked #1.

They demonstrate that public train systems and forest ecology can work.

Switzerland is famous for its train systems and pristine mountainous landscape. The Alps cover

60% of the countries total surface area with trains running through them transporting thousands

of people each day.

We are the United States of America. Our infrastructure deficiency in California is

unacceptable. Future generations depend on being connected to a world capital such as Los

Angeles without contributing to the CO2 emissions that impact climate change.

Please see the big picture and allow these studies to take place in order to bring us closer to a

modernized transportation system.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

According to the attached determination letter from Jeffrey Vail to Michelle Boehm, his

instructions clearly indicated that HSR was to notify affected and interested persons about this

project including all persons who submitted a comment letter to HSR about the East Corridor

Alignments, and also all unincorporated towns between San Fernando and La Canada.

This notification letter to the public from HSR still has not occurred in my town. Kagel Canyon

is unincorporated and within those boundaries yet no notification was ever mailed to the

residents. Furthermore, many residents in Kagel Canyon and elsewhere also submitted comments

to HSR regarding the East Corridor routes. Where is their notification?

This is reason enough to deny the issuance of any permits. In my opinion, CAHSR should be

held to an even higher standard than the general public. There is no excuse for this except that

they do not want to inform the public of the tunnel study to av oid opposition. So now they have

corrupted the public comment period. This is unethical behavior and I would expect the U.S.

Forest Service to hold them accountable and deny their permit request.

The national forest lands in this area provide an open space element to the Los Angeles County

plan. A permit request for tunneling is not compatible this use. So why allow a permit to study

tunneling? The legislature the voters agreed to stated that the HSR would follow existing

transportation corridors. The 14 alignment was selected and studied years ago. Over the last 15

years I have seen Santa Clarita bulldoze through all the surrounding ranch land and open space

and mountains to build their roads, track homes, and shopping malls. Now Santa Clarita wants to

take protected forest land that belongs to the people of California and bull doze through it rather

than allow HSR to follow the legal rail corridor along the 14 freeway. This is not right and I am

sure if people were notified properly the public outcry would prevent this tunnel study from

proceeding.

Sincerely,

P.S. The people of California and the U.S. Forest Service have the moral authority. High Speed

Rail and the State of California have the political authority. Decisions about our protected forest

lands should never be made for political reasons.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed tunnel study and plan for high speed rail through the San Gabriel Mountains would

be disruptive to wildlife and is not the best approach for solving human problems of transport.

Please please do not allow this to happen.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I failed to mention in my previous comment email that I have contacted the Wildlife Waystation

and they also did not receive a notification letter from HSR about this permit request. I believe

the Wildlife Waystation is even within the 2000' footprint of one of the preferred boring

locations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just last week, I learned that the U.S Forest Service was processing a Special Use Permit

application submitted by the California High Speed Rail Authority to conduct geophysical

investigations within the Angeles National Forest, (including drilling), and that the USFS had

established a public comment deadline of October 23, 2015.

I have just completed a preliminary review of the 250 pages of documentation attending the

SUP application prepared by the USFS and the CHSRA, and note numerous and substantial

technical and legal deficiencies. I communicated some of these concerns to you briefly over the

phone today. The problem is, there is insufficient time between now and the comment deadline

(October 23) for me to present such concerns to the USFS in writing and in a detailed and

coherent manner. This problem stems from the fact that CHSRA did not provide proper notice

of this action and actually violated specific provisions set forth in the USFS "Scoping Direction

Letter" dated September 18, 2015. Among other things, the CHSRA did not properly notice "All

persons who sent a comment to you about the East alignments described in your application"

(see bullet item 2 of the September letter) . For the record, I provided extensive written,

electronic, and verbal comments to the CHSRA regarding the "East Alignments" over the last 2

years, up to and including the testimony I offered just a few months ago at the CHSRA Board

meeting in which these "East Alignments" were formally presented. Yet, I was given no notice

regarding the CHSRA SUP application or the public comment deadline, and only learned of it by

mere chance. Because of CHSRA's failure to give proper notice, I lost more than two weeks of

"review and comment" opportunity.

It also appears that CHSRA may have failed to provide notice to many Acton residents who

submitted extensive comments on the "East Alignments". A comprehensive list of individuals

who did not receive notice can be compiled if needed.

Because CHSRA failed to provide proper notice and failed to comply with the USFS "Scoping

Direction" letter, I and other members of the public have been denied the opportunity to fully and

meaningfully participate in the SUP application and NEPA review process. For this reason, I

respectfully request an additional 2+ weeks to prepare comments and also request that the

comment deadline be extended to November 9.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The high speed train sounds unnecessary! Too much private property is going to be impacted by

it. I enjoy train travel, but this one sounds like a mistake! Definitely, as a resident of Sand

Canyon, I favor running it underground!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I saw an article about the high speed rail authority wanting to tunnel under the San Gabriel

Mountains, here in Southern California. The article instructed us to email you about our opinions

on this. I strongly oppose this. We already have enough transportation options. They should be

able to use existing rail and make necessary changes to improve the speed without expending

nearly as much money and tunneling under sensitive terrain.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------






-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NO DRILLING IN ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST

NO HIGH SPEED RAIL IN CALIFORNIA

WE NEED WATER NOT WASTE

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have read carefully the Special Use Permit application submitted by the California High

Speed Rail Authority to conduct various geophysical and geotechnical tests within the Angeles

National Forest, and I have a number of concerns about the proposed GI testing.

As a resident of Kagel Canyon whose home and property are located within the Angeles

National Forest, I consider myself a steward of the Forest. As such, my interests, unlike those of

CHSRA, lie not in what is political, but rather in what is in the best interest of the forest, its

wildlife,

and its ecosystems. I hope that you will consider my comments as those of a stakeholder who

shares with the USFS the desire and goal of sustaining the health, diversity, and productivity of

the ANF to meet the needs of present and future generations.

The testing proposed by CHSRA is highly invasive and significantly more impactful than

its engineers have led the public to believe. In previous CHSRA “scoping meetings” at which

testing has been mentioned, engineers have minimized the scope of the work they intend to

conduct

within in the forest boundaries. I left those meetings with the assumption that drilling/testing

would take a few days – perhaps a week. I was shocked to read the application to discover that

CHSRA intends for its testing to span the course of one year – and that the drilling of the deepest

bore hole will take in excess of three months. The scope and duration of the work planned far

exceeds what CHSRA engineers have previously led the public to believe, and as a result, the

known, unknown, and potential impacts of the GI testing are far greater than previously

considered.

With that in mind, please consider the following concerns:

1. Lack of Notification: Based on conversations with my neighbors, it appears that I am one

of few residents in Kagel Canyon who received notice of CHSRA’s Special Use Permit

application. I believe it is of critical importance for all residents and stakeholders to receive

notice of the application and have the opportunity to comment. I believe that CHSRA has

failed in its responsibility to provide sufficient notice of its application, and should be

required to do so before the application is considered by USFS.

Furthermore, the application is a lengthy technical document that begs more questions than

it answers. I believe that USFS should require, as a prerequisite to its review of the

application, that CHSRA host a public meeting at which it presents its plans for GI testing

within the ANF and provide those in attendance the opportunity to have questions

answered. There is no reasonable hope for the public and stakeholders to be able to

effectively participate in this process and provide thoughtful concerns to the USFS without

a presentation, in layman’s terms, of CHRSA’s plans for GI testing. Only once such a

meeting has been held should the public comment period be opened and the USFS begin

to evaluate the Special Use Permit application.

2. Impacts to Groundwater: CHSRA’s proposed drilling creates the potential for

contamination of the water table to occur during borings. This would negatively impact

humans who rely on this water supply – those who have private wells within the ANF

located within reasonable proximity of the boreholes, as well as those who are the ultimate

beneficiaries of the groundwater that feeds into the Hansen Dam area and supplies greater

LA with one of its few natural (non-imported) sources of drinking water. Such

contamination would also negatively impact wildlife which drink directly from the natural

springs and streams within the ANF.

CHSRA has identified a number of additives it intends to use during drilling. While the

letter to CHSRA from the USFS supervisor indicated that CHSRA would be using

materials “approved for use in drinking water systems to prevent contamination of

groundwater”, CHSRA’s own application indicates that this is not the case. I have

reviewed the Material Data Safety sheets for the additives that CHSRA intends to introduce

into the boreholes, and noted that a number of the materials are known carcinogens, and a

number are known to be toxic to fish and mammals. Moreover, several of the additives

come with the warning that they require environmental precautionary measures to “prevent

[them] from entering waterways”. The use of such materials which could contaminate our

water supply should not be permitted. I am concerned not only with the introduction of

these materials into the boreholes (and therefore into subsurface water sources), but also

with the potential for contamination at the surface. In the event of rain – a serious concern

given the forecast for an El Nino year – the additives used by CHSRA at the surface could

easily spread and be carried by rain into nearby surface waters, many of which are noted

within proximity to the boreholes on CHSRA’s maps.

Additionally, many of Kagel Canyon’s residents rely on private wells for drinking water.

These wells have never been acknowledged or mapped by CHSRA, as noted by their

absence on Figure 13 of CHSRA’s application. Many of these wells are located less than

two miles “downstream” from the proposed E1-B3 and E1-B2 borehole sites.

Given that boring could cause water existing at one level to drain to another level, we are

concerned not only about contamination of our water supply, but also about a possible

reduction in our water table as a result of CHSRA’s drilling. CHSRA has calculated that

impacts from its drilling will not reach beyond a 1000-foot “Area of Influence” surrounding

the borehole. Water moving within fractures in the bedrock, as ours does within the ANF,

is unpredictable, delicate, and volatile, and as such I do not believe there is any way that

CHSRA can predict an “effect radius” with any degree of certainty.

Residents of Kagel Canyon have repeatedly asked CHSRA representatives what will

happen if their activities disrupt, deplete, or destroy our water supply. CHSRA’s answer

has simply been, “We’ll mitigate that.” They have never provided any plan or explanation

as to what form such mitigation will take. As such, I would request that – if this Special

Use Permit application is approved – CHSRA be required to comply with several

requirements:

(1) CHSRA should be required to fund base-level testing of our wells to establish

the current water level. CHSRA should be required to follow up such testing

at 6-months and again at 1-year following its GI testing to determine whether

or not there has been a resulting drop in our water table. In its application,

CHSRA notes a number of locations where testing was successfully completed,

and among those locations was the Hollywood Hills. It is worth noting that the

resulting tunneling for the Metro Red Line effectively dewatered Runyon

Canyon and caused a drop in the water table of over 100 feet.

(2) CHSRA should be required to submit in writing its plans for mitigation of any

damage its drilling causes to the water supply. We should have the right to

know that there is, in fact, some mitigation plan in place should CHSRA’s

activities cause irreversible damage to our water system.

(3) CHSRA should be required to establish a mitigation fund containing sufficient

monies to cover any such damage. Given the fact that CHSRA does not have

enough money to complete its project, there are significant and legitimate

concerns that the Authority could cause damage that it will have no money to

remedy.

3. Impacts to Wildlife: As you are aware, the ANF provides critical habitat and biological

corridors for many endangered, threatened, and sensitive species. Just here in Kagel

Canyon we have the pleasure of seeing California mountain lions as well as California

condors, which were recently brought back from the brink of extinction. CHSRA’s

proposed drilling poses very real threats to these animals, and to the many others who call

the forest home.

Simply the duration of the project and the volume of extended activity at each borehole

present a threat to the natural activities of wildlife in the area. CHSRA’s application fails

to specify how many vehicles and how many employees will be working at each borehole

at any given time. CHSRA’s application fails to specify the noise levels that will be

generated by its drilling machine and by its hammer and air guns used for seismic testing.

But even without knowing the specifics, I know enough to know that the introduction and

continued presence of CHSRA’s people, vehicles, machines, noise, vibrations, etc. that will

carry on for months at the bore hole sites, will be enough to force animals out of the area.

Furthermore, the animals that drink directly from the springs and streams in the ANF are

at risk of contamination from the additives that CHSRA plans to use in its drilling activities.

The possible consequences of this are impossible to quantify and also impossible to

mitigate, once the damage has been caused.

4. Impacts to Recreational Activities with the ANF: The borehole sites proposed by CHSRA

disrupt and diminish the enjoyment of recreational opportunities within the ANF.

CHSRA’s application itself notes disruption of to the Kagel Truck Trail, which is used by

hang gliders to access their launching point. The application does not, however, note the

disruption to hiking and backpacking trails, including the Pacific Crest Trail, or the

disruption to the trails used by equestrians. These recreational activities are an intended

and appropriate use of the ANF lands, and such activities should not be compromised by

the year’s worth of noise, vibration, and traffic created by CHSRA’s drilling.

5. Impacts to Fire Concerns: As a resident who lives within the ANF, I am particularly

concerned about the potential implications of CHSRA’s activities on fire and fire

prevention. We are in an epic drought, and the fire danger is very high. Recent wildfires

throughout California make this risk all the more apparent. Any of the equipment that

CHSRA uses in its drilling could cause a spark, leading to fire. Of particular concern is

the location of CHSRA’s setups. In order to provide access to its boreholes, CHSRA has

intentionally selected fire roads as a means of ingress, egress, and possibly staging for its

vehicles and heavy equipment. CHSRA’s application fails to specify the number of

vehicles and the number, size, and type of heavy machinery it intends to bring to each

borehole site. In the event of fire (caused either by CHSRA’s activities or by any other

source), the concern exists that CHSRA’s equipment and crews will hinder or block

firefighting efforts. CHSRA’s application specifically notes that one of its intended

borehole sites is located at a fire fighting staging area.

Additionally, the months of use of the fire roads by CHSRA’s heavy machinery and

equipment will cause wear and tear that will compromise their efficacy when needed in the

event of an actual fire emergency.

When considering the cumulative impact of the foregoing concerns, my conclusion is that it

simply is not worth the damage and the risks to the ANF to allow CHSRA to conduct its

proposed GI testing. As such, I would respectfully submit that the USFS deny CHSRA’s Special

Use Permit application. In the event that the USFS decides to approve the permit, I would

request that the USFS require, as a condition of approval, that CHSRA provide in writing its

plans for mitigation of the concerns set forth herein. At minimum, USFS should permit only one

borehole as a “test case”, so that there is ample time to review the impacts both at the 6-month

mark and the one-year mark following completion of the first borehole; in no event should a

blanket permit for 5 – 8 test holes be approved without the opportunity to evaluate the impacts of

the test case.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last month I received a letter from the Fire Department. It stated that if a fire breaks out in the

Angeles National Forest near our Foothill Community there will not be enough water to fight it.

In fact I believe the fire department stated they do not have the water to firght any fire in or near

our community; the fire department forewarned us residents to be ready to evaluate our homes;

we are on stand-by.

The crowns of our Oak trees are too tall according to the fire department and will act as torches

spreading any fire through out Kagel Canyon.

It is because of the drought. Everyone knows this. We do not have enough water to fight a fire.

I just heard that the HSRA has requested a special use permit to conduct various Bore tests for a

feasibility study called the “GI” to determine if it is safe to tunnel under the San Gabriel

Mountains. SAFE? Good Grief – the bore tests will not be safe. One Spark – just one spark

that gets out of control and the San Gabriel Mountains will be on fire again. A spark can happen

at any time – a vehicle out of control can cause quite a few sparks – accidents happen – The

HSRA has recognized this truth by offering to have trucks of water on hand in case a fire does

break out but they are not firefighters. So what will they do if a fire breaks out?

A fire will cost everybody everything – Lives will be lost – Properties will be lost –

The HSRA will legally be held responsible and insurance companies will refuse a lot of support

because of the legal issues. The danger of fire from the bore tests has a high risk probability.

Please do nor allow HSRA the “GI” Bore Tests. HSRA can find another method to test for the

answers they want.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CHSRA has identified a number of additives it intends to use during drilling. While the


materials “approved for use in drinking water systems to prevent contamination of

groundwater”, CHSRA’s own application indicates that this is not the case. I have

reviewed the Material Data Safety sheets for the additives that CHSRA intends to introduce

into the boreholes, and noted that a number of the materials are known carcinogens, and a

number are known to be toxic to fish and mammals. Moreover, several of the additives

come with the warning that they require environmental precautionary measures to “prevent

[them] from entering waterways”. The use of such materials which could contaminate our

water supply should not be permitted. I am concerned not only with the introduction of

these materials into the boreholes (and therefore into subsurface water sources), but also

with the potential for contamination at the surface. In the event of rain – a serious concern

given the forecast for an El Nino year – the additives used by CHSRA at the surface could

easily spread and be carried by rain into nearby surface waters, many of which are noted

within proximity to the boreholes on CHSRA’s maps.

Additionally, many of Kagel Canyon’s residents rely on private wells for drinking water.

These wells have never been acknowledged or mapped by CHSRA, as noted by their

absence on Figure 13 of CHSRA’s application. Many of these wells are located less than

two miles “downstream” from the proposed E1-B3 and E1-B2 borehole sites.

Residents of Kagel Canyon have repeatedly asked CHSRA representatives what will

happen if their activities disrupt, deplete, or destroy our water supply. CHSRA’s answer

has simply been, “We’ll mitigate that.” They have never provided any plan or explanation

as to what form such mitigation will take. As such, I would request that – if this Special

Use Permit application is approved – CHSRA be required to comply with several

requirements:

(1) CHSRA should be required to fund base-level testing of our wells to establish

the current water level. CHSRA should be required to follow up such testing

at 6-months and again at 1-year following its GI testing to determine whether

or not there has been a resulting drop in our water table. In its application,

CHSRA notes a number of locations where testing was successfully completed,

and among those locations was the Hollywood Hills. It is worth noting that the

resulting tunneling for the Metro Red Line effectively dewatered Runyon

Canyon and caused a drop in the water table of over 100 feet.

(2) CHSRA should be required to submit in writing its plans for mitigation of any

damage its drilling causes to the water supply. We should have the right to

know that there is, in fact, some mitigation plan in place should CHSRA’s

activities cause irreversible damage to our water system.

(3) CHSRA should be required to establish a mitigation fund containing sufficient

monies to cover any such damage. Given the fact that CHSRA does not have

enough money to complete its project, there are significant and legitimate

concerns that the Authority could cause damage that it will have no money to

remedy.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please do NOT allow the High speed rail authority to drill holes in the Angles National Forest.

These holes have a high probability of hitting our aquifers which would drain out the water

supply at worst. They want to use carcinogenic chemicals, which will ruin the water that

remains. These chemicals will also be harmful to all animals and plants in the forest. As trail

riders we are worried about trails be blocked for up to a year, damage to the trails during and

after the drilling; the permanent scars of concrete on or near our trails and the dust and use of

heavy machinery on our trails. Some of the test sites are not even near proposed routes so there

really is NO reason to drill. They know there is water; they know the forest has a high

environmental value; that is why much of the forest has been made into a National monument.

The Angeles National Forest should be protected from this type of infrastructure development.

Please say no the HSR permit to drill in the Angeles National Forest!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW TESTING IN OUR BELOVED ANGELES

NATIONAL FORREST!!!!!

The ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST is the only NATURAL, QUIET, and PROTECTED

AREA that we have to DE stress from All that Life Throws at Us Everyday! PLEASE,

PLEASE, PLEASE Do NOT allow this HORRIFIC DISTRUCTIVE SLAUGHTER of our

BELOVED NATURAL and PEACEFUL REFUGE!!!!!

If this HSR is allowed, the Natural Beauty to our Foothills and Angeles Forest Area will be

DESTROYED FOREVER!!!!! Wells will go dry, more trees will die. Our only source of

Natural Springs will be gone. The NOISE POLLUTION and the VISUAL CONTAMINATION

will destroy all the natural beauty that we have ever known and loved and cherished. This is

EARTHQUAKE COUNTRY!!!!! PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW THIS

DEVASTATION AND IRREVERSABLE IMPACT TO DESTROY OUR BEAUTIFUL

FORREST, OUR AQUIFERS, OUR WILDLIFE, ALL OF OUR LIVES AND OUR

CHILDRENS LIVES.

PLEASE DO NOT ALLOW TESTING, DO NOT ALLOW HSR TO DESTROY OR DISRUPT

OUR FORREST, OUR LIVES.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing to submit a comment on the California High Speed Rail Authority Geotechnical

Investigation #47739 for a special use permit to drill and extract rock cores in the Angeles

National Forest to determine if East Corridor routes E1, E2, & E3 would be feasible alternatives

to SR-14 Corridor alignments.

An attempt to consider alternate routes is fair and in the interests of residents and businesses of

Santa Clarita, Agua Dulce, Acton, and San Fernando, who may be negatively impacted by SR-14

Corridor alignments. It is understood that part of this consideration may include testing whether

East Corridor routes would be possible from a geophysical/geotechnical standpoint. Should

testing proceed, please ensure that preservation of groundwater resources is maintained as a top

priority and please keep the number of drill sites to the minimum necessary to make a conclusive

evaluation of geological conditions.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am one of the people of California that cares about our protected forest lands and we are all

watching. I/we do not want to set a precedence that permits for large infrastructure projects like

on our protected national forest lands.

Concerns/Impacts:

• Residential water wells are located one mile downstream from two of the boring sites.

• Aquifers will be punctured to study groundwater pressures and flows

• Concrete footings will be formed at each drill site similar to a well pad and these concrete

footings are permanent and will forever mark the location of these bored holes throughout the


• The trucks and heavy equipment used will be destructive to our protected forest lands.

• The noise, dust, chemicals used for drilling will affect the wildlife, especially the

California condor and Golden eagle.

• The Angeles National Forest is protected from this type of infrastructure development so

no permit should be issued.

• The drilling rigs and their impacts will persist at each location for months and are

allowed to continue for one year.

We are a horse community as well and we want to preserve one of the last places to ride here in

the San Fernando Valley.

This is our home, obviously not yours, or you would be upset too.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HSR’s proposed drilling operations over the course of a year for purposes of

geophysical/geotechnical tests and investigations within the Angeles National Forest is of

extreme concern to me because of the potential fire hazards it will cause. In 2008, our 1200

square foot garage containing most of our belongings and keepsakes burned to the ground as the

result of a wildfire that started in the Angeles National Forest. Our home narrowly escaped

being burned as well. Our neighbors’ home was burned to the ground. Blocking and/or

damaging fire roads for the purposes of these tests will hinder firefighting operations in the case

of a wildfire. Sparks from HSR’s equipment could start a fire. If it’s windy, such as in the case

of Santa Ana winds which get very strong in our area, HSR’s crews will not know how to fight a

fire that can grow out of control in seconds. I suspect they will try to get away leaving the fire to

grow. If the fire department cannot get to the area due to equipment being in the way or the

roads being bad, that can lead to devastation and possible loss of

human life as well as wildlife. Does HSR have a procedure in the

event of a forest fire? How quickly will HSR be able to remove its equipment, etc., from the fire

roads in the event they must be utilized by emergency vehicles, especially in an extremely windy

or Santa Ana condition?

Unless you have been a victim of a fire, you don’t realize or comprehend the mental toll it takes

and the fear that overcomes you just thinking about the increased risk of one or possibly more

fires that may result from HSR’s drilling in our area.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing today in opposition of the proposed drilling up in the Angeles Forest. I hike the

trails that would be affected by this drilling. I moved into this area to be able to train and hike up

on these trails. I have seen wildlife such as deer, snakes, bobcats, birds of prey and even a horny

toad once. These trails are heavily used by equestrians and I do see other hikers, bikers and

runners occasionally. Having recently graduated with a degree in Wildland Fire Technology, I

am very concerned about the fire danger that the heavy equipment poses. It only takes one spark

in the right conditions to have a dangerous fire not only in the forest but posing a threat to my

community in the Canyon. Please hear my voice and the voices of the other members in my

community who oppose this drilling.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The wildlife within the Angeles National Forest has already been impacted by people moving

into their area. If HSR conducts drilling operations in the Forest, it will impact the wildlife even

more with the noise, vibrations, seismic testing, people and vehicles, contaminated water

supplies and introduction of toxic materials.

People choose to live where they live; wildlife don’t have a choice and can't move somewhere

else. Their homes and habitats should not be impaired or destroyed.

How will HSR/USFS measure and quantify the damage that is done to wildlife habitat, corridors,

etc.? How will HSR mitigate this damage?

The Forest is the only home the wildlife have.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We canvassed our stakeholders quickly prior to and over the weekend and discovered that, at

minimum, 39 of them did not receive your letter requesting comments. In that regard, please

find attached (1) a list of respondents who did not receive the letter and (2) the actual responses

to our survey as evidence that CHSRA’s outreach list did not include them.

Based on this lack of proper noticing, we respectfully request that the comment period be

extended by a minimum of two (2) weeks from the date that the new public comment advisory

letter is received by the affected residents who were not provided the September 18, 2015 USFS

letter.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, thank YOU and the USFS for inviting comments on the above. As you know, this

project has been fraught with controversy almost from the beginning.

While I could submit a voluminous amount of comments about the testing in the Angeles

National Forest, I will keep it to my top three concerns:

1. Water. The trucks, drilling rigs, and the clean up (flushing out debris at the very end)

requires POTABLE water. During an epic drought, using potable water for a non-life sustaining

operation seems wasteful and goes against everything that Californians have been told. Gov.

Brown wanted all residents to cut their water usage by 25%. We complied. Lakes are dried or

are drying up. Dead fish are laying on dry lake beds. Farmers are trying to grow food with less

water. Our yards are filled with dead plants. But then, to use this precious resource for drilling

bore holes?? Where is the water coming from? City of LA? State of California? Other water

districts? The answer should be: “none of the above.” No one should have to sacrifice their

water for this operation. The CHSRA should delay the testing until the drought has been

substantially relieved. I am not saying until the drought is completely over—just until it’s been

reduced from its current emergency status. If the predicted El Nino occurs this winter, perhaps it

will bring enough rain to provide enough water for the CHSRA testing. But right now, it must

be delayed.

2. Water. I am concerned about the bore holes puncturing residents’ wells or impacting ground

water. As I am sure you are aware from 4th grade science class, water is a liquid and therefore,

falls into the shape of its container (in this case, it’s “tunnel”) and is subject to gravity. So, if an

aquifer is punctured (which can easily happen), that water is lost and the area becomes

dewatered. This happened during the Red Line construction in Runyon Canyon and that area is

forever ruined. Plants and trees died as a result of the loss of groundwater. It is gone forever.

No mitigation can stop this from happening. HSRA “might” be able repair the leak IF they

immediately seal up the core hole with cement or grout, but then there is the obstruction of a

cement pole in the midst of an underground stream.

3. No Contingency Plans. The GI talks a lot about the technical aspects of their operation.

However, I see very little, if any, contingency plans in the case of emergencies or mishaps,

including fires, earthquakes, burst aquifers, punctured methane pockets, drilling mud losing

pressure, negative impacts to wildlife, plants, and people. Road closures and equipment blocking

the very narrow roads in the forest, some of which are the only means of ingress and egress, is

frightening. This is a high fire hazard area normally, and is only exasperated by the extreme

drought.

I have many more comments and concerns, but these are the most important to me.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your transparency and vigilance with regard to the HSR, you are one of the few

government agencies who appears to be handling things honestly and professionally.

As a resident of Shadow Hills I am obviously very concerned about some of the geological

implications of placing a high speed railway through the forest and my community. Dozens of

people in my neighborhood who attended community meetings, protests, and wrote in via email

and who are equally upset were not informed of the USFS's comment period. The California

HSR Authority has not performed its due diligence with regard to informing all interested

citizens (who emailed/wrote/signed protest letters) about the comment period and thus I believe

the comment period should be extended to provide citizens time to review the report and provide

thoughtful feedback.

I believe the USFS should supervise any activities CHSRA engages in in the forest. They are

complete novices when it comes to the forest and building a high speed rail and through their

earlier activities (changing train route, changing dates, breaking promises to homeowners and

landowners) have proven they are not detail oriented and will cut corners when it benefits them.

Because of broken promises, vague language and what I believe are flat-out lies about what

CHSRA plans to do, I would like an independent third party supervisor hired to review CHSRA's

actions. CHSRA has already demonstrated they will change course to fill short-sighted political

agendas and with people's homes, livestock, water, and public forests on the line, I do not have

faith that CHSRA will act in the interests of the majority or even act fairly. The fact that CHSRA

(with no experience) wants to drill through mountains -- something even EXPERIENCED

companies have had to abandon mid-project speaks magnitudes about their hubris and ignorance.

Their idiotic, rash behavior is even further evidence that we need an independent third part to

evaluate their reports and actions.

I believe based on several reports and community meetings (where geologists and other experts

have spoken) that CHSRA's planned routes through the forest and Shadow HIlls will present a

tremendous risk to the water supply and water quality. CHSRA has made no realistic and

practical mention of how they will provide adequate safeguards for our dwindling water supply.

Oh, we shouldn't worry because of El Nino? Yes, well they also haven't provided any realistic

contingencies for testing anything during the forecast flooding.

And speaking of plans, they haven't provided well-researched plans for what to do in the event of

a massive fire (does anyone remember a few years ago when this whole area almost burned

down???), an earthquake, or the heavy rains forecast to arrive early next year.

Also, CHSRA laughably only wants to test the water once -- despite the fact that building this

monstrosity would take years and face seasonal changes both to the climate, land, and water.

Consequently, CHSRA should test AT MINIMUM once a month.

Finally, CHSRA has offered the thousands of affected residents no idea what the increase in

truck traffic would be and what the increase in noise and air pollution would be. The idea that

they want to put this through a community full of hard rock, drill through mountains and forest

instead of following the freeway as APPROVED by voters and other surveys is such an

egregious abuse of power that it makes me sick to my stomach.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for having this public comment period for residents to express their concerns about

the activities of the California HSR Authority in our forest. I am a resident of Shadow Hills, and

a member of the coalition called S.A.F.E. (Save Angeles Forest for Everyone), that was started

due to the surrounding communities' concerns regarding proposals to consider putting the train

under the Angeles National Forest and national monument, and disturbing our neighborhoods.

First, as a native Californian who has lived here my entire life, I want to express that I am

appalled that the Forest Service is even being asked to consider what I see as a breach of what

should be a protected area for wildlife, both plant and animal, in the region. What is the point of

having "protected areas" and "national monuments" if that does not grant them any preferred

status? These areas are meant, I thought, as natural and undisturbed areas in our communities

that people can go to relax, and of course, to maintain some protected natural habitats for the

protection and preservation of the species that live there.

Regardless of how "harmless" they (the CHSRA) may try to make these initial investigations

seem, I object, in it's entirety, to their proposal to go through the forest. The end product will not

just be an invisible tunnel that disturbs no one. I assure you, they will need access in various

places to the tunnel from the top. They will either now, or later, require maintenance access, and

will demand to build new roads to obtain that access. Then they will have trucks and equipment

going up there, disturbing the forest and the animals. And what if, God forbid, like Big Bertha

(Seattle tunneling machine), except now 2700 feet underground, men and machine get stuck and

trapped under there? What would come first? The ecology of your forest, or saving the lives of

the people who never should have been sent there in the first place?

Please keep in mind that these "preliminary" investigations are promised to be along or near

existing roads. But should one of the sets of coring along a given path appear to them to be a

viable route choice, you can expect their "investigations" to become far greater, and more

disturbing to the wildlife in the forest that the Forest Service is there to protect. I have sat in

CHSRA meetings where Rick Simon, one of the engineers, has actually spoken of dangling

coring machines out of helicopters, to dig into the ground for their investigations. Do you really

want this noise and disruption in the depths of the forest, where there are no roads, and the

animals have, until now, lived in peace?

This is not what the California voters voted for in 2008. Californians approved a train that

would run along existing transportation corridors. Clearly, the Angeles National Forest is no

such place. Once you allow CHSRA to begin this investigation process, it will likely be forced

to expand and expand those investigations in order to obtain the information they need for their

environmental reporting process. They have not acted in good faith with us, having said they

would do some preliminary investigations regarding the multiple issues with water and streams,

that could rule out some of the current route options, but they have not reported back to S.A.F.E.

or the affected Los Angeles communities to say that they have performed or have results of any

such studies.

In support of this, I am quoting one item from a long letter sent to you by the SAFE Coalition:

"Take no action on the GI proposal until CHSRA establishes, to the satisfaction of impacted

communities, elected officials and the USFS, an independent, third-party professional review

panel (ITP) to provide input and review of all CHSRA studies related to water, seismic and

tunneling, including this GI. As background, dating back to early 2015, community and elected

leaders have requested CHSRA to include representatives of key agencies such as Army Corps

of Engineers, LA County Flood Control District, LA Department of Water and Power, California

Department of Water Resources, the California University system (experts on hydrology and

seismicity), Sierra Club, and international tunneling experts."

I am not a technical person, but more strongly than "Take no action... until," I would say:

"PLEASE JUST SAY NO TO HIGH SPEED RAIL!"

They have no business in the National Forest. It's not a transportation corridor, period. The

voters did not vote for this, and it should require a new vote, if they now want to go through our

protected forests. The voters of California would never approve this, and the California High

Speed Rail Authority has taken a path that I believe exceeds their powers under the proposition

the voters approved.

Thanks for all the work you do to protect what little is left of our natural areas, so please don't

allow the California High Speed Rail Authority to destroy your hard work.

Please tell the CHSRA to go take a hike, and go back to the drawing board. Included in the

SAFE letter at the end is a group of articles that will likely help show you what an aggressive

mess and financial boondoggle this is, if you have not already encountered these items in the

news.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We do not need this drilling. This for the sole purpose of HSR and will only weaken the areas in

which it is done --I say keep them away from our National Forest!!!!!!!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The whole high-speed rail idea of tunnelling for 20+ miles from Palmdale to Burbank underneath

the National Forest is ludicrous on its face. Any attempt to do a “feasibility study” by drilling

bore shafts into the mountains is inherently damaging in the doing. The kind of drilling such a

study requires will utilize a lot of heavy machinery mounted on mobile platforms to operate the

drills, at the same time requiring the making of roads to get the drilling machinery into position.

The drilling will be incredibly deep, equivalent to drilling an oil well, thousands of feet down. It

will permanently scar the area they claim they won’t mess up. With that type of operation, it is

unavoidable.

The entire high-speed rail project is a misguided, overpriced, governmental boondoggle doomed

to failure. I am entirely against it, and am NOT IN FAVOR of allowing ANY drilling or testing

of any kind in the National Forest areas.

Sincerely anti-drilling/testing in the forest

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please don't destroy the Angeles National forest by letting the HSR drill up to 8 holes, to avoid

doing the proper testing of the area as you know, the water, the faults, the wildlife, the

environment, recreation and the unique area which will be impacted by the use of trucks on roads

that are not equipped to handle this kind of construction.

At one of the meetings the HSR said they would build roads to accommodate the heavy trucks

and equipment that will forever damage the existing roads. Are they planning to rebuild our

roads, before this experiment goes forward?

Also, the latest in the news, that the entire project may be scrapped, because they are not getting

the funding from the private sector. They are to spend x amount every day to receive Federal

funds, the willy nilly drilling in our mountains is a way they can meet their quota, without any

consideration on the impact it will make, as stated above.

I spoke to a ranger 2 days ago, who is heading the recreation division of our park, he said they

are planning to bore right in the middle of his area. What is the HSR thinking, not much it

appears.

What about the National Monument, dedicated by President Obama, Oct. 2014? He mentions all

the above in his proclamation. Isn't the park protected?

Please don't allow this experimental drilling in the Angeles Crest Mountains.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing to remind you that you are obligated to be protectors of the Angeles National Forest.

As protectors, you must deny permission to any entity that wants to drill, dig, build roads, light,

blast, drive on or in any way harm our public lands.

I am in full agreement with all points written by the S.A.F.E. Coalition in a letter dated October

19,2015 which laid out all the technical reasons why this is a bad idea. I will not bore you by

copying and pasting that letter or those points.

I implore you to do your duty and refuse destruction of the Angeles National Forest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to submit the following comments concerning the USFS's proposed testing/drilling

the Angeles National Forest at the request of the California High Speed Rail Authority

("CHSRA").

I strongly disapprove of CHSRA's methods and lack of transparency within our community. I

have the following comments/concerns regarding their proposed testing:

1. CHSRA did not provide USFS with complete lists of people who had previously submitted

comments on the high speed rail project, thus, many people were not made aware of the USFS

Comment period. CHSRA must provide full stakeholder information to the USFS and the

comment period must be extended at least 30 days to allow everyone to study the plans and

submit comments.

2. CHSRA has not followed through on discussions with community and elected leaders to

create an independent, third-party peer review team (ITP) to guard against CHSRA’s tendency to

rush and cut corners due to funding and timeline constraints. We cannot trust CHSRA to do the

job right without professional input and feedback on highly technical issues. The GI testing

should be delayed until the ITP is in place, properly briefed and able to provide input.

3. CHSRA’s plans do not provide adequate detail about how to safeguard local water wells and

supplies from the planned drilling and testing activities. More information is needed about

chemicals being used in the drilling that will come in contact with the water table. Water

monitoring and testing must be done upstream and downstream from test sites before, during and

after drilling to ensure local water supplies are not damaged by CHSRA drilling activities. In

addition, due to the severe drought and local water use restrictions, CHSRA must not use local,

precious City of LA potable water supplies for drilling or dust suppression. As a State project,

they must use state supplied water.

4. CHSRA’s proposal should provide information about procedures and protocols in the event of

them causing a fire or their operations being near an existing fire emergency. Similarly, there is

no detail about communications and procedures in the event of heavy El Nino rains, storms or

flooding. Drilling should be suspended in the event of significant rain, flood, fire or seismic

activity. CHSRA must demonstrate the ability to compensate victims via insurance, bonds or

deposits into a trust account.

5. Because of the complexity of changing seasons, CHSRA’s plan to just do testing at one point

in time is insufficient. A yearlong baseline study ought to be conducted, with regular testing

thereafter.

6. CHSRA’s plans need to identify how routine equestrian, hiking, biking, camping, hang

gliding and other activities and participants will be protected from truck traffic, noise, vibration

and other testing-related impacts. More detail is needed about how drilling information (time,

location, noise levels, road closures, flagmen, etc.) will be made public (a website and emails to

community leaders and local press are recommended).

7. CHSRA’s plans do not specify the number of trucks, the times where truck traffic will be

worst and the types of trucks/fuel being used.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was informed about the testing in the Los Angeles National Forest,and I am very concerned

about this proposal. I strongly believe that the wildlife should be left alone. This place is home to

numerous organisms and species. If testing for is passed, wildlife within the forest will be

impacted by the noise of the drilling, as well as the machinery used for seismic testing. We could

be destroying the homes of these dear creatures, and it can result in the migration or

endangerment. Overall, I believe that we should take care of our wildlife instead of attempting to

destroy it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am against the Rail Way because of the financial scandal that is involved. With an estimated

cost of 68 billion dollar over 20 years, political proponents stand to benefit immensely. It is

wrong corrupt and will only hurt the economy and our natural habitat of Los Angeles.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The permit requested by the California High Speed Rail Authority is a violation towards the

environment and the ecosystem's existence and its survival. I am opposed to this destructive idea

for many reasons. This is an immoral action and as stewards of the frail Mother Earth, we should

care for its existence even more cautiously. I am a young high school individual who has interest

in protecting the environment and its survival. Taking AP Environmental Science, this human

intervention is one of the many that should be avoided, now that much intervention has led to

destruction of whole ecosystems. This testing should be prohibited. The proposed drilling will

cause consequences, definitely negative ones. As you drill the, there is a high likelihood that

contamination will occur, especially in the groundwater and streams, a vital resource for the

animals living there, who deserve to be protected. This proposed testing is not to be tolerated.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello, I am writing with concern for the testing and drilling that will be happening in the

Angeles National Forest. Drilling in these areas could cause contamination to groundwater and

streams in the area. The chemicals used in drilling are carcinogenic and can be toxic to animals

and fish in the area. The runoff from such testing can also head downstream and into our own

water supplies near the Greater Los Angeles area, and the results could be detrimental when

considering the crisis with water we already have. Wildlife in these areas can also be disrupted

by the noise caused by the drilling. Thank you for taking your time to read this letter, and i hope

that something will be done about this in the near future.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My main concern as to why I'm against having the California High Speed Rail Authority file and

receive a "Special Use Permit" is how it affects species and their habitats/wildlife. Not only

would this effect species, it can also impact humans who receive water from down streams (if the

drilling were to take place near rivers/lakes/streams) thus leading to contamination of waters.

Wildlife in general would be impacted by the repetitive noise/vibrations of the drilling, with all

the incoming technology needed to create this hole (cars, machines, etc) would also effect them

in their environment in ways such as toxicity,contamination, destruction, etc.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello, thank you for taking my call yesterday regarding the “NON” notification of residents in

the Acton area and dis-regard that the High Speed Rail Authority has had for your permit

requirements. I will try and be brief in my request and comments to you.

I live in the Eastern Corridor routes area.

I did file comments on the Eastern Corridor routes last August via Email and USPS. We were

informed that we may also add comments throughout the entire process by wither method of

delivery.

At the time comments were requested there were no identifiable routes and only a “SLUG” area

identified.

My comments that were emailed into the HSR were conveniently deleted this past Saturday

without ever being opened or read. I have the email response from their server as evidence. At

our Town Council meeting Monday evening another Council member also received the same

email message that her comments had been deleted. We received these messages because we

requested a read receipt. How many others that emailed their comments into the HSR and did not

request a read receipt had their comments deleted??

I am requesting that you “NOT” issue permits until these issues are corrected. Via this email you

have been notified of the deficiencies in transparency and due process in both The Forestry

Services and the High Speed Rail Authority’s.

You stated that the Forestry Department did not want to get drawn into the Publics Battle with

the HSR but by issuing the permit prior to receiving “ALL” responses you will be providing

favoritism to the HSR with a one sided outcome that you will eventually have to explain to the

public which you represent and not the HSR which you do not.

For this reason I am asking for the “entire process” of notification and request for comments” to

be redone and have mailings sent to “Everyone” who commented on the HSR through Acton. As

Acton is united in its stance and will not be divided by routes as you have done in your permit

requirements. All of Acton enjoys and uses the Forest and “ALL” of Acton shall have the

opportunity to comment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a person that does belive in a modern society I truly do belive this is not necessary. Drilling in

general will have a hazardous effect in the environment but with such knowledge why are we

allowing such activity to continue? With such knowledge we also know that a drastic

contamination in our water supply is about to occur, but yet we find it necessary to allow this

continue. As we are aware of the fact that California is going through a drought, but instead of

conserving the water supply we are willing to contaminate this supply. I am well aware of the

fact that there will be possible deminsh opportunities to include activities such as hand gliding or

hiking. So I am asking that we can close this project down for the sake of the enviorment. I am

asking we close this project down for the water supply. I am asking we close down this project

for everyday activities that will affect a persons day.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These past few years people have been concerned about the drought and have tried everything to

save water. With the high speed rail way being constructed there are many dangers being posed

to the area surrounding it. One extremely important factor is the trees, any equipment HSR is

working with could cause a spark and lead to a fire. Because of the region we are in fires have

become a common sight. Even is the HSR builders come prepared with water tanks, there will

still be a large outbreak before they can contain the fire and suppress it. Don't say you want to

save water when you aren't speaking out against this construction that can lead to contamination

of your water making it toxic enough to cause cancer to humans and other animals.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The HSRA should not be allowed to conduct these tests and build the speed rail through the

Angeles forest. As a Californian residence, it is of my concern that doing this would bring

negative and irreversible consequences that will not be worth it. My chief concern is the

environental damage.

Drilling an invasive hole for three months creates potential contamination that will cause the

groundwater to be carginogenic and toxic to fish and mammals. The HRS CANNOT predict with

certainty the effect drilling with have on the water supply in surrounding areas as well.

Drilling will also be detrimental to wildlife. The noise and vibrations generated by the drill will

cause noise pollution. The influx of people, machinery, and vehicles will disrupt their natural

environent. Potential contamination of water is seriously injurious to their health. The Angeles

national forest is also the home to many endangered species such as the mountain lions, prairie

falcon, California spotted owl, Santa Ana sucker fish, and various frogs.

The HSR will also disrupt various recreation the forest provides such as hand gliding, hiking,

backpacking, and other activities.

All in all drilling is not worth the harmful effects it will not be worth it. As a Californian I care

about protecting the forest lands.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a student of an AP environmental class, I would like to share my worries about the proposed

testing in the Angeles National Forest. What concerns me most is the impact to groundwater.

California is already suffering under a severe drought, and we depend on groundwater for our

main water source. Our soil is already dry and packed in; if we cause even more damage to it,

we'll rob the water from under the ground, possibly putting us at risk for sinkholes and other

geological disasters. California is already put under a lot of stress and pressure from our drought;

we can't hurt our home even more with groundwater drilling. What's more, the additives and

materials used may be cancer causing chemicals, endangering humans and other animals that

depend on that water source. Even if humans stay away from that water, the animals will still be

affected, stripping the forest of its natural wildlife and endangering beautiful species that call the

Angeles Forest their home. I could go on ranting about how our food chains and ecosystems will

be damaged as a result of the testing, but I just want to get my point across about the

groundwater. We drink it. We use it. Plants, animals, and other mammals live and thrive on it. In

California, we only have such a scarce source of water. We shouldn't poison the small amount of

water we have left. I hope that my letter, and the rest of the letters from my class, will be strong

enough of an impact to stop the "testing and investigations" from damaging our national forest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello, my name is [ ], a current student at Van Nuys High School. Ever since I signed up for the

AP Environmental Science curriculum, I couldn't help but become aware of the environment

around us. Testing in the Angeles National Forest can affect the environment in so many

destructive ways:

• impacts to groundwater (Spring and Streams) - contamination to our water supply could

occur from the materials used by HSRA during drilling, HSRA proposes to use addictive and

materials which are known as to be carcinogenic, be toxic to fish and mammals, and require

environmental precautionary measures to "prevent from entering waterways"

• impacts to recreational use in the ANF - Angeles National Forest has long been one of the

best recreational forests around California. Changing the major system of the forest would limit

our ability to interact with the forest and nature.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The drilling for advancement research may help with research, however it has plentiful effects to

the environment, such as the wildlife in the area. I honestly don't find it right, as it not only

disturbs nature and the people who inhabit the areas as well, but also effect those animals

threatened or endangered giving them no home. Examples of these would be the Nelson's

Bighorn Sheep, mountain lions, many birds, and frogs. If the drilling does happen, contamination

of the water supply can cause many problems to the ecosystem as well. It can be toxic and

carcinogenic causing diseases to plenty of wildlife. Not only are the animals affected by this, but

also the plants and trees, which include the California Live Oaks and California Sycamores. This

cannot go under way, because wildlife will not only be destroyed, but it changes the entire

ecosystem and it would be nearly impossible to recover from it. It is inhumane for people to even

think of this idea as it affects our wildlife, but other major roles can come into play as well, such

as the start of fires. The fires can lead to further damage considering the drought problem we are

having in California. If the HSR, decides to drill in the roads and there is a fire, firefighters

would not be able to get through as well. Hopefully, you can take this into consideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi my name is [ ] and I am a junior at Van Nuys High School. I am currently taking AP

Environmental Science as one of my high school classes. I recently learned about how HSRA

will drill in the forest and test the ground and I believe the project should be canceled due to

several reasons. The materials that will be used to conduct this project can contaminate

groundwater so no one can drink the water. It will also effect wild animals in the forest because

their source of water are springs and streams and if animals drink contaminated water they will

get sick and die. This project will also disrupt recreational activities because then no one will be

able to hike, hand glide, etc. This project will impact the wildlife in negative ways because the

sound of heavy drilling equipment will disrupt the animals. The influx of people and vehicles

will also disrupt animals resulting in animals leaving the forest and gathering up somewhere

unknown. Drilling may also cause forest fires which will destroy habitats for animals. These are

all the reasons why I am against the project of HSRA to drill in the forest and do testing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The permit requested to test by the California High Speed Rail Authority is a violation towards

the environment and the ecosystem's existence and its survival. I am opposed to this destructive

idea for many reasons. This is an immoral action and as stewards of the frail Mother Earth, we

should care for its existence even more cautiously. I am a young high school individual who has

interest in protecting the environment and its survival. Taking AP Environmental Science, this

human intervention is one of the many that should be avoided, now that much intervention has

led to destruction of whole ecosystems. This testing should be prohibited. The proposed drilling

will cause consequences, definitely negative ones. As you drill the, there is a high likelihood that

contamination will occur, especially in the groundwater and streams, a vital resource for the

animals living there, who deserve to be protected. This proposed testing is not to be tolerated.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is completely illogical to construct a railroad over an ecologically balanced community. As an

AP Environmental student, I am becoming increasingly aware of issues regarding our plant of

which we reside. One of the major reoccurring themes we emphasize in this course is

urbanization. This topic is usually referred to in a negative manner. Any invasive factor, however

big or small, can be catastrophic to any one ecosystem. Furthermore, because each ecosystem is

somehow interrelated to one another, a change in one will ultimately affect the other. The

construction of a railway is a rather large factor, don’t you think? Although it may prove

beneficial to us humans, it is inconsiderate to disregard the effects it would have on animals. The

drilling, especially, will disrupt the wildlife that either reside or make use of the grounds in some

way. Invading another specie’s home is not only rude, but environmentally degrading. How

would you feel is another life form—bigger than you— were to demolish the place of which you

call home? The place you live and survive off of, make social connections, and thrive? It is

corporations like YOU, HSRA, that are contributing to the already declining state of the earth,

and perhaps even our fate.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to address the decision of whether or not to allow HSRA to conduct various

geophysical/geotechnical tests within the Angeles National Forest.

These tests that include drilling can heavily affect not only the forest directly but also water and

wildlife. I am concerned that through the tests the springs and streams could potentially be

contaminated which will negatively affect humans, Los Angeles Water Supply, and wildlife who

drink from them. If our water supply does get contaminated it can lead to many devastating

outcomes.This can be avoided if the testing is stopped and prevented. Furthermore, I am

concerned with the impact that the testing will have on the wildlife in the national forest. The

noise and vibrations that the drilling machine creates could stress and threaten the wildlife. In

addition, Angeles National Forest is home to many endangered and sensitive species and

allowing testing will only disrupt and affect the critical habitats that the forest provides. I hope

that the allowing of testing will be reconsidered and that it would be stopped for the betterment

of us and wildlife. Thank you for taking the time to read my concerns and I hope that it will be

accounted in considering the decision of whether or not it will be carried through.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not approve of the California High Speed Rail due to it putting the habitats of many animals

in danger. I also disapprove of the testing as it is a form of encouragement for the Railroad. The

testing will also cause a great amount of damage to the environment affecting many things such

as animals and their lifestyle. For example drilling will have a huge impact on the water from

wells, streams, and springs. The water will be contaminated which strongly affects both humans

and animals. The water retrieved by humans from wells or downstream may become

contaminated which lowers the amount of drinkable water available which also leads to a bigger

issues which is the drought that we are experiencing. Another concern with both the testing and

the railroad will be that they can cause fires, which are already an issue. The equipment may

cause a spark leading to a fire and since it is in the forest with many dry leaves the fire will grow

rapidly which is also affected by our winds. We are approaching winter with bigger winds which

may carry the fire spreading it even more. The wildlife will be greatly affected by both as well

due to the destruction of habitats, the noise, vibrations, water, and the people now entering their

daily habitats. I appreciate the time taken to take my concerns into consideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a student that is concerned about the impacts to groundwater, specifically in springs and

streams. Having been in an organization called Heal the Bay, which also advocates clean water

usage for environmental benefits, I am knowledgeable about the various impacts of water

contamination and feel passionate about this issue. I am against the testing because of its

potential damage to humans, animals, and the environment. In addition, the real purpose of a

National Forest is so that humans are not allowed to interfere with the forest in order to conserve/

preserve nature. So, any activities such as drilling and testing that will interfere with the purpose

of the Angeles National Forest is unjust. The animals living in the forests have the same right to

live as us humans. Water pollution in springs and streams will damage the organisms that depend

on that source of water to live. Especially in an urban area like Los Angeles where the

environment is already more polluted than it should be, further damage is unwanted. I am

strongly against the demise of the forests and the poor residents who will struggle for a safe

simply necessity, water. Stop the testing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not approve of the California High Speed Rail due to the fact that it will destroy many

habitats of many animals. The testing will cause many chemicals to get into the groundwater. It

will contaminate the water for the animals who drink it and the humans, who live around that

area. The people and instruments used or he testing will scare of any animals around that area.

During the testing, not everything will go as planned. With the instruments used for the testing,

there might be a chance that a spark will occur and will start a fire. The fire will cause man

habitats to be destroyed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have recently discovered that the California High Speed Rail Authority is applying for a

Special Use Permit with the US Forest Service to conduct various geophysical/geotechnical tests

and investigations within the Angeles National Forest,all for the purpose of finding out whether

it is possible to create a tunnel under the San Gabriel Mountains. I am currently taking AP

Environmental Science in my senior year of high school, and ever since taking the class, I have

become more aware of our interactions with our environment and just how precious and

deserving of our protection our planet is. After acquiring more knowledge regarding our

environment, I am fully aware that conducting this project can inflict harm to the National

Forest, as well as the living creatures in and around it. It can contaminate our water supply, and

while we are in the middle of a drought, it would not be ideal to corrupt this limited water supply

we have. It can disrupt and disturb the enjoyment of recreational opportunities. The noise and

vibrations, and toxins caused by the drilling can disrupt and harm the wildlife within the forest.

The equipments used can possibly lead to a fire. The dangers of conducting this project is

abysmal. I do not wish for the commencement of this project.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One may see that the large scale projects you guys are taking part in causes a large disturbance in

the environment.The project you are taking initiative on has a large possibility causing

destruction to the life that lives there along the lines of birds, bears, etc. As a Californian resident

I would like to speak on the behalf of the wildlife that reside within the environment you are

harming. The wildlife residing withing the forest will be very disturbed by the noises caused by

the drilling and the hammering as well as the seismic testing taking place. The water supply for

these creatures will be contaminated as well due to the actions taking place by you. Many

animals reside with in the Los Angeles National Forrest and the testing done by you will cause

many lives to be damaged and even endanger them and there is a highly likely chance you will

be hurting those species that are already endangered. Thank you for taking the time to consider

this letter and please take this message into consideration.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a citizen, I am concerned regarding the Angeles National Forest issue. I am protesting to

conduct various geophysical/ geotechnical tests and investigations. This test will help determine

whether or not it is feasible to tunnel under the San Gabriel Mountains. The Angeles National

Forest offers natural environment, spectacular scenery, and different recreational activities. By

drilling it would leave a negative impact both in the environment and humans, it will

contaminate the water supply that could also lead to intoxication of fish and animals and

carcinogenic due to the use additives and other materials.

It would also impact the Groundwater, it can cause water at one level to drain to another level. It

also affects the residents who have a well at the higher level . The tourists and visitors will also

be affected. The drilling will cause disruption to the sites and recreational opportunities. Here are

some of the activities that will be affected by it: Hang Gliding, Hiking and backpacking, and

Equestrian use. Wildlife within the Forest will be impacted by the noise and vibrations, it will

also be affected by the influx of people and vehicles that will be introduced to their environment.

Lastly, it has impacts to fire. The work could cause a spark leading to a fire. Considering the

drought situation in California, it would leave a great impact on the residents. It will also block

fire fighting efforts and damage to fire roads.

Silence means compliance, so here I am speaking up my concerns and making a change. I hope

US Forest Service would make a positive action regarding the issue.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello, I am a student in an AP Environmental class and I have a few concerns about the testing

and drilling in the San Gabriel mountains.

The drilling and testing in the San Gabriel mountains will cause many complications in the

ecosystem surrounding where it will be put in.

One of the biggest problems will be contamination of water sources. The water coming from the

San Gabriel mountains supplies thousands of people in the area of Los Angeles and the wildlife

in the mountains with fresh clean water. Drilling will contaminate this water and make it

dangerous to drink for everyone. California is in a drought, and contaminating a water source

that is used by millions of people will cause a disaster. Is the drilling that significant to us that it

is better to contaminate a major water source for people in Los Angeles and the wildlife? I for

one am concerned with this drilling. We don't know how it will effect the local ecosystems. Will

it cause the same problems and complications as fracking? These are the things we need to be

concerned about and until it can be proven that there will be 0 harm to the local ecosystems, I

will be against the testing in the San Gabriel mountains

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As you know, forest fires have ravaged throughout the California countryside. As a California

resident, I am very aware of the impact these fires can create. The equipments you use can

potentially spark fires and destroy natural habitats. Safety measurements are vital and necessary

to preserve our forests. In the event of a fire, we need room for firefighters to be able to bring

their hosing equipment and dowse the fire. Extra vehicles can block the fire roads that these

firefighters use. Also, the damage to our fire roads can make it harder for the firefighters to use

these roads and carry out their task efficiently. We need a drastic change in our safety methods

and reflect on our values the importance of nature and our environment. I hope you can deeply

consider my letter and act on what most benefits our environment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Upon the discovery that various geophysical/geotechnical tests and investigation will be

conducted within the Angeles National Forest, I am concerned of the impact that this action will

have on the area, or most especially, the environment overall. As a student taking a high school

course on Environmental Science, I have gained awareness of what occurs in our nature and

interest of our environment. In that case, I realize that these tests will definitely have an impact

on groundwater due to the invasive drilling. Basically, water is a necessity for individuals to

survive and groundwater contributes to that significance. If the water becomes contaminated, we

practically have less resources of water which could certainly affect us; it could lead to death, for

the most part. Not only does the need of water pertain to humans, but to animals as well; animals

drink the water from these streams and most importantly, they contribute to the ongoing process

of life precisely, ecosystems. Contaminated water due to the drilling of groundwater will

basically disrupt nature's natural processes and no one wants to see what once was aesthetic, turn

into obliteration. Hopefully you take my concern into consideration that I am against the

conduction of tests within the forest because the actions we conduct towards our environment do

contribute to our survival; it could be the end of us.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I write in protest of the various geophysical/geotechnical tests within the Angeles National

Forest. As a person living in California, I care about our forests and do not approve of the

harmful, invasive impacts the testing would cause to the National Forest and to residents in and

around it. In particular, wildlife in the forest will be negatively affected.

The drilling machine used to test the groundwater, geology, and earthquake faults, will cause a

series of noise and vibrations that will cause a large disturbance. This disturbance should not

happen because we, as humans, do not have the right to interfere with natural habitats and

ecosystems. We may damage the biodiversity and food webs within the forest, possibly even

beyond repair. We, as humans, have the responsibility of managing ecosystems and we can do

this by protecting the National Forest. The forest has its own chemical cycling, its own flow of

energy. We must not ruin these natural processes with testing that will favor humans' quality of

life. Wildlife that is not of the human species have just as much of a right to live as we do.

When vehicles and a larger amount of people are introduced to the Angeles National Forest, we

do more harm than good. With the drilling used for testing, many contaminants will be added

into the environment. These toxic materials can cause cancer in many species, as they will enter

the water supply, which is a necessary resource for the wildlife living in the forest. The National

Forest is a habitat for many endangered and threatened species, including: Nelson's Bighorn

Sheep, mountain lions, California condors, California Spotted Owls, Prairie Falcon, Coastal

California Gnatcatcher, Arroyo Toad, Southern Mountain Yellow Legged Frog, California Red

Legged Frog, and Santa Ana Suckerfish.

Because the contaminants introduced by testing disrupt the water supply, the trees of the forest

who receive their water from the same water resource will be negatively affected. California

Live Oaks, California Sycamores, and White Alders are protected trees of the forest. We have no

right to violate that protection and harm these trees, which are an essential part to the forest's

ecosystem.

I would like to ask USFS to do everything in their power to stop this harmful testing or at least

do their best to limit the amount of damage done to a point where the damage can be reversed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conducting such geophysical/geotechnical tests and investigations within the Angeles National

Forest is a violation towards the ecosystem and may even lead to its collapse. The testing and

drilling of the forest is a serious matter and the effects it had on their inhabitants should be

thought about more deeply. Such activities are highly invasive to the residents who live in and

around it, for example. Unfamiliar people will be taking over their homes for months, completely

ignoring their existence. The sounds and vibrations from drilling are detrimental towards the

animals. All these will end up scaring off the animals and they might not even return. The

drilling may even leave them homeless. During drilling, there may be a malfunction which could

even lead to a fire,destroying the entire forest. This shouldn't be a risk that we are willing take.

Conducting GIs and drilling will also lead to another heavy issue-pollution. Contamination to our

water supply could occur from drilling, leading the water supply to become carcinogenic and

toxic to not only the animals,but to us humans as well. Once the water is contaminated, it would

take forever to reverse it. Such tests will only lead to the decline of our Earth and it just isn't

worth it.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for soliciting input from stakeholders concerning the above-referenced subject. We

greatly appreciate being able to comment and the lightwhich the United States Forest

Service s

(USFS) public comment period shines on both the substance and style of the California

High

Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) and their proposed testing. This letter is our formal submission

of

background information along with our comments, questions, and concerns regarding the Project

Environmental Document for Preliminary Geophysical/Geotechnical Investigation Plan for

Proposed Tunnel Alternatives in Angeles National Forest (hereinafter referred to as GI) dated

August 2015 submitted by CHSRA.

We are writing as members of the S.A.F.E. Coalition (Save Angeles Forest for Everyone/SAFE

San

Fernando Valley) and as leaders of the communities of Kagel Canyon, Lake View Terrace,

Sunland-

Tujunga, Shadow Hills, Sun Valley and La Tuna Canyon. We are elected leaders of community

service organizations in these communities and collectively represent more than 80,000

residents in the Foothills communities within the Northeast San Fernando Valley. We are closely

aligned with leaders from Santa Clarita, Acton, Aqua Dulce, San Fernando, Pacoima, Sylmar and

Sun Valley who represent another 300,000+ local residents. Like you, we are passionate

neighbors and stewards of the open and protected space that our communities border.

We are writing with great concern about three important and interconnected matters:

Messrs. Vail and Farra

October 19, 2015

Page 2

1. The culture and operating track record of the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA)

and, thus, their fitness to conduct the GI testing without a strong combination of an

independent, third-party peer review process and strong USFS monitoring and oversight.

2. The inadequate, short-sighted GI proposal submitted by CHSRA for the Palmdale to

Burbank Project Section.

3. The potential impacts and damage posed by the proposed geophysical/geotechnical

investigation.

Our concerns are mitigated to an extent by the great respect we have for the service and work

provided by the United States Forest Service (USFS). We know this process will place major

demands on your time and resources ,We,are,very,concerned,that,the,USFS’,attention,not,be,

diverted away from its critical day-to-day responsibilities and urge the USFS to put any and all

burdens on CHSRA to fund any incremental work created for the USFS by their activities or

shortcomings. We are looking forward to meeting with you on Friday, November 6, 2015, to

discuss this matter in person.

Our comments are broken into three sections. First, we have outlined several requests of the

USFS. Second, we have explained the reasons behind our special requests. Third, we provide

extensive detail on our comments about the GI. We appreciate your consideration and trust that

you will exercise great caution and vision as our guardian of the Angeles National Forest (ANF),

the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument and present and projected Wilderness Areas.

I. Requests of the United States Forest Service

We have several requests of the United States Forest Service:

1. Take no action on the GI proposal until after we meet on Friday, November 6, 2015,

at the earliest, so that we have ample opportunity to discuss the Project and the GI in

person. We request that courtesy as we are, by far, the most representative, involved,

informed and committed community entity affected by the current high speed rail

and GI proposals and the most involved in protecting all impacted communities and

sensitive environmental areas. We are very professional in our approach and know

the issues and the environment very well.

2. Request CHSRA provide you/USFS with copies of ALL comments (there are hundreds

if not thousands of such comments) CHSRA has received related to geophysical and

geotechnical issues beginning with the scoping period (fall 2014), once the East

Corridor routes were announced in December 2014, and in response to the Strategic

Alternatives Analysis (SAA) Report. Additional time following the comment period will

be needed to enable the USFS to fully review all public comments related to

geophysical and geotechnical conditions in the context of the proposed GI.


October 19, 2015

Page 3

3. Take no action on the GI proposal until CHSRA establishes, to the satisfaction of

impacted communities, elected officials and the USFS, an independent, third-party

professional review panel (ITP) to provide input and review of all CHSRA studies

related to water, seismic and tunneling, including this GI. As background, dating back

to early 2015, community and elected leaders have requested CHSRA to include

representatives of key agencies such as Army Corps of Engineers, LA County Flood

Control District, LA Department of Water and Power, California Department of Water

Resources, the California University system (experts on hydrology and seismicity),

Sierra Club, and international tunneling experts.

4. We,are,particularly,concerned,about,the,“survey/sample,size”,and the relevance of

the data to be obtained. We seek expert opinion as to the predictive ability of as few

as 5 test sites when extrapolated over 35-40 mile area encompassing many thousands

of acres of land. It appears more sites would need to be drilled to safely and

adequately,assess,local,conditions then,the,question,becomes ,when,is,the,point,of,

too much testing, and too much damage, reached?

5. Do not allow CHSRA to begin the GI until CHSRA provides USFS with complete

stakeholder lists and extend the comment period to allow time for those not notified

to participate in the current public comment period. We will provide under separate

cover the USFS with letters/emails from people who did not receive notice of the GI

plan, and, public, comment, period , meaning, CHSR;’s lists are inaccurate and

incomplete, and the public comment period should be extended.

6. Do not allow CHSRA to begin the GI during the height of the fire season, nor when

“red,flag”,days,are,declared,or,expected In addition, conducting these studies now,

at the height of the current, severe drought seemingly would not allow for seasonal

conditions and data, effectively under-reporting the incidence of groundwater.

Shouldn’t,such,data,be,obtained,over,a,full,year,period,to,serve,as,a,benchmark?

7. Do not allow CHSRA to begin the GI until the aforementioned ITP has reviewed the

scope of work for the GI and all comments are reviewed and resolved to the

satisfaction of the ITP and the USFS.

8. Take no action until CHSRA demonstrates full funding capability for the proposed

routes due to the damaging nature of the GI itself. It is premature to allow such

damaging testing for a project that lacks funding commitments, entitlements and

basic permits. Add to that, growing public and political opposition and this may well

end up being a project that is defunded as soon as 2017 when its funding shortfall and

deadlines become real.

9. Finally, if and when the proposed GI testing is to commence, because of the CHSRA

culture and track record, as well as the extraordinarily damaging nature of the CHSRA

testing and proposed operations, we call upon the Forest Service to demand

unprecedented precautions, conditions, monitoring and funding assurances from

CHSRA prior to, during and after the GI testing.


October 19, 2015

Page 4

II. Justification for Requests

We were the first to call for upfront testing of water resources, seismic activity and tunneling

impacts because the East Corridor routes through the ANF have received very little time and

research to date, compared to existing surface route alternatives. If all these alternatives are to

be included in the same EIR/EIS or environmental studies, there must be a level playing field

and

equitable research and analysis conducted on each alternative. Presently, of the four route

alternatives under consideration, SR14 has been studied for nearly 7 years, E2 has been studied

since December 2014, and the revised E1 and E3 routes have only been on the table since

May/June 2015. Compounding the time crunch is the fact that on June 30/July 1, 2015, CHSRA

executed a major changeover of consulting teams and personnel. Much institutional memory

was,lost,and,many,new,consultants,remain,in,“beginner”,mode

However, the CHSRA, true to its culture, its inflexible schedules, and its lack of transparency,

has

put together a GI plan that is grossly inadequate and in need of both further detail and immediate

engagement of the ITP. Such a panel has been proposed since early 2015 by all of S.A.F.E. and

all

community leaders, is supported by local elected officials since May 2015, and has been

discussed publicly with CHSRA since early 2015. To date, CHSRA has not followed through on

the

ITP, other than providing periodic lip service, thus, we cannot support beginning the GI.

With respect to the final request for extensive oversight and monitoring of the GI, we offer the

following rationales:

1. Lack of Experience

a. CHSRA is a loose amalgamation of hired guns, consultants from all over the world

who have never worked together, and who have never built a high speed rail

system in the United States. When CHSRA says "they" have done this before or

"they" have experience, CHSRA is referring to just a few individuals, not their

entire team. Please keep in mind "they" are only as good as the people they retain

on consulting contracts. These consultants have exhibited no allegiance,

ownership, knowledge or passion for our local communities. As an example,

CHSR;’s, newly, hired, lead, engineer, for, planning, and, construction, works, for, a,

Spanish corporation, lived in Europe and was not even part of CHSRA until July

2015. He has just relocated to the United States from Spain, was provided his first

on-the-ground briefing by the SAFE Coalition on Thursday, October 8, and

probably doesn't even know where the nearest 7-11 or USFS Ranger Station are

located. Yet, he too is now rushing on the CHSRA treadmill to disaster.


October 19, 2015

Page 5

2. Funding Shortfall, Timeline Pressure and Propensity to Cut Corners

a. CHSRA is behind schedule, under-funded and rushing to meet impossible

deadlines (see attached October 8, 2015 and October 16, 2015 LA Times articles).

By law, CHSRA must receive one-third of its funding from federal sources, onethird

from private sources, and one-third from state sources. It is a fact discussed

publicly,by,the,CHSR;,Board,of,Directors,as,recently,as,CHSR;’s,October 6, 2015

board meeting in Sacramento, and reported in all the major newspapers in

California, that CHSRA has a serious funding shortfall. As acknowledged by CHSRA

and, as, widely, reported,by,the,press , CHSR;’s,federal,funding, will, be, cut, off, in,

2017. Not a single dollar of private funding has been,raised ,CHSR;’s,state,funding,

is limited to the one-time American Reconstruction and Reinvestment Act of 2009

(ARRA) and the California Cap and Trade Program, which earmarks 25% of its funds

to CHSRA. It is being widely speculated that CHSRA is so far behind in its planning

and operations that it will fail to qualify for the State match portion of the Federal

funds by 2017, further hindering its funding and progress. Some are even

speculating the high speed rail project will grind to a halt with its funds repurposed

to other transportation and public infrastructure projects.

b. CHSRA is cutting corners, taking short cuts, ignoring public input, refusing

transparency and conducting inadequate public outreach, all in an effort to reach

critical path funding deadlines. Our own Congressman, Adam Schiff, has accused

CHSR;,of,“reaching,their,conclusion,and,working,backwards ,,,

i. As reported (see attached article from the Palo Alto Weekly), on October

13, 2015, the Palo Alto City Council voted unanimously to demand CHSRA

slow down and to implement an effective community outreach program

for high speed rail planning in that region.

ii. Last week, upon commencement of CHSRA planning in Orange County,

Assemblyman Matthew Harper from the 74th Assembly District called for

the state to “give up on this unobtainable and ill-conceived fantasy” and

to use the high speed rail funds on necessary transportation projects

instead (see attached press release).

iii. In June 2015, a measure approved by legislative Democrats cut the

reporting requirements for CHSRA, requiring spending reports to the

Legislature every two years instead twice per year, an obvious attempt to

scale back oversight.

iv. Statewide, CHSRA has maneuvered legally to avoid oversight by the

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In addition, when requested

to explain the start date for its environmental studies, CHSRA was nonspecific

and referred,to,a,“rolling,EIR/EIS,process ,something,we’ve,never,

heard of before. It should be noted that the neighboring environmental

review process for the 710 Freeway took four years from the scoping


October 19, 2015

Page 6

period to the Draft EIR for a 4-5, mile, project , In, all, of, CHSR;’s, public,

presentations, they propose to proceed from the scoping period to Draft

EIR in less than two years for a 35-40 mile segment!

v. In the Palmdale to Burbank Project Section, CHSRA rushed to conclude its

Strategic Alternatives Analysis (SAA Report) at their July 2015 Board

Meeting, despite it including two severely flawed alternatives and two

alternatives that had hardly been studied. At that Board meeting, the

Board,took,no,action,on,the,Plan ,effectively,giving,staff,a,“green,light ,

despite hundreds of public written comments and the attendance of about

400 opponents at the downtown LA CHSRA board meeting.

vi. Perhaps the most egregious example of CHSRA putting the cart before the

horse,is,in,Burbank ,California ,CHSR;’s,board,and,staff,have,“determined”,

that a station should be located in Burbank. Neither the Burbank City

Council, the Burbank Planning Commission, the Burbank Airport Authority

nor Burbank residents have ever voted to approve a station in Burbank.

The City is just beginning to learn the facts. Their interest in jobs and added

tax,revenue, will, soon, be, dwarfed, by,their, concerns, of, CHSR;’s, funding

shortfalls and public perception that high speed rail is an end run effort to

“expand”, the, new, airport, terminal , One, ;irport, Commissioner, Terry

Tornek, stated,recently,that,he,believed,CHSR;’s,request,for,an,intensive,

6-month planning process would be more likely to take a decade to

complete! (see attached Burbank Leader article dated August 18, 2015). In

fact, CHSRA has no claim to any land in Burbank, an EIR has yet to be done

for a proposed, new airport terminal, and the Burbank City Council has just

turned their attention to this issue in the last 30 days.

vii. As mentioned previously, CHSRA has not established the ITP prior to

submitting the GI plan to the USFS.

III. Background

CHRSA has filed a Special Use Permit application with the USFS to conduct various

geophysical/geotechnical tests and investigations (GI) within the ANF. These tests will assist

them

in determining whether or not it is feasible to tunnel under or through the San Gabriel

Mountains.

The GI will test for groundwater, adverse geology, and earthquake faults. The GI would consist

of drilling, installing, testing and backfilling core holes at 5 – 8 locations that HSR has identified

within the Forest. The depth of the core holes ranges from 200 feet to 2790 feet deep.

CHSRA proposes to conduct its drilling over the course of one year. The drilling of the deepest

hole would take over 3 months to complete. This is a highly invasive, extensive, prolonged

project that would have significant impacts to the ANF, to the residents who live in and around


October 19, 2015

it and the millions of people who visit and utilize THEIR protected federal lands. It is a sad to

note

that much of the high speed rail program approved by voters in 2008 has fundamentally changed

and has been allowed to change by the Governor and state legislature. As sure as the public was

thrilled by creation of the San Gabriel Mountains Monument in 2014, had voters known in 2008

that high speed rail would pierce the Monument, Angeles National Forest, and densely populated

communities such as those in the San Fernando Valley, the high speed rail vote would have, and

should have, failed.

We have studied CHSR;’s,proposal ,and,there,are,many,concerns,that,this,drilling,presents

which

should be addressed by CHSRA and the USFS prior to any commencement of work.

IV. Issues and Concerns

1. Impacts to Groundwater – Springs, Streams, and Wells

a. The proposed drilling creates the potential for contamination of the water table

during borings. This would negatively impact both humans who ultimately receive

this,water,“downstream”,as,part,of,the,Greater,Los,;ngeles,water,supply ,and,

animals which drink from the streams located within the ANF.

b. Contamination could occur from the materials used by CHSRA during drilling. The


materials “approved for use in drinking water systems to prevent contamination

of groundwater.” However, CHSRA provided a lengthy list of materials/additives

that it will be using during those drillings, along with the Material Safety Data

Sheets for those materials. The MSD sheets indicate that many of the materials

CHSRA intends to use feature the following warnings:

i. Carcinogenic (cancer causing to humans and other animals)

ii. Toxicity to fish and mammals

iii. Requires, environmental, precautionary, measures, to, “prevent, from,

entering waterways.”

c. We are concerned that the use of such hazardous materials may contaminate the

water supply, possibly causing harm to humans and animals, unless proper

precautionary measures are in place, and followed with monitoring by

independent, third-party independent oversight.

d. Contamination could occur from the mixing of waters from a higher level with

waters from a lower level. The proposed drilling creates the possibility of merging

of groundwater zones, to possible undeterminable negative consequences.

e. Depth of boring could cause water at one level to drain to another level, and any

residents who have a well at the higher level could then lose or see a drop in their

water level.


October 19, 2015

Page 8

f. If it rains (which it will likely do at some point during the year CHSRA plans to

complete its tests), the hazardous materials may be spread from the worksite and

travel to and contaminate the natural springs/streams which are in proximity to

the worksite, some of which are noted on CHSRA maps as lying within the Area of

Influence of the core holes.

g. Contamination from the use of drilling additives, slurry, grouting, and other

materials could occur not only below the surface, but also at surface level of the

worksite.

h. The initial test should be on the deepest core hole and review conditions before

moving onto others, i.e., do not drill all coring holes concurrently.

i. In order to establish baseline information prior to testing, CHSRA needs to test the

water for quality. Specifically, for protection of the public using groundwater for

domestic purposes, at least one domestic groundwater well south or southwest

(Kagel,Canyon) ,and,one,north,of,the,boring,sites,should,be,tested,for,the,EP;’s,

National Primary Drinking Water List of Contaminants listed in 40 CFR Part 141.

These wells should be tested prior to boring activities once, to establish a baseline,

and again one year after completion of the project. For protection of biological

species, all discharged waters should be monitored at least per drill site for

Hazardous Constituents listed in 40 CFR PART 261, APPENDIX VIII, and Chronic

Toxicity. Also an evaluation should be performed of residential well water levels

and their ability to provide the required gallons per minute per the Fire

Department guidelines. Tests should be continued during the drilling and then on

an ongoing basis for one year following the initial test.

j. The source (City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County, State of California, etc.) and

type of water, i.e, potable, recycled, gray, etc. needs to be identified as well as

how it is purchased. Additionally, we need to know how much water will be used

before, during and after drilling and any other related testing activities presented

in,a,“per,core,hole”,unit,of,measurement We recommend CHSRA, which is a State

entity, utilize water it procures directly from the State and not encumber any local

City or County of LA water supplies.

k. CHSRA has, calculated,that, impacts, will, not,occur, beyond, a, 1000,foot, “;rea, of,

Influence”,surrounding,the,borehole ,,However ,they,have,no,way,of,knowing,for

sure that there will not be contamination beyond the Area of Influence. If they hit

a groundwater source, contamination could occur before they are able to plug it,

and that contamination could spread along with the groundwater. CHSRA’s,;rea,

of Influence assumes they will be dealing with small fissures and cracks within the

bedrock, but CHRSA also acknowledges a natural flow of groundwater that exists

in fractures in the bedrock. Water moving within fractures is unpredictable,

delicate, and volatile, and CHSRA cannot predict with any certainty the effect of

their drilling on the water supply downstream and in surrounding areas.


October 19, 2015

Page 9

l. The proposed drilling creates the potential for disruption, diversion, or drawdown

of the water table or natural spring and/or natural flow of groundwater during

borings.

m. CHSRA has never acknowledged the private wells that exist within the ANF.

Specifically, the wells that exist in Upper Kagel Canyon are not included on Figure

13 ,some,of,which,are,less,than,two,miles,“downstream”,from,the,proposed,E1-

B3 and E1-B2 core hole sites. These property owners are particularly concerned

about (1) possible contamination of their water supply, and (2) possible reduction

of their water table. (There are other wells in the vicinity of testing and tunneling

that are not documented on the material provided by CHSRA.)

n. CHSR;,prejudices,this,review,by,stating ,“Based,on,the,information,presented,in,

this GI Plan, we do not anticipate any impacts from the proposed exploration

program of the existing water wells within private inholdings or other areas of

;ngeles,National,Forest ,,Yet, CHSRA further,states,later,in,the,document ,“We,

anticipate that difficult drilling,conditions,may,be,encountered ,Clearly, this is a

contradiction and only adds to our concerns about this process.

2. Biological/Wildlife Impacts

a. Wildlife within the forest will be impacted by noise and vibrations generated by

the drilling machine, as well as by the hammer and air guns that are used for

seismic testing. Impacts may include disruption to mating habits, migration,

and/or abandoning the area to avoid the noise/vibration resulting in change of

food supply and disruption of the food chain up to apex-level predators.

b. Wildlife will be affected by the influx of people and vehicles that will be introduced

to their environment and which will be present for many months at each of the

core hole locations.

c. Wildlife may be impacted by any contamination of their water supply which may

occur through CHSRA’s, introduction, of, toxic, materials (see contamination

concerns above).

d. The ANF provides critical habitat and biological corridors for many endangered,

threatened, and sensitive species, including the following:

i. Mammals ,,Nelson’s,Bighorn,Sheep ,mountain,lions

ii. Birds: California condors, California Spotted Owls, and the Coastal

California Gnatcatcher, and the Prairie Falcon

iii. Amphibians/reptiles, which live in the water which may be impacted by

drilling: the Arroyo Toad, Southern Mountain Yellow Legged Frog,

California Red Legged Frog, and Santa Ana Suckerfish.

e. The permit application states that surface biological surveys should be conducted

AFTER the issuance of the permits. Biological Surveys must be completed prior the

issuance of permits. The CHRSA representatives spent one day looking at some of


October 19, 2015

Page 10

the sites. This is inadequate. Additionally, such surveys should be conducted

during the appropriate time frames when biological resources can actually be

studied pursuant to established protocols.

f. Disruption to or diversion of the water supply or a drop in the water table would

negatively impact protected California Live Oaks as well as California Sycamores

and White Alders.

3. Impacts to Recreational Use in the ANF

a. The sites proposed by CHSRA disrupt and diminish the enjoyment of recreational

opportunities within the ANF when roads are closed or activities are within the

site areas.

b. Hang Gliding: CHSRA specifically notes that its E1-B3 proposed site will cause

disruption to the hang-gliders who utilize the Kagel Truck Trail to access hanggliders

peak. More specifics are needed regarding mitigations, enforcement and

monitoring.

c. Hiking and Backpacking: CHSRA’s,proposed,bore,sites,are,within,close,proximity,

of various Discovery Trails, Interpretive Trails, and even the Pacific Crest Trail,

which is heavily used by hikers, backpackers, etc. The duration of the proposed

project and the noise and traffic created by the proposed project will result in

significant disruption to the use of such trails, which are a preferred and intended

use of National Forest lands.

d. Equestrian Use: CHSRA’s,proposed,bore,sites,are,within,close,proximity,of,trails,

that are used by equestrians, specifically the Kagel Truck Trail. Horses will be

adversely affected by the noise and vibrations generated from the drilling. The

duration of the proposed project and the noise, vibration, and traffic created by

the proposed project will result in significant disruption to the use of such trails by

equestrians, which is a preferred and appropriate use of National Forest lands.

CHSRA has not, but must, be informed by equestrian experts such as veterinarians

and equestrian organizations such as ETI to thoroughly understand potential

issues ,No,one,among,CHSR;’s,consulting,team,possesses,such,expertise Further,

the only ANF equestrian access trail point is the fire road next to E2, adjacent to

Courtship Ranch. This access point would likely be impacted and blocked due to

equipment deliveries, etc. for the GI. Moreover, this fire road has a history of

serious mudslides in heavy rain events, closing it down for months at a time.

e. More information is needed about what noise, vibration, dust, truck traffic

volumes, etc. would be created that would impact residents, campers,

equestrians, hikers and motorists.


October 19, 2015

Page 11

4. Fire Hazard Mitigation and Impacts to Fire Suppression

a. Causing a Fire: An abundance of caution is necessary as any equipment CHSRA is

working with could cause a spark leading to a fire. Considering the drought

situation, coupled with the devastating forest fires that have occurred recently in

California, this is of particular concern to the surrounding residents. CHSRA itself

acknowledges this possibility as they describe bringing in tanker trucks to hold

water for potential fire suppression. Because,this,is,the,high,fire,season ,shouldn’t,

this activity be postponed until the cooler months of spring? Any activity that

requires torches or welding equipment requires a Hot Work Permit. Will the

causing of a fire shut down any further testing at that or other core holes? What

emergency communications equipment will be used by CHSRA personnel and how

will they be monitored and overseen by USFS personnel?

b. Blocking Fire Fighting Efforts: CHSRA intends to use currently existing roads to

access its proposed core hole locations. This includes a number of fire roads,

which exist primarily as a means of access for fire equipment to manage forest

fires. CHSRA will be bringing in an unknown number of vehicles to each bore site,

and acknowledges that these vehicles will block or partially block the fire roads.

In the event of a fire, these obstacles could hinder or block fire fighters and their

ability to extinguish a fire, not, to, mention, jeopardizing, the, workers’, ability, to,

safely evacuate the area. CHSRA specifically notes that one of its proposed bore

sites is a fire fighting staging area. At what point would core hole drilling stop or

be required to stop if there was a fire in the vicinity of the ANF? What if

evacuations were required? How would CHSRA be able to evacuate quickly and

safely?

c. Damage to Fire Roads: The months of use of the fire roads by heavy industrial

trucks, tankers, and equipment will cause wear and tear on the fire roads,

particularly during any rain which may occur, negatively impacting intended use

of those roads during emergency situations. Road conditions must be monitored

so that they will not be compromised in the event they are needed for emergency

services.

d. Communications During an Emergency. In the event of a fire or other emergency,

what communications apparatus will CHSRA have to communicate with Fire and

Forestry officials? How would operations be suspended immediately?

5. Legal and Technical Concerns

a. There will be a need for blow-out preventers (BOP) because the drilling mud m

not exert sufficient pressure. CHSRA acknowledges the possibility of loss of

circulation of the drilling mud, which means that pressure from the well might


October 19, 2015

Page 12

cause substances (water or gas) to come to the surface at a rapid rate and spill

onto the surface. Each well should require a blow-out preventer.

b. If the bore holes are left open, it is likely that the zones will intermingle in the

future causing water from different zones to mix. This may become even more

problematic when rainfall increases and more water percolates into the mountain.

c. When core holes are closed, are they filled or merely capped? It appears from the

GI that they are filled solid and then capped with a 10 foot seal. Is this a vertical

“plug”,or,horizontal,(“footprint”),seal?

d. To what degree of certainty and predictability does drilling 5-8 core holes

throughout the forest represent the entire area? Without independent, thirdparty

input into this proposed GI scope of work, how can we be assured CHSRA

has even come close to identifying meaningful sites that are also representative

of conditions throughout the routes? Further, it seems that timing deadlines and

expediency again forced CHSRA to choose sites that are near roads. While this

negates the need and complexity of clearing new roads/paths to test sites, it

possibly overlooks better and more strategic locations that would prove far better

from a scientific standpoint. How were the locations selected if only sites near

roads will be tested? What if more sensitive areas are not located near existing

roads and therefore will not be tested/studied? What locations would have been

tested if road access was not an issue?

e. “The,drilling,equipment ,support,equipment,and,drilling,methods,will,be,selected,

in anticipation of resolving field drilling problems efficiently to minimize down

time,and,potential,delays,in,schedule ,These,all,should,be,specified now to USFS

and should be reviewed by an independent, third-party peer review before permit

application is complete and obviously approved. As issues arise, USFS, a thirdparty

and SAFE must be notified and any material changes must be transparent

and communicated publicly.

f. Who will be legally and fiscally responsible for any damage done to the forest and

to the residential wells downstream? Presumably, it will be CHSRA, therefore, it

must demonstrate the ability to handle any damage/liability it may cause to wells,

by igniting fires, damaging roads, etc. What form will this financial security be

provided? Insurance? Bond? Trust Fund? How will residents be protected if their

wells are adversely affected?

g. How quickly will the core holes be filled when water is reached to avoid diverting

water from residential wells downstream?

h. In the event that a drop in the water table is determined, how will CHSRA mitigate

this for property owners?


October 19, 2015

Page 13

6. Seismic Concerns

a. Pressure associated with fracking has been identified as the cause of hundreds of

earthquakes in states that are otherwise not seismically active. The description of

the core drilling process provided by CHSRA seems very similar to the fracking

process. What assurances do we have that the core drilling will not induce seismic

activity? Will seismic monitoring occur at each test site?

7. Project Supervision/Responsibility

a. Who will be supervising this operation to assure no damage is done to the ANF?

b. What supervision will USFS provide for the work and how will CHSRA compensate

USFS for that work? How will the public be assured that basic services in the Forest

and Monument will not be disrupted by all the resources USFS will have to apply

to the high speed rail project?

c. How will the USFS supervise the drillings?

d. What companies are doing the testing? What is their experience? What are their

credentials? Have they ever done testing related to a high speed rail project before

in any country and in the United States? Have they ever done such testing in a

National Monument or National Forest?

8. Logistics, Scheduling, and Miscellaneous Issues

a. What impact will gaining access to the two off-road sites have (500-1000 off of

established forest roads)? FS-B1 and E3-B1 will need off road access and will

require helicopter access. What does that entail, e.g., constructing a helicopter

pad or just grading an area?

b. How many and what type of trucks and drilling and other equipment (generators,

etc.) will be used for each test/staging site. Additionally, we would like to know

the weight of said equipment and what type of fuel is required, i.e., gasoline,

diesel, etc.

c. If a mud pit is required, what is the expected amount of debris to be excavated

and discarded? How will the mud pit be remediated?

d. Will Little Tujunga Canyon Road be closed at any point? How will it and the other

roads, be, affected, by, CHSR;’s, plans?, Will, there, be, closures/disruptions/flag,

men/etc.?

e. Each test site area needs approximately 2400-3200 square feet (80 x 30 or 80 x

40), or the footprint of a decent-sized house. Will these pads be removed and will

natural vegetation be restored after the site is cleared?

f. E2-B3 requires access through private properties. What if access is denied? Does

CHSRA take legal action and if so, what is the anticipated delay? APNs 2581015001


October 19, 2015

Page 14

and 3209015023 are private residences. How will the CHSRA compensate

property owners and what is the expected amount of such payment?

g. What is the typical size and functions of a work crew, i.e., Foreman, Biologist, etc.?

Do they all drive up to the site separately or meet somewhere else and then drive

up?

h. If drilling rates are 30-80 feet per day, how many and which days per week will

drilling taking place?

i. What is the daily expected start/stop time?

j. What are the specific dates proposed for each bore site?

k. In the event of rain, fire, flood or seismic events that could impact drilling what

happens if any of the above occur? Is work suspended? For how long? Under what

conditions may it resume?

l. Has this kind of testing ever been done before in ANF? If so, what precautions

were implemented in all facets of public/environmental safety?

m. The,GI,states ,“Based,on,past,experience,with,similar,GIs,and,testing,in,national,

forests ,potential,impacts ,if,any ,are,not,“substantial ,This is nonsense and a total

misrepresentation, of, CHSR;’s, qualifications , How can CHSRA state , “based, on,

past experience , when, they, have, never, done, this, before , they, are, beginners ,,

What, where, when, how? Whose experience? CHSRA or other entities?

9. Noticing, Transparency and Other Permit Requirements

a. What County agencies/permits are needed? The County Department of Health is

mentioned. What specific permit is required and what is the process/timeline/cost

of such a permit? Do such permits come with their own comment periods and

public input? This should be included in this permit application process so that all

are included together.

b. What other government agencies have been sent notices re: comment period and

proposed activity? Has there been any outreach to ensure comments and input

by LA Department of Water and Power? LA County Flood Control? Army Corps of

Engineers?

c. Why,hasn’t,CHSRA announced any plans for similar GI testing in the Big Tujunga

Wash and along San Fernando Road near existing aquifers and spreading grounds?

d. The USFS and an independent third-party peer review team must make it a

condition that it has the right to approve the subcontractor(s), the equipment,

procedures and all matters relating to the testing prior to the start of any boring

activities and that SAFE is notified of any and all material changes.

e. CHSRA must provide information proving that procedures and requirements are

well established for these activities in the State of California and have been

successfully implemented for similar geophysical/geotechnical investigations. The

documentation should include what, where, when, and how.


October 19, 2015

Page 15

f. A website accessible to the public should be established and updated in real time.

Items that should be included but are not limited to: (1) the number of feet drilled

per location; (2) what tests were conducted; (3) if readily available, the results of

those tests; (4) incident reports (which would include encounters with hazardous

materials, safety issues, worker injuries, etc.); (5) status of each core hole, i.e., not

started, in progress, being capped, complete, etc.; (6) written communications

including reports by and between the ANF and the USFS; (7) any change in wildlife

behavior; and (8) any and all other information that relates to the test site(s).

g. A 24/7 security detail should be implemented to protect the various worksites.

h. Each core hole should be fitted with a blow-out preventers (BOP). Each active site

should be assigned a forest service biologist to monitor impacts to environment.

i. Decibel level of all equipment, including vehicles while idling and engaged has not

been disclosed.

j. This application ought to have included a full schedule and timeline of all proposed

activities during the GI.

k. Once any GI-related permit is written, the public should have the ability to

comment on its content and conditions.

l. A preliminary investigation needs to be done to ensure that there are no Indian

burial grounds or other cultural/archeological and/or historical sites that could be

disturbed by the testing.

m. A fiscal analysis must be done to calculate the cost to the USFS in terms of time

and resources taken away from normal protective and emergency operations.

n. CHSRA needs to prepay any anticipated costs that will be advanced by the USFS.

o. CHSRA/USFS should hold a public, informational meeting where CHSRA would

fully explain the processes and answer questions PRIOR to the close of the

comment period. This was a specific request from S.A.F.E. that testing and

tunneling impacts needed to be better understood given two of the routes – E1

and E3 are only several months old.

p. At the conclusion of drilling and testing, each core hold should be cased or

cemented to total depth.

q. Biological surveys should be completed prior to the issuance of permits.

r. The following reports or programs should be submitted for public inspection prior

to any testing:

i. Hazardous Materials Disposal Program.

ii. A Wildlife Impact Report complete with a mitigation or remediation plan.

iii. A list of sites with addresses where similar tests have been conducted and

whether or not the public can visit these sites for comparison purposes.

iv. An Emergency Response Plan that would cover any and all potential

disasters that could ensue, including floods (including natural or those

caused by drilling activities), fire, earthquakes, etc.


October 19, 2015

Page 16

v. An Infrastructure and Flora Remediation Plan on how trails, roads, streets,

and flora will be restored after testing is complete.

s. An analysis should be done to determine the level of noise, vibration, dust, truck

traffic, human interaction that would be created that could impact wildlife prior

to the testing.

t. CHSRA must demonstrate ability to handle any damage/liability it may cause to

wells, by igniting fires, damaging roads, etc. (insurance, bond, etc.)

V. Conclusion – Government Needs to Protect People and Natural Resources and NOT be

a Rubber Stamp for CHSRA

We have made many requests for additional information and many recommendations to make

the GI proposal more complete and protective. Quite honestly, as civilians, as residents, we keep

finding,ourselves,in,the,position,of,“fact,checker ,“watchdog

,and,of,doing,work,that,CHSR;,

and other government agencies ought to be doing. Our government representation on this

project has been an abject failure. Presently, the CHSRA board of directors lacks a southern

California,member/representative ,We,don’t,have,a,board,member,to,appeal,to,for,assistance,

and intercession. We asked last week when a new board member would be appointed and were

given,the,answer ,“no,idea ,Our prior board member has announced plans to run for office.

But,

that may be a good thing as that same board member had to ask a CHSRA staff

member/consultant what an SAA Report was at a City of San Fernando City Council meeting.

As a case in point, we were chagrined recently when a ranking LA Department of Water and

Power, in a public meeting stated his agency had little concern for the impact of CHSRA on local

water supplies. This was stated before these upfront studies were planned; before the EIR/EIS

was completed; and by an executive who did not even know until two weeks ago that there were

three East Corridor routes. Numerous phone calls to staff of this executive have not been

returned for over three weeks.

For nearly a year, local elected officials in the San Fernando Valley have been requested to host

an informational meeting for stakeholders about high speed rail. They have refused to do so and

have placed the community in the position of organizing the meeting by themselves. One of our

state senators is termed out and leaving office shortly. Another state senator promised us he will

work,behind,the,scenes,but,was,a,big,high,speed,rail,supporter

,We’ve,heard,nothing,from,him,

since a tour several months ago. Our local Council office canceled a site visit last week and has

yet to reschedule the meeting. Further, we have had to badger Council staff to ensure that

planning and environmental deputies become aware of and respond to this public comment

period. As far as our County Supervisor is concerned, the Supervisor is running for State Senator

and his chief of staff is now running for Supervisor. We think you can see getting representation

from that office is going to be a challenge.


October 19, 2015

Page 17

For nearly a year now, the Army Corps of Engineers has refused our requests to meet despite

ongoing requests from us and both Congressman Schiff and Congressman Cardenas.

We’ve,been,

trying for nearly a month to meet with the LA County Department of Public Works and LA

County

Flood Control District to no avail, although we think a meeting is going to happen.

We make these points to demonstrate how busy and how distracted our government agencies

have, been , It’s, been, easy, for, CHSR;, to, move, into, that, vacuum, and, tell, our,

government,

representatives what they want to hear so they can move on with little interference and

encumbrance. They’ve,made,going,with,their,flow,the,politically,correct,thing,to,do

,This,needs,

to stop and CHSRA needs to be forced to do their job right.

We are taking matters into our own hands – politically, technically, environmentally and, if need

be, legally. So far, the USFS has been the best of the government agencies for us to work with.

You’ve,listened ,you’ve,been,accessible,and,you’ve,been,proactive ,Mr

,Vail’s,reference,to,the,

sensitive nature of this project,was,one,of,the,first,acknowledgements,we’ve,received

,We,had,a,

very,positive,interaction,last,Thanksgiving,with,Mr ,Vail’s,interim,predecessor

,but,then,he,was,

gone and we lost contact with the USFS until its recent meetings about the management plan for

the new National Monument. The USFS can represent its lands and its stakeholders by

continuing

the proactive course it began by opening the public comment period. Require CHSRA

reply/respond to these concerns point-by-point with specific answers and mitigation measures

so that the answers can be evaluated and determined to be acceptable to CHSRA, USFS and

S.A.F.E. We must make CHSRA accountable.

We, congratulate, you, all, you’ve, done, and, stand, ready, to, assist, you , Based on the

foregoing

comments, concerns, and questions, we respectfully request that the USFS seriously consider our

concerns and implement our recommendations in order to mitigate any ill effects from the

geophysical/geotechnical process as submitted by the CHSRA for their Special Use Permit.

[newspaper articles not included]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed activity. I have additional comments

since the maps of the actual drill locations and related technical documents have become

available:

1. Does the USDA Forest Service allow anyone with general plan but little to no funding secured

engage in invasive activity in pursuit of said plans on the lands you steward? Somehow, I think

not. Yet here is CaHSR - a group without secured funding for their plan - asking to do exactly

that. Why is this even being entertained?

The USDA Forest Service should require CaHSR to prove 100% funding has been properly

secured before considering any activity by said organization on USDA Forest Service land.

2. Does the USDA Forest Service allow anyone with a project that only serves a select, small

subsection of the public develop lands they steward for all of the citizens of the United States?

At even it's best projections, CaHSR's project will serve a very select group of individuals who 1.

can afford an expensive ticket ($200) and 2. who needs to go to the limited locations they will

reach.

Due to the clear exclusivity of the project this activity supports, it should be disallowed

completely.

3. Is the Angeles National Forest or the San Gabriel Mountains a "Transportation and Utility

Corridor"? Are managing Transportation and Utility Corridors part of the mission and activities

of the USDA Forest Service? No. and No.

The legislation which gave rise to CaHSR states that routes will be along Transportation and

Utility Corridors. This activity should be disallowed because new uses of USDA Forest lands

does not include Transportation and Utility Corridors.

4. Proposed drill site E1-B2 is within 300' of an isolated population of Malacothamnus

Davidsonii -- here are some pics I took of one of the 6-7 plants yesterday:

Assuming CaHSR's documented claim of an impact of only 1000' around the drill site

is actually correct

, these CNPS rare, endangered plants are w

ell within that area. This location must be disallowed.

The same situation occurs for the E2-B3 drill site. There are Malacothamnus Davidsonii within

1000' of this location.

There are Malacothamnus Davidsonii within 1200' of E1-B3 and this location should be strongly

reconsidered if allowed at all.

I am very familiar with these three proposed locations and can discuss them or point things out in

person if it would help clarify these comments.

For the record, Malacothamnus Davidsonii is included in the CNPS Inventory of Rare and

Endangered Plants on list 1B.2 (rare, threatened, or endangered in CA and elsewhere). 7th

Edition / 8th Edition

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thanks in advance for all the work you have and are about to undertake. We hope the USFS gets

relief from CHSRA on this as it will be very demanding. We encourage you to work on a

reasonable time frame, one that suits the USFS and the public. Don't let CHSRA's crisis become

your crisis. They are under intense financial and timeline constraints. Those should not affect

how this review and subsequent testing are conducted. The Forest, and our communities are

bigger than any one, single project.

We've been part of many reviews like this on other sensitive environmental projects. If our

experience can be of help to you in any way, as Cindy said, please don't hesitate to contact us.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am very concerned about the HSRA’s proposed plan to conduct various geophysical /

geotechnical tests within the Angeles National Forest. This highly insensitive and long-lasting

drilling project will impact the critical habitat and biological corridors for many endangered,

threatened, and fragile animals and birds.

Contaminating water supplies for the wildlife habitats, not to mention our human residents,

should require a more thorough examination of the necessity for this invasive drilling campaign.

Please do not overlook the need for preserving the delicate ecosystems in the proposed drilling

locations. Sadly, the animals cannot attend your meetings and speak for themselves.

Even though I have written to address my concerns previously, I never received the Forest

Service memo dated September 18, 2015.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'd like to start off by thanking the USFS for all the dedication and work t protect the Angeles

Forest.

I'd also like to mention that I have written before, and as I understand it, all of us who have

written were to have received a letter from Jeff Vail of the USDA. I have not received that letter

and neither have others who I know have written in the past.

That being said, I want to share my displeasure about the possibility of proposed testing and

drilling in the Angeles Forest. The thought of the ongoing noise, trucks, closure of trails and

wildlands, damage to fire roads and disturbance to native plants and wildlife are some of the

many reasons.

I implore you to please not allow testing and drilling in the Angeles Forest!!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1)National Monument. The national forest should not be used for High speed rail. This is a forest

and as such a National Forest as such a Protected area.

2)The costs of such a project will end up being much higher than projected, possibly leaving the

project half done, and extending into years of construction

3) Drilling building through the geographical National Forest is not practical or affordable. It

would be geographically unpractical.

4)Water pollution.

5) Eminent Domain. Homes would be taken and others devalued.

6)Wild life equestrian an recreation trails decimated.

7) Clogging up transportation routes with trucks equipment .1 millions trucks trips to remove

Tunnel dirt. Air pollution, rad damage .

8) Noise in building and in running in bedroom communities.

No No No

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am against the drilling and testing that will take place in the Angeles National Forest. It will

disrupt the habitat and pollute the waters used by the residents around the area. The testing will

be a fire hazard since it will block fire roads slowing down emergency workers from responding

to the emergencies. The drilling and testing are not beneficial to anyone involved with the area.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We should not give a permit to HSRA. The drilling will largely impact the many environmental

factors in a negative way. Most importantly, drilling will disturb wildlife. The noise and

vibrations generated by drilling will disturb wildlife. Not only will the sound affect the wildlife,

but the influx of people will be a hindrance to wildlife. Drilling will not only affect the animals

environment, but it will contaminate thier water. It is unfair for the animals to have to go through

such problems. It would be saddening to see animal life being disturbed because of such

behavior of humans. The HSRA has NO right to ruin the tranquility of wildlife and the human

recreations. Please do not issue a Special Use Permit to the HSRA.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a high school student and I would like to address my opinion on the drilling process you are

planning to do. Although it may sound like a beneficial idea to drill holes in the ground to test for

groundwater, adverse geology, and earthquake faults, it is much more harmful for the organisms

and the environment that greatly depend on the forests. by drilling, many problems will form.

Drilling will creat contamination of groundwater, which would negatively impact both humans

and animals, who need water to survive. Also, the drilling can scare off wildlife because of the

loud noises, seismic tensions. The list of problems goes on and on. Rather than thinking about

the small amount of benefits that can come out of the drilling, please consider the much more

negative affects that would come. Please avoid the drilling process for the sake of our forest

environment and the many organisms that love there.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My name is [ ] I am concerned that geophysical/geotechnical tests and investigations in the

Angeles National Forrest will have negative impacts on our environment.

I am concerned for the flora and fauna of the environment. Drilling in the Angeles national

Forrest will destroy the habitats of many organisms and is likely to cause displacement of many

species. It is unethical to proceed with these knowing the consequence of these tests.

I am also concerned that the drilling will pollute local bodies of waters. Polluted water will

affect both the organisms in aqueous ecosystems and us, the people of Los Angeles.

Please take all of these negative repercussions into consideration and halt these tests and

investigations in our mountains and don't build an unnecessary High Speed Rail.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It has come to my attention that the High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) is attempting to conduct

tests over the course of the next year that includes drilling holes which would disrupt the

surrounding environment. This will have a number of implications to the environment, namely

harmful and damaging effects. As someone who is concerned for the future and its environment I

wish that these "tests" be reconsidered or at least mitigated to have as small an impact to lessen

possible repercussions. At the very least, a compromise should be reached wherein the HSRA

measures and quantifies the damage they have dealt to both the wildlife and landscape.

Afterwards, the damage should be calculated to monetary values which will therefore be

reimbursed to the government or some third-party organization which will take action to remedy

destruction inflicted.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not Dear High Speed Rail Authority: I beg you to not destroy the wonders of the forest, its lucid

streams, furry animals and the greenery that brings aesthetic pleasure to the visitors and provides

the healing of the soul for countless people living nearby. the geophysical/geotechnical tests

conducted by the California High Speed Rail Authority might cause extreme harm to the

environment due to the impacts on groundwater, spring streams, wells, wildlife and natural fire.

drilling creates potential for contamination which can be carcinogenic, toxic for fish and

mammals, cause a drop in the water level, and have adverse effects on recreation. please prevent

the drilling. Would you do that if the forest was by your own house and if it had the potential to

destroy your own or your children's physical and mental health as well as that of entirely

innocent creatures, insects, plants, animals, air.... please don't turn A BEAUTIFUL FOREST

INTO A BARREN WASTELAND AND VALLEY OF ASHES THAT WILL BRING ON

HEARTBREAK AND DESTRUCTION UPON THE HIDDEN GEMSTONE OF OUR

HABITAT.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish to protest against the various geophysical/geotechnical tests and investigations within the

Angeles National Forest.The drilling will disrupt the use of many of the recreational trials that

many people enjoy on their leisure time. Not only will hikers be affected, but equestrians as well

with it being a popular spot for horse riding. Wildlife will also suffer consequences. The

possibility of contamination can have disastrous effects on the wildlife found in that area.The

toxic chemicals may contaminate the animals' water supply as well as the soil. The animals will

also be affected by the various vehicles and people that will be present in the forest during the

time of drilling. Human activity always disrupts wildlife and leads to unwanted consequences.

Wildlife is far more important than drilling a bunch of holes in a national forest. People need to

learn how to respect the life of wild animals and their home. Perhaps we should drill holes in

these people's homes because they would obviously be perfectly okay with it since they believe it

is okay to drill in a national forest home to many animals. There should be no drilling in the

Angeles National Forest!!!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have recently acquired some information regarding the performance of

geophysical/geotechnical tests and investigations by the HSRA within the Angeles National

Forest. This has caused some concerns among residents, I being one of them. This drilling should

not be conducted due to the potential fire hazard any equipment being used can cause. With the

drought that California is facing, we cannot risk any potential fire hazard within our

environment. On a personal note, I feel the moral obligation to protect any wildlife that will be

impacted as a result of the drilling. Everyone should have the right to enjoy this forest and this

would prevent us from doing so. I would like to thank you for reading my letter and I hope that

something can be done about this event.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

it came to my attention that HSRA is drilling holes in the national forest. this can cause damage

to the surrounding environment. i strongly object to these actions because it can be dangerous for

the surrounding life forms and us. there is a chance of our clean ground water from being

contaminated, with could lead to potential harm to animals. in fact some of the materials can

cause cancer to those exposed.tourists and hikers around the area are also at risk because of the

drilling at close proximity of the hike trails and camping sites. it is not worth putting lives at risk

just to do some tests.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recently, it has come to my attention that the hsra will be conducting geophysical tests within

the national forest. I feel that this will greatly affect the environment. This type of testing should

be stopped immediately or we should prevent it from being happening at all. This type of drilling

may cause forest fires. California is in a drought as it is. Many vehicles will be there for a span of

3 months if a fire happens those vehicles will be blocking fire trucks and aid. I agree that action

should be taken and it should be taken as of now.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My name is [ ] a high school senior at Van Nuys High School, living in the Los Angeles area. It

has come to my attention that the CA High Speed Rail Authority intends to use GI testing in the

Angeles National Forest area, and I am very against this notion for the party to use the "Special

Use Permit" for it will affect much of the wildlife and surrounding environment.

The impact on our groundwater, wildlife, fire danger, and recreational use of the area will be

significant and hazardous to our lifestyle. I believe it would be in our best interest to not go

through with the GI testing. The drilling could potentially contaminate the water or lower water

levels, in which the Los Angeles area really should be looking in to more in depth since CA is

currently in a drought. The Bighorn Sheep, mountain lions, amphibians, and birds will be

threatened, disrupting the ecosystem by bringing in an influx of people and technology that will

stay in the area for many months. Also, as a wild fire refugee who had to evacuate a few years

ago, fire hazards deeply matter to me, and I believe that the equipment that the HSR plans to use

will be very dangerous and bring in more influence and causation to start a forest fire, with little

solutions. With these dangers, the community, including myself, feels disturbed when taking the

weekend hike, horse ride, and other outdoor activities.

All of these problems are imminent problems to the Los Angeles area, and GI Testing will only

make these dangers a reality. Please listen to our plea to stop this act and help the National Forest

be what it was meant to be, free from human intervention.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It has come to my attention that the California High Speed Rail Authority has filed a "special

Use permit" application with the US Forest Service to conduct various geophysical/geotechnical

tests and investigations within the Angeles National Forest. These test and investigations impact

various sources of groundwater, can tarnish the reputable sources of activities in the Forest,

impact Wildlife, and can possibly cause fires. The use of drilling for the tests creates the

potential for contamination of underground water (springs, streams, and wells). This

contamination would negatively impact both humans and animals because we ultimately drink

water from streams located within the National Forest. I don't understand that if there is already

knowledge on these potential damages why are there no actions taken to prevent them. Many

families rely on these waters and those who have children would have to find a way to tell their

children not to drink, bathe, or touch the water, the center of life for all animals.How would the

next generation react because the water in their Forest is contaminated and can't be utilized. I

would like a reevaluation of the tests so the outcome will have little or no impact on anything in

the National Forest. Thank you for taking the time to read this and trying to understand the

negative impact of the testing. Remember life is precious no matter who you are.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recently, the California High Speed Rail Authority has filed a "Special Use Permit" application

with the US Service to conduct GI tests within the Angeles National Forest. There lies problems

with the procedure of these tests. The test includes drastic drilling. The drilling would take place

for over 3 months. This action is egregious, as it is very invasive to the ecosystem and the people

who live around the area. Drilling engenders contamination of groundwater. Sequentially,

humans and animals will become negatively impacted when they drink or make us of this water.

Boring could also cause water at one level to drain to another level. This means that residents

who rely on wells will experience a loss in water level. Furthermore, wildlife will be heavily

damaged. Preservation of wildlife is a goal that we should all reach. Noises from machines will

be a nuisance to all animals, affecting behaviors. The introduction of humans and machines in

the ecosystem will force animals to adapt to new lifestyles, actions, or choices. As stated before,

contamination will occur, not only by water, but by the introduction of other toxic materials. The

threat of fire prevails. A fire, especially in a forest, can be treacherous. Forest fires can lead to a

myriad of consequences, including the death of a species or a person. Ultimately, the idea of GI

testing within the Angeles National Forest is absurd. Overall, the testing will endanger residents

and animals in the ecosystem. The whole thought is morally flawed. Please consider the actions

and responsibility. Life is precious

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is a first-hand account of an active member of my community after learning about the plans

of CHSRA:

My name is [ ], and it has recently come to my attention that the savages at the the California

High Speed Rail Authorities are attempting to drill at the Angeles National Forest. Do you not

have souls? Moral guidelines? Children that you care about? It seems like you don't. Because if

you did, you wouldn't try to tarnish this amazing planet that GOD has given us. This atrocious

practice will disrupt the habitat of many wonderful creatures that have the right to live. This

senseless drilling will not only RUIN the lives of many innocent animals, but will also tarnish

the beautiful, irreplaceable California vegetation. I will like to let you know that I enjoy the

occasional Sunday hike and the consequent light, but fulfilling brunch at Eggslut, and by taking

away the small pleasures in life, you save yourself a special spot in hell.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to address some of the problems that will arise due to the testing. First of all, the

noise and vibrations caused by the drilling machine will disrupt the wildlife in the forest, as well

as the hammer and air guns that are used for seismic testing. Next, vehicles and people that enter

the area because of construction will affect the environment negatively, contributing large

amounts of carbon dioxide. Disruption of the water supply or a drop in the water table would

negatively impact protected California Live Oaks as well as California Sycamores and White

Alders. As a citizen of the United States, I would not want any ecosystem or natural environment

to be disrupted or even destroyed due to a silly test. There are so many fun activities in the forest

environment, but they will be gone once this testing takes place. Some examples include hand

gliding, hiking and backpacking, and horse riding. Drilling would create the potential for

contamination of the water table during borings. This would negatively impact both humans who

ultimately receive this water "downstream" as part of the Greater Los Angeles water supply, and

animals who drink from the streams located within the Angeles National Forest. My heart would

be so broken by the fact that my favorite forest would be contaminated and have its' natural

resources and beauty depleted by this outrageous testing. If this isn't stopped, who knows what

will happen to our world? If humans continue to take up and use natural environments to their

own advantage, we will live in a world where there is only artificial, chemically infected water

and resources. And it will all be due to our careless decision of allowing such a ridiculous act to

go on.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's a letter from high school senior, [ ].I am against the testing in the Angeles National Forest.

It will disrupt the national forests and we do not have the right to do so. We care about our

protected forest lands and that we are watching. This would directly affect the humans us and the

animals. The drilling will not only impede with us hiking, but how potentially dangerous it is for

the public. We should take consideration for the residents living in the area and respect them. I

visit this place and I don't want to have to go through this disruption. I am outraged that this is

even being considered. This is a special concern for residents and I will not let this happen. This

is wrong.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am outraged about the atrocious attempts of the California High Speed Rail Authority to drill

into the Angeles National Forest. This atrocity will harm the homes of many natural organisms,

even if there are other locations for them to live. On top of this, the atrociously extravagant

process will take over three months to complete. It will create an atrocious sight for the daily

visitors and community members who regularly visit the sight. Also, in the long run, there will

be no worthy benefit for the atrocious process that the environment must suffer through. This

atrocious atrocity will atrociously increase the atrociousness found in this Earth already. That's

just plain atrocious. Please fight against these atrocities.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello, I am [ ], a student in an AP Environmental Science class, and I am concerned about the

devastating impact to wildlife and groundwater due to the construction of the California High

Speed Rail. This highly invasive, extensive, prolonged project would have significant impacts to

the National Forest and to the residents who live around it. These atrocious practices not only

would affect the flora and fauna, but the people. I am outraged that these

Drilling will create potential contamination of the water during the borings. The contamination to

our water would be carcinogenic, toxic, and harmful to humans, fish, and animals. Although the

HSRA calculated that the impacts will not occur beyond a 1000 foot, "Area of Influence," it

cannot be certain as water moving within the fractures is unpredictable. The depth of drilling can

cause the drainage of water levels in wells. Citizens who see the drop in water level in their wells

are concerned about the possible contamination of their water supply and possible reduction of

their water table.

The Angeles National Forest provides critical habitat and biological corridors for many

endangered and threatened species. The noise and vibrations generated by the drilling machines

will disrupt and negatively impact the species within these forests. The drilling would create a

diversion of water supply and possible contamination to the flora.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am pretty saddened by the fact that you are attempting to drill at the Los Angeles National

Forest.Maybe you do not understand the beauty and importance of the Angeles National Forest.

By establishing your so called "high speed rail" you will be destroying the habitats of many

animals as well as the ecosystem there. This sickens me to my core that you are favoring this rail

system over the countless numbers of organisms that will lose their habitat. Think about the

beautiful California vegetation that will also be affected.I truly am sickened. I speak on behalf of

mostCalifornians when i say that this railway cannot happen.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi I am Environmental Science student and I don't agree with HSRA drilling a deep hole in the

Angeles National Forest. If we don't prevent this from happening then the springs and springs

will be toxic to fish and mammals. Wells will cause water to drain and residents will lose a drop

of their water. This will diminish the enjoyment of recreational opportunities.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

this project to test the angles national forest with geophysical/ geotechnical tests is an

unfortunate situation. i understand that you want to make profits of a railway industry going

through the park but this land is protected and the plants and animals should not be intruded

upon to make a profit.This drilling operation will go 2790 ft into a protected national forest and

that is not good. this operation will contaminate the water table of the forest and endanger

species that rely on this water. People will also be affected this project the people who come to

the park will not be able to reach certain places because of this project and a national park should

not be closed cause of a commercial operation. This operation will also increase the chance of

fire in this area with equipment that could cause a wildfire. We should not be playing with a

chance of a fire that could destroy thousands of lives and that is a risk that we should never take

for a profitable and selfish gain. I am a high school student and i am convinced that if we

continue these sort of operation as i grow up i will not be able to enjoy the things that this

generation has taken for granted and had no desire to protect.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I, as a member of the general public, am writing this formal complaint to speak out against the

testing and investigations within the Angeles National Forest that determine the viability of

tunneling under the San Gabriel Mountain. There is a plethora of environmental concerns that

these tests will entail and I'm writing this email in hopes that my words will contribute towards

the protection of the forest lands within Californian ground. The environmental impacts on the

national forest include the contamination of forest waters, severe disturbances to the forest

wildlife and their habitats, and devastating forest fires. These testings will cause major

destructions that will deteriorate a crucial part of the Earth's biosphere that provides functions

that are necessary to the persistence and benefit of my life. In addition to the ecological impacts

of the testings, the invaluable aesthetic beauty of the national forest will also suffer in the hands

of the overwhelming hand of human technology. We will literally be destroying the innocent

forest that has never done anything but good for us. In conclusion, stop all of this testing shit

'cause I'm not gonna put up with it. Peace.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think this test should be conducted at any cost because it's not only harming our

environment but it is also harming our sources of fresh water which many of us drinking on daily

basis. Not only that but your are also harming thousands off innocent creature living in forests.

You are also messing up our beautiful hiking trail. Many of us love going out in to nature for a

nice hike after a long tiring week and by doing this test you are taking that always from us. On

top of that you are also increasing the chances of having wild fire. BY DOING THIS TEST

YOU ARE F****** UP YOUR ENVIRONMENT

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do not agree with the idea of testing/drilling because it can create many problems for

groundwater (streams/springs). For example, drilling creates the potential for contamination of

the water table during borings. This will affect the humans who get the water downstream as part

of the Greater Los Angeles water supply, and animals who drink from the streams within the Los

Angeles Forest. These creatures are being put at risk along with human lives! The materials that

HSRA is using during drilling is what can cause the contamination. It can cause cancer to

humans and could be toxic to fish and mammals. This requires environmental precautionary

measure to "prevent from entering waterways." Although HSR says the impacts won't occur

beyond a 1000 foot "Area of Influence" surrounding beyond the Area of Influence. However,

there is no guarantee that the contamination will not be beyond the Area of Influence. Water

moving within fractures is UNPREDICTABLE, delicate, and volatile. Thus HSR can not predict

any certainty the effect of their drilling on water supply downstream and in surrounding areas.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are a resident family of Shadow Hills for over 20 years. We have 3 horses, a dog and a cat.

We use the Hansen Dam and Tujunga Wash and forest areas in our proximity on a daily basis.

Thank you for the continued support of its preservation. The high speed rail GI testing holds

many concerns and seems flawed in several ways, many of which you have heard before so I

will be brief.

-risk to water quality, waterways and watersheds.

-financial funds for emergency situations.

-inaccuracy of one-time testing; not considering changes in temperature, water levels,

topography, that comes with seasonal changes.

-objective third party review teams.

-closure of recreational areas due to testing.

-disruption to wildlife.

-length of time and financial burden it would take for thorough and sufficient testing.

-potential for inaccurate data.

-so may more, plus all the unstated and unforeseen disruptions testing would cause regarding

wildlife, water, traffic, air pollution, noise pollution, financial burden, destruction.

We thank you again for your dedication, as we oppose the GI testing and progression of high

speed rail. We value our surrounding forests, canyons, and washes along with its wildlife and

plant life. Like a sanctuary, it is what makes this community one of the last places people can

live in touch with nature and have horses or farm animals in their backyard. We want to keep it

this way. We oppose GI testing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I understand there is a possibility of HSRA special use permit for testing in USFS. If they find

the ground water, springs they are thinking they might - the chemicals/oils they use for the

drilling will ruin the water. Please stop this. Too important.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a resident of Kagel Canyon and am writing to implore you to deny the special use permit

HSRA has requested for drilling and testing in the Angeles National Forest.

The impacts of such drilling and testing would be dangerous, hazardous and toxic to residents,

animals, plants and water.

The chemicals used in testing are carcinogenic, toxic to fish and animals, and there is potential to

contaminate rivers, streams and even the water table during the boring. HSR has failed to

account for the numerous wells that residents of the area rely on for their water supply and have

presented no plan for avoiding contamination.

Further, the noise and vibrations generated will negatively impact the animals and wildlife, a

wide variety of which make their home in the forest.

The equipment will damage fire roads, block fire roads, and can even cause fires. To continue

drilling in an already fire-prone area would be incredibly irresponsible.

The plan to drill is highly reckless and irresponsible given the above points. I urge you to deny

the special use permit HSRA has requested for drilling and testing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a high-school student I am very concerned with what’ll occur within the environment. My

concern is the testing that was proposed. This proposal is not in it’s entirety only to determine

whether or not it is feasible to tunnel under the San Gabriel Mountains. This will involuntarily

affect many other things for example, the economy and the most important thing the

environment. This will be a big impact to the environment. The wholes used for testing will

range from 200 to 2790 feet of depth, this will affect many of the small living organisms that live

underground. It may not seem as much but it will cause for many organisms to move from the

region or inclusively die. The proposal includes 5-8 locations which means it will affect multiple

regions. The drilling would take over 3 months. This will cost time and money that can be spent

differently. The San Gabriel Mountains will be affected by this and once the wholes are dug

there is not turning back. Before the damage is irreversible we can take into mind what all the

factors will be and what will be the result of such proposal. The underground water will be

perturbed by all the machinery and will cause damage to those living things that depend upon it.

As mentioned previously, wildlife will be perturbed and will be chased away if not, killed by

this. The machinery used to dig up these wholes will also create waste and will add on to the

already messed up environment. The machinery will be used for hours which means it’ll be hot

and this means the machinery might overheat and cause a fire. Before you know it, instead of

having 5-8 wholes you’ll have a forest fire. Due to these and many unstated factors, this proposal

should not be accepted.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for soliciting comments from the community adjacent to the National Forrest. As

someone who has lived next to and overlooking the San Gabriel and Verdugo forestry lands

since 1946, in Sunland and Tujunga, I have deep misgivings about the CHHSR taking a shortcut

under, over, or through the National Forest and the watersheds supplying Los Angeles, a major

part of our water supply. To begin with we voted for a HSRR that used existing traffic corridors

when available and in this case the 5 and the 14 freeway is ignored. I understand that the

communities along the 5 Freeway would object but the HSRR could tunnel or trench along the 5

and sections of the 14 Freeway instead of through the Angeles National Forests and its

watershed.

In Kagel Canyon and similar areas in the Angeles National Forrest the source of drinking water

depends on wells. Can the HSRR guarantee that the source of water will not be contaminated by

HSRR drilling? If the drill passes through two water tables, will those using the upper water

table lose their water to a lower water table? Once a watershed is contaminated by HSRR, who

will restore clean water to the residents? HSRR tells us that carcinogenic materials that are used

in drilling are toxic to fish and mammals. What little natural water we have in Los Angeles is

precious. During WWII we destroyed the water table under Burbank & the San Fernando Valley

and we are still trying to clean it up. “Oops, sorry about that.” doesn’t cut it anymore.

If HSRR decides to tunnel through the San Gabriels. Little Tujunga Canyon and Big Tujunga

Canyon there will be millions of tons of soil and rock in huge dump trucks on community and

forestry streets for years. All wildlife & human life will be affected.

Tunneling will pass through several fault lines on E3 & E3a & will pass through an active fault

along Foothill Blvd East of Wentworth where the 1971 and 1994 earthquakes struck. One house

destroyed and fourhouses knocked off their foundations. Check out the high steel mesh fence on

Foothill between Wentworth and Hillrose if you doubt me

Where will we be when the state runs out of money on this unfunded and unfinished project?

Lack of money means underfunded schools, parks and social services to finish the project. At

the present this project is under funded by billions of dollars and in the end we will have to

subsidize the HSRR as done in Europe.

The organizations and politicians who put this on the ballot lied to us and will continue to lie to

us for as long as it takes.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that the testing in Los Angeles National Forest is going to affect the animals and their

enivornment . The drilling can contaminate the water that the animals drink causing them to get

sick. It also affects the humans who live around this area. The noice and vibrations coming from

the machines can scare the animals away causing them to leave the forest. The equipment can

create a sparke which would lead to a fire, and that would destroy the forest and everything in it.

It also affects the families who go hiking. It personally affects my family because we go hiking

and if the testing occurs then we won't be able to go to many of the areas in the forest. Many

families also go to watch the beautiful animals who live in the forest and if the animals leave

then no one will be able to watch them. That's why i believe that the testing shouldn't occur.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I believe that the HSRA drilling/ testing should be stopped. The impacts to ground water are

immensely going to harm us. We are already in a drought and contaminating the water that we

do have, should be stopped. People are having to leave their homes because of the drought and

here we have perfectly good water and HSRA is going to contaminate it. Not only is this hurting

us but is hurting the fish and mammals that live and drink the water from the springs and

streams. This includes the groundwater that can be contaminated. People are/should be worried

because their current water levels may go way down because of the drilling. The impacts on

recreational use in the ANF are also upsetting. Jobs will be interrupted and nice places to hang

glide, hike, backpack, and use trails will be off-limits for a year (or more). This is taking away

people's jobs and the opportunity to go out and do something with nature. Getting outdoors is a

great way to exercise, or to even just enjoy our surroundings, and this should not be taken away

from our society. The HSRA drilling/testing will not only impact us, but it will impact the

wildlife in the area. This could cause many species to to be harmed because of water

contamination or the construction that is going on. It may also lead to many species disappearing

from the area which will greatly affect our ecosystem. Along with animals HSRA drilling/testing

can harm the environment by causing fires with the equipment being used and can damage the

roads near the construction area. These problems are not necessary and should be stopped before

they start. I do not believe that the HSRA drilling and testing should be done to the Angeles

National Forest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Allow test drilling under Angeles National Forest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hi, I am currently a high school student attending Van Nuys High School who has cynically read

a flyer that informs us about California High Speed Rail Authority's motives of having "GI"

within the Angeles National Forest. I believe conducting such test in an environment that is

valuable to not only local citizens, but to the animals of the forest, as well, is rather unnecessary.

The goal of this entire project is to reveal a useless possibility in the minds of us who actually

care about the preservation of the environment. Progressively, this investigation would cause

hazardous affects to the health and serenity of both the residents and animals near Angeles

National Forest. First of all, the flyer briefly states that, "HSRA proposes to conduct its drilling

over the course of one year." This waiting period would quite inevitably compel beautiful birds

to leave their homes due to their sensitivity of intense levels of sound frequency. It would also

prevent fellow trial hikers to do what they love (hiking) in their proper, relative forest. This may

not seem too drastic at a community level, but it would, nonetheless, leave those who are already

creating a joyful life with an ungrateful burden for an year. Now, in terms of affects at a

community level, humans would potentially receive contaminated water from their water

streams. Of course, this would be done because of the additives and materials used in boring

procedures, which are historically known for contaminating water sources and killing fish. These

ideal situations and consequences would obviously lead to horrible living and are just the few

that one can rant about. I want to thank you for reading my concern and hope that HSRA DOES

NOT conduct these tests and investigations within the Angeles National Forest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My husband and I, and our two teenagers, are residents of Kagel Canyon. We live in a house we

built ourselves. It took 4 years of planning and coordination with city and county fire codes as

well as city and county building codes. It's not a huge house, but we love it. We have radiant

floors. We're completely solar. We use a gray water system. We had to pave our own road. Put

in fire hydrants. Abide by set back laws. Approvals. Approvals. Approvals. Stamps stamps and

more stamps at $2k a pop. It took twice as long to build our hose because we had to deal with

two government agencies. But before ANY of that could happen we had to dig a well. We had

to pay a thousands and thousands of dollars with no guarantee of hitting a water source. And no

refunds. We lucked out. We hit water and are now living in the home of our dreams, with

neighbors that have exceeded our expectations and a way of life better than we ever could have

hoped for. We pay tons of taxes, yet we have no sewers, no trash service, no county road

maintenance, minimal police care and protection. But still we wake up every day so grateful to

be in our own little slice of heaven.

Now we find out it's all in danger. This high speed rail line that is purposes to go under our

house poses a huge threat to our way of life and to our neighbors. Our main concern is the very

real probability of an interruption or complete annihilation of the water in our well. We have

received NO information from anyone about what you plan to do if we no longer have a water

source. In the 8 years we've lived here we've lived through the Marek and station fires. That

was a man made problem, but no man helped us replant all the approved landscaping that

burned. No one helped repave our roads that were destroyed by heavy equipment. No one came

to help us clean up the dead carcasses of animals that died trying to outrun those fires. But we

never complained because we were aware of the dangers of mountain living.

Sir, we are complaining now. I'm appalled that we've never received so much as a flyer in the

mailbox about this proposed rail line. We will not benefit from it. We will suffer because of it.

The animals will be disrupted. There is such a high probability of fires either starting or fire

fighting efforts hampered by heavy equipment blocking roads. There are many other things that

concern me. I'm sure there are many issues I have no idea about because there has been NO

attempts at keeping our community involved and educated about what you plan to do. Will you

claim eminent domain and just try tossing money at us in the hopes that we could ever find a

comparable place to live?

As a tax payer, as a 48 year resident of the San Fernando valley, as a member of the kagel

canyon home owners association, the San Fernando valley historical society, as members of 4

film industry unions, I demand my right to be informed and to have a say in how my life will

proceed if this rail line comes under our house. I demand that my voice be heard. You must

listen to us and that can only be productive if I have all the facts. For all I know I may

completely wrong about all my fears, please correct me on any thing I'm misunderstanding. The

rights of the few Kagel residents may not trump the rights of people who need to travel north

quicker, but our rights cannot be ignored. We are not naive native Americans who, 200 years

ago, believed that progress wouldn't affect our way of life. We KNOW this will affect us. Until

I am given proof that changes my mind this household is AGAINST this proposed rail line and

we will fight it. Fight it for as long as we will

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am speaking out against the digging for the national forest. Digging the forest would be

dangerous to the animals in fact it would eliminate them. The animals would have no place to

live with how vast the project would be. Also, if the digging does happen it would take months

and people who take that road to jog or behold the beauty of nature and it's wonderful smell

won't be flowing through the wind anymore.Destroying the forest will also harm the world

because he wildlife will be conatminated by the toxic not only int the air but also in the water.

Many endangered animals will also be at risk and its our job and responsibility to care and

protect them.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am speaking out against the digging for the national forest. Digging the forest would be

dangerous to the animals in fact it would eliminate them. The animals would have no place to

live with how vast the project would be. Also, if the digging does happen it would take months

and people who take that road to jog or behold the beauty of nature and it's wonderful smell

won't be flowing through the wind anymore.Destroying the forest will also harm the world

because he wildlife will be contaminated by the toxic not only int the air but also in the water.

Many endangered animals will also be at risk and its our job and responsibility to care and

protect them. the equipment there could also cause a dangerous fire or a spark and destroy more

than intended.if there was a fire it could also spread to a nearby city.the new project will also

disrupt entertaining opportunities for hang gliders who use the Kagel truck trail. it will also close

the pathway for hikers and backpacking and it will also cause to much noise to the peace of the

forest. Horses who live there and are used by humans will also be disturbed by the noise. The

wells in the forest that will also be dug up will drain and it will raise the level of our water,we

know the consequences of that because of other examples such as polar bears who are dying due

to climate change and the sudden increase in water. People and animals who use the water are

also afraid of the contamination the digging will do to the water that is down there.

Contaminating the water will cause a wave of sickness as well that we may not even be familiar

of. it would damage not only the environmental system of the animals and there food source it

would be dangerous to the humans

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We are writing in support of conducting and completing geotechnical studies to determine the

feasibility of constructing High Speed Rail tunnel alignments underneath the Forest. The

information gathered from these studies will provide additional information that will be used to

evaluate and compare all alignment options.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am communicating with you to offer our full support of your

department conducting and completing geotechnical studies to

assess the feasibility of high speed tunnel alignments underneath

the Angles National Forest. It is our hope that the results will

provide additional information and better options for the alignments

than those that have been presented to us thus far.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The U.S. Forest Service (“USFS”) is contemplating the issuance of a Special Use Permit

(“SUP”) to the California High Speed Rail Authority (“CHSRA”) for geotechnical investigations

(“geo investigations”) within the Angeles National Forest, and has requested the public to

comment on this project. This letter has been prepared in response to the USFS request for public

comment, and is timely filed. In the public notice that was issued pursuant to this project, the

USFS acknowledges that the proposed geo investigations pose risks to both “groundwater

aquifers and their surface expressions”. Therefore, approval of the proposed project should not

be granted without due consideration of whether the risks posed by the proposed project are

outweighed by the benefits that it provides.

CHSRA seeks to conduct the geo investigations as part of its analysis of various “eastern

alignments” for the Palmdale to Burbank High Speed Rail route. According to CHSRA, the

purpose and intent of the proposed project is to

“Obtain sufficient subsurface field data to help evaluate the tunnel with respect to potential

environmental impacts (i.e., groundwater, hydrogeology and surface water resources), design

constraints, and construction constraints.”

In the limited time that I have had to review the USFS documentation provided pursuant to the

proposed project, I have found a number of issues of concern, and note the following significant

deficiencies that must be corrected before the SUP Application is approved.

2

CHSRA’S PROPOSED BORING SITES ARE NOT ALL LOCATED ON EXISTING ROADS

OR DISTURBED AREAS.

The “Notice” that CHSRA distributed (in very limited quantities and only to a select few

members of the pubic1 states: “To avoid or minimize their effect on existing resources, these

borings will be located along existing roads on the ANF”. This statement is incorrect. According

to Figures 8 and 11 provided in CHSRA’s “Project Environmental Document”, one-quarter of

the proposed sites are not located on existing roads, trails, or paths. In fact, one site is so remote

that it will require a helicopter for access [See Section 3.2]. The USFS must not approve the SUP

Application until CHSRA has reconfigured the project to ensure only disturbed areas are

impacted.

THE PROPOSED BORING DEPTHS ARE INSUFFICIENT.

According to Section 3.3 of CHSRA’s Environmental Document, the “depth of core

advancement” selected for each boring site was determined based on the tunnel depths assumed

in CHSRA’s Supplemental Alternatives Analysis (“SAA”) issued in 2015. The attached Figure 1

was taken from the SAA, and it shows that all of CHSRA’s proposed “east alternatives”:

1. Bisect the USFS’s Aliso-Arrastre Special Interest Area;

2. Are configured “above-ground” everywhere adjacent to the Aliso-Arrastre Special Interest

Area within San Gabriel Mountains National Monument; and

3. Transition to an underground configuration at the boundary of the Aliso-Arrastre Special

Interest Area.

Taken together, these facts demonstrate that CHSRA’s proposed boring depths will yield data

that is only useful for HSR configurations that are “above ground” at the Aliso-Arrastre Special

Interest Area boundary. Both CHSRA and the USFS are fully aware that all of the “east

alternatives” will generate noise, vibration, and other impacts on the Aliso-Arrastre Special

Interest Area because all of the “east alternatives” are configured above-ground at the Aliso-

Arrastre Special Interest Area.

_____________________________________________

1 CHSRA was specifically directed by the USFS to distribute scoping notices to all persons who

sent a comment to CHSRA about the “East alignments” described in the SUP application.

CHSRA did not do so. In fact, CHSRA only sent out a few hundred notices, even though it

received thousands of comments from individuals that addressed the “Eastern alignments”. I was

one of the people that did not receive any notice at all, though I provided comments specifically

addressing the “East alignments” from the instant they were first proposed, up to and including

the testimony I provided to the CHSRA Board of Directors in June, 2015. CHSRA wilfully and

intentionally withheld proper notice to me and other members of the public in violation of the

USFS’s explicit direction and in a manner that prevented meaningful public participation. I

learned of the public comment period weeks after it began, and was not given sufficient time to

properly analyze and address the many and varied technical deficiencies of the proposed project.

The enclosed represents the limited comments I was able to compile in the much abbreviated

time period I was given.

3

In May, 2015, CHSRA committed publicly to mitigating impacts on the Aliso-Arrastre Special

Interest Area that are deemed “significant”, and identified placing the tunnel underground in the

vicinity of the Aliso-Arrastre Special Interest Area as a potential mitigation measure. This

mitigation measure necessarily requires a deeper tunnel than what is contemplated in the SAA

and a correspondingly deeper geo-investigation than what is currently proposed for locations E1-

B1, E2-B1, FS-B1, E3-B1, and E3-B2. Simply put, the proposed boring depths are too shallow to

establish the engineering feasibility of “undergrounding” the HSR adjacent to the Aliso-Arrastre

Special Interest Area as mitigation for significant impacts on the Aliso-Arrastre Special Interest

Area.

Under the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument Proclamation, the USFS is burdened with

the responsibility of securing adequate protections for the Aliso-Arrastre Special Interest Area,

which includes protecting it from the impacts of the HSR. If the USFS does not require

CHSRA’s geo investigations to analyze the boring depths necessary to implement an

“underground” mitigation measure adjacent to the Aliso-Arrastre Special Interest Area, then the

USFS is not meeting its burden and statutory obligations under the Antiquities Act.

Furthermore, it is obvious to anyone with even the slightest grasp of the HSR project that the

proposed geo-investigations will have to be re-done with deeper borings when CHSRA finally

acknowledges that the tunnel must be configured underground near the Aliso-Arrastre Special

Interest Area to mitigate significant adverse impact on the Aliso-Arrastre Special Interest Area.

In other words, and based on the proposed bore depths, it is clear that the proposed geo

investigations will have to be done a second time in the near future, which poses even more risks

and impacts to Forest resources. This is unacceptable. The USFS must not approve the SUP

Application until it is modified to accommodate the deeper borings needed to construct a tunnel

that is underground in the vicinity of the Aliso-Arrastre Special Interest Area, and not just within

the Aliso-Arrastre Special Interest Area.

THE RISKS POSED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT ARE GREATER THAN THE VALUE

OF THE INFORMATION THAT THE PROJECT WILL PROVIDE.

According to both CHSRA and the USFS, the geo-investigations addressed in the SUP

application are intended to provide sufficient data to help “evaluate the tunnel with respect to

potential environmental impacts (i.e., groundwater, hydrogeology and surface water resources),

design constraints, and construction constraints.” However, the data collected from these geo

investigations will be insufficient for this purpose because CHSRA proposes to investigate only

a portion of the southern half of the various “eastern alignments” under consideration. In fact,

more than half the lengths of these “eastern alignments” are omitted from the proposed geo-

investigations. Worse

4

yet, CHSRA has no technical or fiscal plan in place to even pursue the additional geo

investigations that are needed. CHSRA has not clarified why the proposed geo investigations

only extend halfway under the San Gabriel Mountains, nor has CHSRA explained why geo

investigations on only the south half of the proposed tunnel is sufficient for the purposes of the

project. These questions are completely ignored in the CHSRA environmental document, and it

appears that the USFS has gone to considerable effort to sidestep them as well.

Notably, CHSRA has not produced any evidence indicating that data obtained from geo

investigations along the southern half of the “eastern alignments” would be useful in ascertaining

geologic or hydrologic conditions along the northern half. It is hard to imagine how such

evidence could exist, given that the northern half of the “eastern alignments” is in a completely

different watershed and has entirely different underlying geologic conditions. Clearly, there is

nothing about the rock load, squeezing, rock mass, and hydraulic head parameters which exist on

the southern portion of the tunnel that are indicative of, or even related to, the rock loads,

squeezing, rock mass, and hydraulic head parameters that exists along the north half of the

tunnel.

The fact is, there is no point in authorizing the proposed geo investigations on the southern half

of the “eastern alignments” without at least a fiscal and technical plan in place for conducting the

additional geologic and hydrologic studies needed along the north half. In fact, without some

kind of substantive commitment to conduct these additional studies, the data obtained from the

proposed project will be useless and certainly not worth the risk that is posed to public lands by

the proposed project

To put the matter bluntly, unless the CHSRA and the USFS can demonstrate (based on credible

evidence) that the scope of the proposed geo investigations is adequate to achieve the stated

purpose (“obtain sufficient subsurface field data to help evaluate the tunnel with respect to

potential environmental impacts”), then the proposed scope is too narrowly defined, insufficient

for the purpose, and not worth the risks posed to public lands. It is both unreasonable and legally

insupportable under NEPA for the USFS to jeopardize public lands by approving a “half-baked”

project that is ill-defined and remarkably insufficient.

THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS INTRINSICALLY INHARMONIOUS WITH FOREST

RESOURCES

The USFS has directed the CHSRA to determine whether the proposed project “harmonious”

with other Forest resources. However, it does not appear that such a determination can be made,

because the proposed project: 1) Provides scarcely half the data required to achieve the project

objectives; 2) Is not limited to disturbed areas (and in fact damages pristine areas); and 3) Does

not provide boring depths needed to affirm the feasibility of a crucial mitigation

5

measure that is required to protect the Aliso-Arrastre Special Interest Area. The risks to Forest

resources that are posed by the proposed geo investigations do not outweigh the paucity of the

data that these investigations will provide. Therefore the proposed project is intrinsically

inharmonious with other Forest resources.

NEPA IS A USFS RESPONSIBILITY

The USFS letter dated September 8, 2015 states:

“Before being issued a permit, the Proponent will have to determine, through the NEPA process

and to the satisfaction of the Authorized Officer, that the proposed activities are harmonious with

other Forestry resources. To that end, the Proponent will survey the drill locations to determine if

any resource conditions exist that may constitute “extraordinary circumstances” under NEPA. If

such resources exist, the Proponent will have to pursue the correct NEPA path to determine if

adverse conditions can be mitigated, or modify the proposed use to make it harmonious with

other Forest resources.”

These statements are extraordinarily disturbing, because they explicitly shift the USFS’s NEPA

burden onto CHSRA, and they relegate the USFS to a more “spectator” role involving mere

review.

It is noted that the USFS has the obligation to “pursue the correct NEPA path”, not the Project

Proponent. It also noted that NEPA obligates the USFS (not the Project Proponent) to determine

that no “extraordinary circumstances” exist.

Furthermore, it is the USFS’s burden to “determine if adverse conditions can be mitigated” and

“modify the proposed use to make it harmonious with other Forest resources” before the SUP is

issued. In fact, NEPA compels the USFS to take these steps before making the determination that

the project is indeed categorically exempt. For all intents and purposes, it appears that the USFS

is abdicating its statutory obligations under NEPA by transferring the NEPA compliance burdens

imposed by the project onto CHSRA.

THE BEST NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE NOT MET BY THE PROPOSED

PROJECT

The USFS letter dated September 8, 2015 states that the proposed project “Best meets the needs

of the American people” because it “will yield groundwater data that could be used … to

determine the feasibility of tunneling a high speed rail under the ANF”. This is incorrect. The

proposed project only yields data that could be used to determine the feasibility of tunneling

half-way under the San Gabriel Mountains. There are absolutely no benefits accrued to the

American people if the USFS allows public lands to sustain damage simply to determine whether

a train can by go halfway under the mountains. To the contrary, if the proposed project is

approved, then lands

6

owned by the American People will be damaged, and taxes paid by the American People will be

wasted in the pursuit of data that is incomplete and therefore useless.

Without a technical and financial plan in place to properly obtain data that would be used to

determine the feasibility of tunneling a high speed rail under the entire width of the San Gabriel

Mountains, the American People will be damaged, their lands will be impaired, and their taxes

will be wasted by the proposed project.

IN CHOOSING NOT TO EVALUATE THE EFFICACY OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT,

THE USFS ABDICATES ITS LEGAL RESPONSIBILITIES.

It appears that the USFS has specifically chosen not to evaluate the efficacy of CHSRA’s

proposed project, or make any sort of determination regarding whether the project will achieve

the stated objectives or is even necessary for the stated purpose. The USFS intends to limit its

consideration of the proposed project to address only the technical details of the project and the

mechanics of how the project is implemented. The USFS has made this decision despite its own

findings that the project poses risks to “both groundwater aquifers and their surface expressions.”

It is not clear why the USFS has chosen not to evaluate the efficacy, scope, extent, or purpose of

CHSRA’s proposed geo investigations; perhaps it stems from a mistaken belief that doing so will

jeopardize future opportunities that the USFS may have to comment on, or condition, limit, or

require modifications to, the HSR project. If so, then please rest assured that this is not the case.

In fact, the opposite may be true, because failure to address known and substantive concerns now

can (and will) jeopardize the USFS’ ability to raise such concerns later.

In deciding not to consider the efficacy of CHSRA’s proposed project, the USFS essentially

abdicates its responsibility to protect watersheds and forest lands, and works contrary to its very

mission, which is set forth in law to (among other things) achieve quality land management and

advocate a conservation ethic in promoting the health of the Angeles National Forest and the San

Gabriel Mountains National Monument. Additionally, this decision is utterly contrary to

numerous Forest Service Directives, including 2520.”Watershed Protection and Management”,

the objective of which is “To protect National Forest System watersheds by implementing

practices designed to maintain or improve watershed condition, which is the foundation for

sustaining ecosystems”. To be clear, the USFS is specifically NOT “implementing practices

designed to maintain or improve watershed conditions” when it refuses to consider the scope and

extent of a proposed project.

7

There is simply no doubt that the USFS is obligated to establish the efficacy of each and every

proposed project that poses a potential threat to watersheds and forest lands. It also has a

substantial burden to ensure that the scope of a proposed project is sufficient to meet the project

objectives before the project is approved, particularly if the USFS knows in advance that the

project will likely be re-done due to inadequacies of the project plan.

For all these reasons, the USFS is urged to not to approve the SUP application

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I would like to express my opposition of the proposed testing for groundwater, adverse geology,

and earthquake faults disturbing and damaging out National Forest. I am aware of the negative

impacts of actions such as drilling - it is invasive and detrimental to our environment. I would

like to mention the loss of recreational use, as well. I love to hike and explore various national

parks and wilderness areas. As the project will take a lot of time, many people will not be able to

visit that area for such use. The duration of the testing and its noise pollution will be unpleasant

to both the animals there and the people hiking. Thus the US Forest Service should consider

finding alternative methods.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Last year I took an AP Environmental Science class. In that class we learned about all about the

environment, but the main point to take away from the class was to preserve our environment to

the best of our capabilities, in order to ensure there is a planet for our future generations. This is

why I am against the U.S. Forest Service conducting various geophysical/ geotechnical tests and

investigations within the Angeles National Forest. Drilling a deep hole over a span of three

months in order to conduct these tests will disturb all wildlife surround the testing area. There are

many risks that come with doing these tests and the risks outweigh the rewards. Drilling a hole

and conducting tests will disturb all the wildlife in the area and scare them away. Destruction of

habitats will force animals to move out of the local area and into new areas that they may not

thrive in. This may prove harmful to the ecosystem because the migration of one animal may be

a food source for another. It will also ruin the aesthetic beauty of nature that mother nature has

provided and all the animals that come with it. Many people come to the Angeles forests to soak

in the beauty of nature, to hike, to camp. All of that may be gone if we go through letting the

U.S. Forest Service conduct these various tests. I am 100% against these tests and completely

advise against it. We need to preserve what little of nature we have left.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am strongly against the idea of testing for groundwater, adverse geology, and earthquake faults

disturbing our National Forest. Having watched the news, I am cognizant of the environmental

issues and negative impacts of drilling, installing, testing, and backfilling bore holes. This is a

project that will require plenty of time to complete, and will be harmful to the environment as

well as disturbing to the residents who live around it. Not only will we lose access to our park,

but the testing will also affect wildlife, fire, and groundwater. To this day I continue to go hiking

at least once a month with my friends, an activity that we have enjoyed for the past couple years.

Hiking is a way of relieving stress and embracing nature, two acts a high schooler desperately

needs while struggling through tests and exams. The time this proposed testing will take and the

effects of it are not worth the consequences, and it would be taking away the experiences from

those both young and old. Therefore, for the sake of recreational activities that will be disrupted,

I strongly encourage the US Forest Service to consider finding alternative methods so that the

Angeles National Forest may be left alone.

The idea of the proposed testing for groundwater, adverse geology and earthquake faults

disturbing and damaging our National Forest is one I strongly oppose. Having been in the AP

Environmental Science class at my school, I am aware of the negative impacts of drilling,

installing, testing, and backfilling bore holes. Like fracking, this is definitely an invasive project

that will take a long time to complete. The testing will not only be detrimental to the

environment, but also to the nearby residents.Although the proposed testing will negatively

affect wildlife, fire, and groundwater in relation to springs, streams, and wells, I can most easily

speak for the potential loss of recreational use of the park. Growing up, I always went hiking and

exploring with my family in various national parks and wilderness areas. The high likeliness that

the proposed testing will result in numerous holes that will affect the use of trails, like the

Discovery Trails and the Pacific Crest Trail, makes this proposal all the more unattractive and

not worth the expected unfavorable impacts. The duration of the proposed testing and the noise

and traffic due to the proposed testing will make hiking in the Angeles National Forest very

unpleasant, in contrast to the usual relaxing, calming experiences people normally have in the

wilderness. Consequently, for the sake of the recreational activities that will be lost or disturbed,

the US Forest Service should really consider finding alternative methods, so the Angeles

National Forest can be left alone.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It has come to my attention that there will be extensive and deep drilling in Los Angeles National

Forest near where I live in Kagel Canyon. There are so many reasons why this should not be

done and I am against this based on the following:

Water contamination occurring due to drilling which includes carcinogenic additives that would

endanger those who live downstream and the current wells.

Water table problems to those who have wells

Disturbance of natural habitat of those animals who live in the forest, not to mention a number

which on the endangered species list. Wildlife within the forest will be impacted by the

vibrations and noise due to the drilling.

Additional traffic and noise in the area which impacts the Kagel Canyon residents directly.

I implore you to deny the actions which will cause a disturbance in our forest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am strongly against the California High Speed Rail route alternatives E1, E-2 and E-3. I am

greatly concerned about the damage these new considered routes will cause to humans,

communities, animal wildlife, and the environment. Therefore, I am extremely concerned about

preserving the Angeles National Forest. President Obama declared a monument in the Angeles

National Forest to protect it. Therefore, I don't understand why the High Speed Rail would want

to destroy one of the last forests, in Los Angeles. The High Speed Rail should be more

concerned with the local water wells, water supplies, and water quality in these new proposed

routes. As a community, we need to protect our equestrian and recreational area's from the blight

of the High Speed Rail. Ultimately, the High Speed Rail will cause havoc in our communities

and destroy the precious environment.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The California High Speed Rail Authority should NOT conduct various

geophysical/geotechnical tests and investigation, "GI", within the Angeles National Forest. This

invasive drilling will take over 3 months to complete. During the period of time, many things in

the forest will be greatly impacted such as groundwater springs, streams, wells and wildlife. Not

only that, but the forest could have an increased risk for fires. These adverse effects are not

worth the results that this project would provide.

Drilling can possibly contaminate the water table during these drillings. This does not only affect

the forest, but humans as well, who rely on the water table for safe drinking water. Although

HSR has assured that environmental impacts will not happen beyond its “Area of Influence,”

there is no way of knowing if there will be any more contamination in the surrounding area.

Even privately owned wells in the forest also have a possibility of being contaminated.

Those who enjoy the forest recreationally hang glide, hike, back-pack and ride horses. Their

activities will be greatly hindered with HSR’s project.

Most importantly, in my opinion, wildlife will be greatly affected. Noise and vibrations created

by drilling machines, hammers and air guns will adversely affect the multitude of species of

animals. Contamination of water supply will affect animal drinking water. Bighorn sheep,

mountain lions, California condors, Spotted Owls and many more species will be without a

home.

HSR equipment could start a spark that would then start a fire. Due to HSR’s blockage of roads,

fire fighters would not be able to reach certain areas. In the event of a fire, huge areas of the

forest could be lost to a fire that fire fighters would not be able to get to.

In summation, the California High Speed Rail Authority should NOT conduct tests or drill in the


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a resident in the area north of Sand Canyon in Canyon Country and I urge the high speed

rail project to be underground in this area so the quality of life will not be affected. The main

argument from residents is that they do not want to see or hear the high speed train. I think that is

a justifiable argument.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I write to you today as a concerned homeowner living in Upper Kagel Canyon and less than a

half mile from the proposed E1 underground route. The proposed E1-B3 and E1-B2 drilling sites

are within hiking distance uphill of my home. We walk the Kagel Trucking Road often. Sadly,

the exact distance is hard to calculate because the maps in the CHSRA's GI proposal obfuscate

the locations of homes in the vicinity of boring sites.

Despite sending letters to the CHSRA and attending their events, I only learned about their GI

plan through neighbors. I was only able to learn how close the E1-B3 and E1-B2 drilling sites are

to my home because the S.A.F.E. organization posted overlays to the CHSRA's maps on their

website.

I am not alone. Only one homeowner in Upper Kagel Canyon received any official notice of this

proposal.

Based on these facts alone (1) obfuscation of information in the CHSRA's project environmental

document and (2) lack of notice to impacted homeowners should be enough for the USFS to

deny the CHSRA's request for a special use permit.

Sadly, there is more. Every home in Upper Kagel is located within a couple of miles of the E1-

B3 and E1-B2 drilling sites and every home is on a well. It is our only source of water and a

requirement of the County of Los Angeles to build a home there. The depths of wells vary from

100 to 2500 feet deep and the CHSRA proposes core hole drilling from 200 to 2790 feet deep.

Homes in Upper Kagel are located at approximately 2000 to 2700 feet in elevation. E1-B3 and

E1-B2 sites are located at 2755 and 2800 feet in elevation just behind our houses. Clearly, the

potential for damage or contamination of our wells is significant.

My well is just 100 feet deep downstream from CHSRA core hole drilling.

How will I even know if CHSRA drilling affects my water quality? Nobody is taking tests of our

water quality before and after CHSRA drilling. What if drilling lowers the standard of my water

quality? What if CHSRA drilling interrupts the flow of my well or dries it up altogether? What's

the mitigation? Will the CHSRA drill a new well for my house? Will it truck in water for the

next 100 years?

I have lived in my home for over 25 years and my well has never gone dry or suffered quality

issues.

I'm all for the CHSRA doing their due diligence for their proposed routes. However, the current

plan seems poorly prepared at best and blatantly unconcerned about significant impacts to nearby

homes and the Angeles Forest at worst. The CHSRA is behind schedule and under-funded. Their

panic should not be cause for the USFS to lower its high standards.

In summary, here are my concerns and the reasons why I think the USFS should deny their

current request for a special use permit:

1. The CHSRA did not provide proper notice about their GI proposal to all interested parties or

to homes that could be impacted the most.

2. There are no plans for mitigating potential damage to wells and property affected by

CHSRA's core hole drilling.

3. The CHSRA's overall plan is boiler-plate and (intentional or not) obfuscates locations of

nearby homes by not providing adequate mapping for decision-makers to understand the real

proximity of bore cites to wells.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As residents of Kagel Canyon for almost 20 years, my family, as well as countless friends and

neighbors, strongly object to the application submitted by HSRA for a Special-use Permit in

order to do their drilling and testing.

Points to Ponder:

• Impacts to Groundwater: The chemicals used in testing are carcinogenic, lethal to fish

and animal, and there is potential to contaminate rivers, streams, creeks, and even the water table

during the boring. HSR has not even acknowledged there are NUMEROUS wells for homes

within the forest, and have NO PLAN on what they will do if they contaminate these wells.

• Impacts to Wildlife: The noise and vibrations generated will most certainly effect the

animals and wildlife. We are fortunate to live side by side with so many beautiful creatures: deer,

cottontail rabbits, bobcats, owls of several species, an occasional mountain lion and yes, even

rattlesnakes and coyotes. All play a vital role in the balance of our ecosystem. Have you ever

watched a red-tailed hawk as it soars high above, with a powder blue sky as its place of

quietude?

• Impacts to Fire: The equipment will damage fire roads, block fire roads, and can even

cause fires. Many of us came very close to losing our homes in the Marek Fire of 2008. The fear

of fire is greater than that of earthquakes, and I’m a native Californian.

• Impacts to Recreational Use: Hang gliders, hikers, backpackers, etc will be affected by

the testing. Places where one can find calmness, serenity, peacefulness, will all be threatened if

drilling and testing are allowed.

We may be a small canyon Mr. Farra, but it is our slice of heaven on earth. Please do your part

to keep it the sanctuary it has become for us all.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your quick response to my inquiry considering extending the comment period

deadline for the HSR GI study which is currently set for tomorrow, October 23rd. As you know,

our request was made based on a quick survey wherein it was determined that nearly 40 of our

community members who did submit comments and their contact information to the HSRA did

not receive the September 18, 2015 scoping letter from the USFS.

I have a couple of comments:

1. In my opinion, the search criteria of “E1, E2, and E3” utilized by the HSRA would not pull up

persons who commented only on “E1” or “E2” or “E3.” Each individual alignment is relevant to

the GI study and grouping all three of them as a search criteria would not result in all-inclusive

search results.

2. I also believe HSRA should have also included the search terms “forest” and “water” when

they were compiling the list for your agency to utilize when sending out your scoping letter for

the HSR GI study.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please let me begin my letter by introducing myself. My name is [ ]. I have lived in the foothill

community of La Crescenta for 51 years. This year, my husband and I, recently purchased a

retirement home in Kagel Canyon. I basically grew up in the ANF and have many fond

memories of camping, hiking, & skiing. I teach 3rd grade students, whom I hope will have the

opportunities that I have had in the ANF. I am amiss about the recent discussions taking place in

regards to HSR applying for a special use permit to perform drilling and testing operations in our

beautiful San Gabriel Mountain Range.

My first concern is the wildlife that will certainly be disturbed and traumatized by the confusion

of loud noises and vibrations produced by the heavy machinery & equipment. I would sincerely

hope that we would all advocate for our local wildlife, for they have no voice in the matter. I am

not sure what the specific impacts will be, but I am certain it will not be a positive one.

Secondly, there is also the impact of our water resources. The chemicals used for testing

will contaminate our water resources, thus affecting flora and fauna. Once our water is

contaminated, there may be no way to reverse the negative impact on our most precious

resource, particularly if it gets into our aquifers.

Please, please, please consider denying HSR this special use permit. Let’s maintain our forests

and let’s not let progress take what rightfully belongs to nature. If they are permitted to drill and

test, then this might just open Pandora’s box. This will open the floodgates for others to take

advantage of our sacred space. There isn’t much left and this will not turn out well.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THANK YOU, Asst. Forest Engineer, George Farra,

for allowing me to comment on whether testing and

backfilling bore holes at 5-8 different locations over

the course of one year in our National Forest is a

good idea!

Actually, just typing that above sentence and thinking

about the affects on all aspects of the environment;

visualizing the trails and fire roads I've ridden my horses

on since 1974, which will end up permanently damaged

and/or annihilated by the testing (& the traffic) has produced

negative body and mind responses already, and I've just

started my correspondence with you!

You see, the Angeles National Forest and the San Gabriels

have been "glorious God sends" to all of us. They are our

"special homes away from home" where we can really feel

and experience what "God and Country" truly mean. And,

this is especially true from horseback! Another animal is

cautionary but non-threatening to most wildlife. Hence,

moving quietly through wildlife corridors remains a viable

alternative! Not so with machine drilling of any kind or with

truck traffic on the fire roads!

Did you know or remember that we used to be able to ride

all the way from Sunland to San Bernardino on forest trails

and fire roads? How great was that?!?!

We also used to be able to ride from the Hansen Dam Wash

through Kagel Canyon, through the Sylmar hills up and over,

dropping down into Placerita Canyon, and follow the wash

through Newhall up to where Magic Mountain is now! Too

bad that "progress" has interfered with our trail riding and

camping out along some of California's finest sights.

PLEASE, don't let that happen to the Angeles National Forest

and the San Gabriels for their desecration will begin with this

plan for drilling!

Contamination to our water supply is more than a remote

possibility because no one can predict with any certainty the

effect of the drilling on the water supply downstream and in

surrounding areas. The toxicity to the forest fish and mammals,

not to mention the song birds, birds of prey, and especially

those that are endangered and are in their last normal habitats.

Disruption to and/or the diversion of the water supply or a drop in

the water table would negatively impact our protected California

LIve Oaks, California Sycamores, and White Alders. And, please,

do not let the foreign noises brought into their habitats, drive

the wild life further away from their water and shelter sources!

They don't deserve another displacement from their homes and

neither do the humans who purposely live near them to observe

and protect their rights. Nor do they deserve greater risks of fire

to their already last havens of hope.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These Gi studies proposed by HSR are poorly prepared and should be denied the request for the

special use permit from the USFS.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am asking the U.S.F.S. To approve the application to conduct a study to tunnel under the

Angels forest for the proposed Palmdale to Burbank project section of the California speed rail.

I live in Sand Canyon in Santa Clarita. The proposed section that is being considered that would

run along side the 14 freeway would devastate our valley Santa Clarita, San Fernando, and

Action. It would destroy homes,churches, schools, and businesses. Please approve the study.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Although I would prefer to send a hard copy letter, I will depend on email to meet the deadline

regarding permission for High Speed Rail to drill in the Angeles National Forest. I have written

and received letters from High Speed Rail, including Dan Richards, Chairman, yet I did not

receive the letter from Jeffrey Vail dated September 18.

As a former high school English teacher, I never desired to spend my retirement years trying to

understand complex engineering documents. I doubt that other people living in the foothills of

the San Gabriel Mountains are hankering to read this stuff either.Most lay people deserve some

kind of group explanation of the work to be done in order for us to be able to respond cogently.

Nevertheless, I will do what I can in the short time I have been given.

I have a number of concerns about drilling into the mountains. My first is personal:I love these

mountains and I hate to see them undergo exploratory surgery. That said, I hope that the Forest

Service will take this permitting process seriously and not give it an automatic yes. This whole

operation is new. The San Gabriels are dynamic, growing mountains. I question the authority

and experience of those who will do the drilling. Are they familiar with these mountains? Who

are they? Who will be supervising them? Will the Forest Service approve them? There should

be a review process from an outside group in addition to those representing High Speed

Rail.There are at least 50 wells in the upper area of Kagel Canyon. Very few of them are on the

High Speed Rail maps. These wells vary in depth. They are measured regularly to meet fire

standards. It would be very costly for private well owners to do a base study before the drilling

commences. If water tables are affected by the drilling, either through contamination or loss,

how can owners be mitigated? Mr. Vail’s letter, which has been passed along, states that

groundwater beyond 1,000 feet would not be affected. How does he know that? What is the

guarantee? I assume that Forest Service has read the list of toxic materials that are in the cement

and grouting that is to be used both during the boring and in sealing up the holes. What is to keep

these materials either during the process of drilling or at the end of the project from eventually

leaking and contaminating ground water in aquifers that affect both animals and people? How

long are these cement materials guaranteed to last? Will mishaps with any of them be reported?

Where will the cement be stored during the operations? How will it be protected from rain?

What will be the water source for the work itself? How will decisions be made to stop drilling in

rain, fire, or flood? At what point is a site abandoned?

There will be issues concerning road blockage and noise affecting animal life. Will there be

precautions taken for wildlife near each drill area? If damage occurs to wildlife corridors, how

will it be mitigated? Will a forest service biologist be present? To what extent will L.A. County

be involved in oversight? Will the Forest Service be reimbursed by High Speed Rail for needed

oversight?How will the drilling affect earthquake faults? How is it different from fracking,

which is known to stimulate earthquakes?I believe that the Forest Service should have a hand in

approving subcontractors, equipment, procedures and methodology. There is a need for a

schedule and timeline. Boring holes should be done sequentially so that operators learn

withexperience. In all probability, if the testing is done correctly, it should take over one year as

stated in the permit.

I realize that the testing locations are accessible by roads and fire roads. While this decision

makes for less invasive access, it certainly does not determine the geology for 35 miles of

tunneling. This alone makes me question issuing apermit for drilling. However, should the

Forest Service choose to give out a permit, I hope that you will have answers to my concerns

ahead of time.

Just as I measured my effectiveness in the classroom by my students’ learning, I know that you

will want to protect and support the forest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you and the U.S. Forest Service for opening up public comment. I am a resident of

Shadow Hills, and live a very short distance from all three routes which the California High

Speed Rail Authority plans to study if granted a Special Use from the USFS.

Thank you in advance for considering my comments. First I want you to know that I have

personally read through every page of CHSRA's 2013 Preliminary GI plan for their Proposed

Tunnel Alternatives in ANF and am objecting to CHSRA being granted a Special Use Permit on

the following grounds:

1. CHSRA's plan is incomplete. There are many gaps in definitive information that I feel would

put our communities at risk. Their projected deadlines are unrealistic, especially considering

predicted El Nino weather patterns for the 2015 winter ahead and CHSRA's lack of fail safe

emergency systems in place. The USFS will have their hands full with flooding, mud or land

slides, high winds AND the danger of fires; all of which are highly likely in an El Nino event,

and USFS's resources should not be diverted or re-routed to serve or protect CHSRA's study

project test sites and related areas, including fire paths and mountain roads. There is nothing in

CHSRA's GI plan that will compensate for any disaster aftermath in terms of insurance or

emergency funding; AND considering that CHSRA is "already" grossly OVER budget, this

would be a serious point to consider up front.

2. Recommend an independent, non-biased third party review of CHSRA's plan before being

granted a Special Use Permit to study (meaning dig, drill, fill) these forest routes. We, the tax

payers, should not have to be obligated to take CHSRA's word that they are worthy of this permit

when they have NEVER attempted a grand scale project like tunneling through these mountains

and open spaces. The public has no sense of comparison nor assurance that CHSRA's study plans

will prove that tunnels through and under the Angeles National Forest will not pose grave danger

to the Forest and surrounding communities without a thorough and exhaustive review by USFS

as well as a non-biased, independent third party.

3. Obstruction to the public during CHSRA's studies. There is a lack of consistent information

about deadlines, as mentioned in point #1. No definitive plans are outlined about length of

drilling at various locations - only projected to be two weeks to 6 months - quite a discrepancy!

Road closures, depth of drilling at each location, volume of traffic, including number of trucks,

heavy equipment and machinery, emergency equipment, etc, amount of debris being removed

from each dig hole and/or site and specifically 'where' that debris will be hauled off to: this

would include any hazardous materials and gases, sludge, rock substances, etc. that would have

to be tested ON SITE before being removed/hauled. As the GI docs read, there are many

potential gases, and compound materials that could be unearthed during the digging process that

become TOXIC when airborne, but there is no specific plan for removing these before exposure

to the air.

4. Recommend ONE drill core location being tested first and NO simultaneous testing permitted

due to unknown risks posed. After the first core hole is drilled, recommend an independent,

unbiased third party review, along with USFS review, to be completed to satisfaction before any

further testing is allowed. Recommend the public be allowed to review these findings before

further testing is allowed as well. It would stand to reason that the deepest drill depth should be

permitted on the first dig.

5. No definitive plans about how CHSRA's drilling, digging and subsequent 'filling' will affect

local ground water table, aquifers or nearby waterways due to run off or escape, spills, floods,

mud slides, etc. The proposed drilling sites have laid dormant for thousands of years (refer to the

GI plan wording) yet there are only "estimates" that their drilling will not pose any threat to local

groundwater sources. Considering the four year drought Southern California has been subjected

to, we feel every single 'drop' is essential and do not feel convinced that CHSRA's plan is fail

safe. Furthermore, in order for the digging to begin, WATER must be utilized with the drills.

CHSRA's plan mentions "potable" water being used but no definitive information about where

this potable water is outsourced from is mentioned. CHSRA must not be allowed to use ANY

local LA water resources.

6. Particularly concerning to me are the chemicals CHSRA's GI plan lists to increase viscosity

and additive mixtures to lift drill cuttings from core sites. MOST of these chemicals pose grave

toxic threat to humans, above and below ground wildlife, birds and aquatic life. There is NO

guarantee, or again comparison, of how much or in what precise quantity these chemicals will be

used during the excavation, drilling, filling process and what step by step preventative measures

will be taken in the event of a spill, seepage, contamination or emergency disaster that would put

the public at risk.

Based on what I interpret as "incomplete" information communicated by CHSRA's GI Plan, it is

my extremely serious recommendation that CHSRA be denied a Special Use permit until further

and much more definitive information can be presented and until an indepedent, non-biased third

party review be conducted.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My name is [ ] and I reside in the Angeles National Forest.

I have heard a disturbing rumor from my neighbors. Is it true that the United States Forest

Service is considering authorizing permits for exploratory drilling in our watershed? Considering

the USFS is entrusted to conserve and protect this crucial resource, it seems a direct conflict to

consider drilling. I can think of no good reason to violate that responsibility, especially during

this severe drought.

This scenario is even more disturbing in light of the fact that hundreds of families (including

ours) depend on well water in the areas of proposed drilling. Water is fluid. The possibility that

carcinogenic chemicals could migrate into our sole water source, or drilling and testing

vibrations could trigger earthquakes, is understandably terrifying. These scenarios would not

only threaten our health but also render our homes worthless. This is greater than a quality of life

issue, it's a Life or Death issue. Therefore, please DO NOT permit drilling in the Angeles

National Forest.

I'd also like to make a suggestion. At this time, too many individuals are relying on word of

mouth and rumor for information regarding these developments. There's been so little time to

inform, that some are still completely unaware. If my neighbor hadn't informed me, I'd still be in

the dark. It seems prudent to send notices to residents of the surrounding areas as well as

conducting outreach meetings so affected stakeholders can ask questions and better understand

this situation. Please organize meetings immediately and extend the comment period to ensure all

affected parties have an opportunity to understand what's going on and can voice their concerns.

The Kagel Canyon Civic Association, Foothill Trails Neighborhood Council, Shadow Hills

Property Owners Association and Lakeview Terrace Neighborhood Council are a few local

organizations that conduct monthly organized meetings at which you could present pertinent

information. You have the power to inform. Please don't let taxpayers that collectively own the

National Forest be blindsided by these proposals.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The California High Speed Rail Authority obviously doesn’t care about our safety or our nature.

By drilling these holes will contaminate the water, theirs a lot of people who drink out of the

downstream can be killed. Animals would drink contaminated water, which could possibly kill

hundreds or thousands of animals that live and drink in these forests. You would be risking not

animals lives but also human lives; babies, kids, adults, everyone and could possible give them

cancer. The fact that they don’t know for sure that impact beyond 1000 feet. Why would you

even risk it? As a person that lives in California I can tell you that people do care and we are

watching and listening.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I wish to register my strong disapproval of ANY High Speed Rail routes or construction through

any part of the Angeles National Forest.

As a resident of Acton and avid Hiker in the Angeles National Forest it is unnecessary to even

suggest much-less build a route through what little remains of our National forests. To allow the

route through the forest would be a blight to our hearing and sight. An underground alternative

would require extensive infrastructure, roads and destruction of habitat as well as noise pollution

and more traffic that we do not need.

Please reject any suggested Angeles Forest route.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am deeply concerned at the moment. I just read another canyon dweller's letter to you and she

cites a letter from a Mr. Vail (???) that states "...groundwater BEYOND 1000 feet will not be

affected..." Does this mean that ground water ABOVE 1000 feet WILL be affected. My well is at

100 feet. MOST wells in upper Kagel (less than 2 miles below the E1 boring holes) are less than

1000 feet.

How can this be legal? How can the potential for destroying our groundwater be so callously

dismissed without even giving us proper notice?

My letter below is very reasonable. The way I am feeling in this moment with this NEW

information is anything but.

Please consider how sloppily the CHSRA has mishandled this operation and illegally ignored

important notifications.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This proposal must be rejected. The purpose of nationalizing a forest is to preserve the land, the

resources on that land including landmarks, watershed, water sources, fauna and flora. To even

consider taking the first step, a GI, in allowing the permanent degradation of our Angeles

National Forest with a tunnel, exits, dirt removal, and all that a tunnel entails is disturbing.

A GI would require the restructuring of many of the existing fire roads which were destroyed by

mud slides following the Station Fire, and in my area located on the south edge of the ANF in the

northern most part of Los Angeles, the Riverwood Ranch, is likely to require the use of our

privately owned and maintained roads which are unable to support an increase in traffic or the

movement of heavy equipment.

The ANF has been under constant stress since the end of August, 2009 when the Station Fire

began a burn that destroyed 160,000 acres. Following the fire, the landscape looked like a moon

scape covered with the charred bones of burnt wild animals. For those few that survived there

was little left to eat. It was devastation. I personally set up two separate feeding stations a half

mile out on each of the two fire roads that start from our development so the deer would not

starve, but it was eerily silent in the forest for months after the fire. It took about six months

before the grass began to grow and I was able to dismantle those feeding stations.

Then, with the rains, came the mud slides which destroyed many of the fire roads including both

of those roads reached via the private roads in our development. These fire roads would need

extensive repair using heavy equipment to be passable. This would present another egregious

assault on our wildlife. And if the intention is to use these fire roads it would be necessary to

obtain permission from our home owners to pass over our private roads.

Over the last several years the fauna in the ANF no more than started to recover from the Station

Fire and the drought began and continues today. Now there is a proposal to do a GI entailing

another invasion of the forest with considerable traffic and heavy equipment to repair the fire

roads and to do deep drilling. As the agency in charge of caring for and maintaining the ANF,

why has this application not already been rejected?

I find it difficult to fathom that this proposal is even being considered. I am not knowledgeable

as to how severely the drilling would affect the water resources but find the boring of holes 900

to 2,500 feet deep highly suspect particularly when ground water would be affected up to 1,000

feet away from the drill site. This is one of if not the last clean watershed within Los Angeles and

therefore one of the last sources of LA ground water.

Again, drilling these kinds of deep holes would take more heavy equipment, involve extensive

traffic through the wilderness, once more causing stress to our wildlife.

According to the liquefaction maps the ANF is highly subject to liquefaction and there is ample

evidence that the ANF was once under the ocean as indicated by the frequent discovery of sea

shells along the fire roads.

As a longtime resident of the Riverwood Ranch part of which is located in the Special Studies

Zone created as a result of the extensive earth movement during the February 9, 1971 “San

Fernando/Sylmar” earthquake, I find it remarkable once again that any area anywhere along the

Big Tujunga River most of which is in the SSZ would even be considered as a site for a GI and

the possibility of an ensuing HSR tunnel. We are in a highly active seismic area.

Please protect our Angles National Forest from any further destruction and reject this HSRA GI

application.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing to you and the US Forest Service to voice my strong objection to the proposed

drilling in the Angeles National Forest by the California High Speed Rail Authority.

HEALTH HAZARDS

As a resident of Kagel Canyon, I am concerned about the serious health risks posed by these

invasive activities. Contamination of the water table would endanger not only humans in

surrounding areas, but also the water supply of the general Los Angeles populace. Animals and

plants in our forest would be devastated by water and habitat contamination, and by the noise

and vibrations from drilling and the onslaught of workers and heavy machinery.

FIRE/FIRE FIGHTING RISKS

Equipment used for the testing could easily spark a wildfire. The Los Angeles County Fire

Department states that 90% of wildfires are spark-caused fires. Additionally, the proposed

testing would have vehicles blocking and damaging fire roads used by firefighters and

emergency vehicles. Having survived the Marek Wildfire 7 years ago due to the efforts of

firefighters, I am terrified by the dangers the proposed drilling would place the Foothill

communities in.

As you know, the US National Forest System came about as a result of concerns regarding our

San Gabriel Mountains. I implore you to please continue to protect our treasured woodland and

wildlife, and the health of the public, by rejecting the permit application from California High

Speed Rail Authority to conduct testing in the Angeles National Forest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Sierra Club supports appropriate test borings in the Angeles National Forest for

groundwater, geology, and fault studies, as a necessary part of the current Palmdale to Burbank

Draft Environmental study. Locations should exclude any endangered or threatened species’

habitat area.

The Sierra Club strongly supports the California High Speed Rail project, and posted a statement

regarding the Palmdale to Burbank section including: “The Sierra Club has taken no position on

these alternatives and will await a thorough draft environmental study to be completed in late

2016.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you and the US Forest Service for opening to the public for responses to the CHSRA's

proposed GI plan. Only one homeowner in Upper Kagel Canyon received any official notice of

this proposal

I am a concerned homeowner living in Upper Kagel Canyon and less than a half mile from the

proposed E1 underground route. The proposed E1-B3 and E1-B2 drilling sites are within hiking

distance uphill of my home. The Kagel Trucking Road is basically in our backyard.

Unfortunately, the exact distance is hard to calculate because the maps in the CHSRA's GI

proposal obfuscate the locations of homes in the vicinity of boring sites. None of their maps

include the homes in close proximity.

Despite sending letters to the CHSRA and attending their events, I found out about their GI plan

through neighbors. No official notice was received. I was only able to learn how close the E1-B3

and E1-B2 drilling sites are to my home because the S.A.F.E. organization posted overlays to the

CHSRA's maps on their website.

Every home in Upper Kagel is located within a couple of miles of the E1-B3 and E1-B2 drilling

sites and every home is on a well. It is our only source of water and a requirement by the County

of Los Angeles to build a home there. The depths of wells vary from 100 to 2500 feet deep and

the CHSRA proposes core hole drilling from 200 to 2790 feet deep. In a letter from a Mr. Vail,

he states "...groundwater BEYOND 1000 feet will not be affected..." How can he say this when

they propose drilling down to 2,790 feet expecting to measure in-situ water pressures along the

depth of the bore. Does this mean that ground water ABOVE 1000 feet WILL be affected. My

well is at 100 feet. MOST wells in upper Kagel (less than 2 miles below the E1 boring holes) are

less than 1000 feet.

Homes in Upper Kagel are located at approximately 2000 to 2700 feet in elevation. E1-B3 and

E1-B2 sites are located at 2755 and 2800 feet in elevation just behind our houses. Clearly, the

potential for damage or contamination of our wells is significant. My well is just 100 feet deep

downstream from CHSRA core hole drilling. How can there be no consideration to take baseline

analysis of existing wells in Upper Kagel prior to the core drilling? Has there been an

environmental impact study performed on their proposed hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and the

possible effects on groundwater and nearby fault lines? What if drilling lowers the standard of

my water quality? What if CHSRA drilling interrupts the flow of my well or dries it up

altogether? What's the mitigation? Will the CHSRA drill a new well for my house? Will it truck

in water for the next 100 years? I have lived in my home for over 25 years and my well has never

gone dry or suffered quality issues.

Please consider how haphazardly the CHSRA has mishandled this operation and illegally

ignored important notifications. This project is way behind schedule and over budget. How can

the potential for destroying our groundwater be so callously dismissed without even giving us

proper notice? T

Based on obfuscation of information in the CHSRA's project environmental document and a

blatant lack of notice to impacted homeowners; this should be enough for the USFS to deny the

CHSRA's request for a special use permit.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As a 15 year resident of Shadow Hills, I am opposed to the USFS granting a Special Use permit

to CHSRA at this time. I do not feel the public was adequately informed of this application, as

many residents did not receive letters from USFS due to the fact that CHSRA did NOT supply

adequate names and addresses of community members who had submitted previous comments, I

being one of them. It is my recommendation that the public comment period should be extended

until more of the public is able to read and digest the GI Plan from CHSRA.

I am vehemently opposed to the study of tunnels through the Angeles National Forest based on

NO previous information and inadequate experience from CHSRA - no tunnels as long or deep

as the proposed routes have ever been dug and constructed in this country and no tunnels have

ever been dug in these mountains which are thousands of years old AND untouched; even

CHSRA's documentation acknowledges that.

CHSRA has been less than forthright to us about information, deadlines and definitive details

regarding their routes, and, they have removed over 200+ routes from consideration in the past

10 years due to minor and major considerations, yet they CONTINUE to maintain that the

"forest routes" should be included in their studies when NEVER BEFORE has tunneling been

suggested through miles and miles of mountain ranges, as is the case with the East Corridor

Routes. I believe these test drilling of these routes through a Special Use permit endangers

native plant and animal species found only in the Angeles National Forest, as well as the local

human communities with 'test drills' and chemical usages capable of toxic gases when mixed

with many unknown ground materials. There is inadequate documentation in the CHSRA GI

Plan to assure the public there will be no danger or threat to any of this aforementioned.

I feel the studies proposed do not supply the public or the US Forest Service with enough

detailed information to make an informed or trustworthy decision to allow drilling, digging,

excavation and subsequent filling of the drill holes. Chemicals listed in the GI Plan pose a

serious threat to wildlife, human life and ground water supplies. There is not enough detailed

information about how CHSRA would handle emergency evacuation, contamination or spills or

toxic gases in the event of natural disasters - ie, Earthquake, storms, floods, fires, high winds,

mud slides, flooding, etc. AND because our local mountains are SO dry to the drought, there is

serious threat of FIRE danger and CHSRA should not be allowed to study/drill/ test during high

fire season, Red Flag days or very dry conditions under any circumstances.

There is not enough proof that our precious ground water supplies and/or

wells/aquifers/mountain streams would not be adversely affected by CHSRA's study tests and

nothing to indicate that CHSRA is 100% sure that nothing would happen in the event of

HUMAN error as well as acts of Nature. I am very opposed to granting CSHRA a Special Use

Permit for their GI studies until further independent study review is completed and many

unknowns are addressed.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a Van Nuys High School student, who is CONCERNED with the possible testing in the San

Gabriel Mountains. Although a High Speed rail is great for California's infrastructure, but its

testing is not worth the cost of negative impacts to ground water, recreational activities, wildlife,

and fire situations. From a young persons' viewpoint, my argument is that "the ends DO NOT

justify the means" for this case. When there runs a risk of damaging a precious ecosystem, none

should be taken. So why drill such a deep hole? There is already enough done to our

environment, let us not damage it any further though testing.

Stated previously there are some negative impacts that coincide with testing in the forrest. This

testing affects ground water, recreational activities, wildlife, and fire situations. Water. Life

necessity. Why would any human being risk it? Beats me. All I can say is there is going to be

contamination in our water supply that will occur from materials used by HSRA during drilling.

To add, the HSR can't conclude whether or not water supplies downstream will or will not be

contaminated as well. Would you want to wake up and start your day off with a large glass of

carcinogenic water? I think not. Although not ecologically drastic but against the appropriate use

of Forrest Lands is the halting the enjoyment of recreational activities. Hang gliding, hiking, and

equestrian use are to be halted during testing. Wildlife is also affected. Vibrations and noises.

They bug me. Wouldn't they bug you too? Well it sure does bug forrest animals. It could bug

them so much that it drastically affects their behavior. It is dangerous to affect their behavior

because it could cause an ecological crisis, resulting in an entire species of animal leaves or dies

off. Drastic? Maybe. But if that happens the entire food chain is thrown off balance. With that

comes population imbalance between animals. Then with that could come plausible extinction. It

won't happen in an instant, but it's a chain of events I'd rather not set off. I'm sure you wouldn't

either. Lastly, fire. A danger to us all. There is a higher risk of fire in the area, then with that

comes a blocked fighting efforts, and damage to fire roads. When and if a fire occurs what will

happen? I don't want to find out and I'm sure you don't want too either. So the HSR shouldn't

even try to start testing, unless they're willing to allow a higher cost of danger to occur.

What I'm trying to get at is don't risk it. This forrest is precious and should remain as is. There

must be an safer alternative or no testing at all.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing to express deep concern over the proposed GI testing in the Angeles National Forest

for the California High Speed Rail Authority. I am a Kagel Canyon resident, and I am

particularly concerned with invasive nature of the proposed testing and the potential impacts to

water systems in the area. The potential for water contamination of our spring, streams, and

wells-- especially from the additive chemicals used as part of the drilling process-- seem like a

large risk for our community. I understand that the proposed drilling work will be done keeping

in mind an "area of influence," but I am not convinced that we can say with any certainty that the

effects will be contained to such a small area.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for your consideration and for your active dedication to preserve and protect our

national parks and open spaces. This letter is in relation to the proposed high speed rail project

through the Angeles National Forest.

I oppose the proposed study by the California High Speed Rail Authority for drilling and testing

in the Angeles National Forest. The CHSRA has not followed through on conducting sufficient

planning and research prior to submitting a plan for this project. Environmental impact studies

are imperative to understanding the effects this type of disruption will cause to the forest, water

sources, wildlife, and air quality.

Southerns California, as you are aware, is in a severe drought and we have very few natural

water supplies remaining. It is unthinkable that we would risk irreversible damage to some of our

only natural water sources, when water should be the only concern on every Californian's mind.

This alone should create pause where any construction is concerned.

CHSRA has a duty to enlist the help and expertise of third parties who are qualified to manage

such a large and impactful project. As their name implies, they are an authority on High Speed

Rail, not on water source preservation, wildlife protection, air pollution, or forestry.

I strongly oppose any and all disruptions to the ANF, primarily for the reasons outlined above

but notwithstanding the devastating effects to the communities, recreational and equestrian

activities that occur in the forest and foothills.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Agua Dulce Town Council appreciates the opportunity to comment on the application

Angeles National Forest (ANF) received from California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA)

to perform a geophysical/geotechnical investigation to determine the feasibility of several tunnel

alignment alternatives within the ANF.

The Agua Dulce Town Council is a local entity representing approximately 5,000 residents in the

unincorporated community of Agua Dulce in northern Los Angeles County. Our community is

semi-rural and is composed of small family-owned ranches and homesteads.

The Council has reviewed the proposal, and while we do not consider ourselves to be experts in

the complexities of the project, we do have a number of comments relating to the feasibility

study.

The project is a necessary step in the determination of the feasibility of tunneling a railroad

alignment within the Angeles National Forest. The Geophysical/Geotechnical Investigation (GI)

will provide data to help evaluate the conditions for tunnel design and construction by

investigating groundwater, adverse geology, and faults.

The proposed mitigations measures will minimize adverse effects. The proposed drilling

locations will be adjacent to Forest Service roads, where there are no conflicting uses. The GI

will protect groundwater resources with certain specific measures outlined in the Proposal. The

GI will not pose a serious or substantial risk to public health or safety. The proposed use will not

create an exclusive or perpetual right of use of occupancy.

The Agua Dulce Town Council supports the special use authorization to perform the

Geophysical/Geotechnical Investigation as outlined in the proposal.

We appreciate the opportunity to present our comments. We ask that our comments be given

serious consideration and be included as part of the public record for the proposal. If any of our

comments need clarification or further explanation, please do not hesitate to contact us.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing this as a concerned stakeholder and voting resident of Shadow Hills.

I question the legalities and morality of the CHSRA as I have attended a few of the "open

houses" and

other meetings with them, the first in Palmdale when we first learned of the route change (not

voted for).

I've listed of few of my concerns.

1. CHSRA has not been truthful with their plans.

2. This is NOT what was voted for when presented to us (the voters) in 2008 after completing

years

of an EIR study.

a) Their plan was to go along the existing transportation corridor. I question the change to

Palmdale,

Did they make a mistake? Was their "study" full of flaws? or does politics play a part in

this?

3. Now they want to do another "study" (not an existing corridor) through the Angeles National

Forest/Monument

Another attempt to make more money from us tax payers. This "study" can cause destruction

to our natural

water sources, the endangered species, and wild animals homes. The noise and pounding and

vibration

from drilling, the housing of their machines will cause destruction to the roads/or area. Do

they know what

they're doing? It seems to me that this is a quick study done by amateurs for their personal

profits.

4. Once this CHSR stops in Palmdale it makes no sense to tunnel all the way to Burbank, stop,

then continue

to Los Angeles Union Station. Why stop in Burbank?

5. Common Sense to me is to upgrade our existing local transportation rails i.e.: Metro Link. If

the reasoning

is to travel from Palmdale to Burbank to Los Angeles then add a few non-stop trains

....problem solved.

In closing I hope you will closely monitor any action the CHSRA brings your way and

thoroughly check

their studies from beginning to end.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The City of San Fernando has been informed of the California High Speed Rail Authority

(“CHSRA”) application to conduct geophysical/geotechnical investigation (“GI”) to determine

the feasibility of several high speed rail tunnel alignments that the CHSRA is considering

through the Angeles National Forest (“ANF”).

City of San Fernando would like to voice its support for ANF’s approval of the CHSRA’s GI

application adoption of a NEPA Categorical Exclusion for the related short term geophysical

study. ANF approval of the CHSRA’s GI application will allow CSHRA to perform subsurface

field investigations and data collection to be used in evaluating the feasibility of a tunnel beneath

the ANF between Acton and Burbank, California.

As proposed, the geophysical surveys and in-situ testing will be conducted within core holes

drilled to the approximate depth below ground surface of the potential tunnel alternatives

estimated to range in depth from approximately 200 to 2,790 feet below ground surface (bgs) and

are located at various sites that lie on one of the alternatives proposed by the Authority.

The GI application includes a request to allow for up to eight core hole sites to investigate in-situ

rock conditions and to measure groundwater pressures and temperature gradient at the

conceptual tunnel invert elevation. The GI study would include borings located along the

existing road on the ANF. The GI will provide data to help evaluate potentially challenging

conditions for tunnel design and construction by investigating ground water, adverse geology

and earthquake faults.

The City of San Fernando supports the GI study to be undertaken under the proposed mitigation

measures noted by CHSRA and any others required by ANF. The City of San Fernando

understands that the GI study will be conducted utilizing methods that have been used on similar

projects and are not anticipated to result in negative impacts to the Angeles National Forest.

Furthermore, ANF approval of the GI application and associated NEPA Categorical Exclusion

will facilitate GI work that will yield additional information related to the feasibility of tunneling

under the forest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did not get a letter from the forest service about the CHSPA's request for a "Special Use

Permit" to drill bore holes to test for groundwater, adverse geology, and earthquake faults. I

have communicated with them in the past so I should have been on a list of people to contact.

The Angeles National Forest is an important resource for many reasons for us who live in the

San Fernando Valley. I have read about the CHSPA's plan and have some concerns that I would

like you to consider. Because of these concerns I would like you to deny the "Special Use

Permit".

In this time of drought, there are two extremely important reasons why these holes should not be

drilled. They concern water and fire. First, the Angeles Forest contains a water source for our

area through springs, streams, groundwater, and wells tapping into that ground water. Drilling

requires the use of additives and materials that are toxic. The news has been full of instances in

the United States of disastrous unintended consequences of the use of such materials

contaminating water supplies beyond the area in which they were used. There is no real way to

predict their impact on water supplies. Drilling may impact the level of the ground water

affecting wells hence the water supply to individuals who depend on them. Fire is another very

real danger for us. In the past it has swept through the Angels National Forest, endangering the

habitat and the people who were in the forest at the time and homes on the outskirts. Sparks from

the heavy equipment such as needed for drilling have started forest fires so it would be best not

to use it in the forest. In addition, if a fire broke out for some other unrelated reason, the heavy

equipment would block the fire roads preventing the fire fighters from getting to the fires to put

them out. Using heavy equipment on the fire roads would erode them, and since El Nino is

predicted to cause some heavy rain this year, mud slides would be a potential danger.

Of course there would be an impact to the wildlife and the recreational use of the forest which

would be unfortunate for us who love the area. No plan can really predict what that impact

would be no matter how many charts and figures may be presented. Drilling the bore holes is

just a bad idea. We should leave the National Forest as pristine as possible.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I was one of the primary writers of the comments from the SAFE coalition. I'm a businessman,

father of two boys, one a professional baseball player turned business entrepreneur, and one a

college student. I've lived in Shadow Hills for 24 years and have been on the board and/or

president of the Shadow Hills Property Owners Assn. board of directors for nearly 15 years. I'm

a normal person, possess a master's degree in business, and am very involved in our community

and our schools. I don't want you to think of me or my friends/colleagues in this fight against

high speed rail as NIMBY's or extremists. We are homeowners and involved community leaders.

Our lives have been changed by the poor planning, execution and communications of CHSRA.

Our recent letter included all the details. On this final day of public comment, unless an

extension is granted, I wanted to share, person to person, why we are so involved and working so

hard to communicate with you so that you take our comments as seriously as they've been

prepared.

The California High Speed Rail Authority, given its name and it mandate, you would think

would be an impressive government agency. Unfortunately, they are not. I'm writing to

underscore they are hardly fit to conduct the GI testing proposed without independent, third party

input and strong monitoring and oversight. They are even less fit to build the proposed project. I

paid no attention to this project until just over a year ago when we got a letter in the mail, yes in

the mail, that train routes were being considered through our neighborhoods. The attached photo

shows you what we are dealing with coming underground from Palmdale and Burbank and

above ground through the Big T Wash, and into our hillsides.

Since August 2014, I and others have worked daily to mount this educational and informative

effort, not to destroy high speed rail, which was approved by voters by the slimmest of margins

(and would be defeated today if there was a vote), but to make sure they do whatever they do

properly. We've played by the rules, going to meetings, providing testimony, writing letters,

going on tours, meeting with elected officials, attending community meetings. I'm here to tell

you CHSRA is not listening and is not capable of listening unless you are extremely demanding

and firm with them. You are not just dealing with engineers and scientists. Behind the scenes is

an army of lawyers, hired guns, politicians and special interests trying to force this project on

California and on local communities. They've done a very poor job and are thrusting their crisis

upon us.

Nothing has gone right since we've met this organization. They are extremely slow; they are not

transparent; they are not organized and are well behind their schedules and their budgets.

Honestly, they make it up as they go with slick legal advice guiding them. They take shortcuts,

cut corners and stretch the law. Please trust us when we say they are an amalgamation of hired

guns. It's true. As an entity, they have never built anything anywhere in the world, let alone

California. They are only as good as the consultants they hire and the most important consultants

working for them now where just hired on July 1, 2015. They have steep learning curves.

Most importantly, they are all working under intense timeline and funding pressures that dictate

how and when they do things. They will run out of most of their funding in 2017, yet they spend

money feverishly under the "use it or lose it" or "use it or you won't get matching funds"

philosophy. We met with the newest CHSRA engineers last week on the banks of the Haines

Canyon Creek, located in the Big Tujunga Wash. It's a perennial stream fed by waters and

springs from the Angeles National Forest. One of their project management team members was

lamenting the permitting processes they must abide by and how long the permitting was taking.

A true professional would have known and anticipated this. But, they'd never set foot there

before, have been using outdated maps that did not even show the stream and generally fudging

their way along for over a year so this was not really surprising. For over a year now, when we

ask questions of CHSRA, we get different answers depending on which engineer we talk to.

We've written hundreds of letters and provided thousands of comments. We get no response.

As mentioned in our SAFE letter, we are trusting that the USFS will be the responsible entity

we've always known it to be as many other government agencies are either too busy or too

politically compromised to stand up to CHSRA. We will be very interested to learn what

comments you receive from the Army Corps of Engineers, LA County Public Works/Flood

Control, LA Department of Water and Power, and elected officials from the Federal, State,

County and Municipal levels. It would not surprise us if you hear nothing from most of them. As

I said, they've either been very busy or very conflicted politically on this project. So, the USFS

will be the last line of defense so to speak. We are trying to assist you as you too have recently

been thrust into this situation.

I spoke with the interim director of the San Gabriel Mountains National Monument last

Thanksgiving as he was driving back home to Bend, Oregon. He was very helpful, informative

and patient. I spoke to people in the Department in Washington DC responsible for Special Use

Permits to understand better what was required of the CHSRA within the Monument and Forest.

This was slightly after the National Monument had been introduced and we wrote to the

Secretary of Agriculture, the Forest Service and others. That letter and the USDA's response are

attached. Many people in your organization received that letter and were involved in the

response to us.

We have to ask you to take our comments as seriously as possible. They are borne of experience

and of being stewards of our communities and protected lands. We've now lived with this threat

for over a year, every hour of every day. Our homes, our communities, our natural resources are

all being held hostage. The process that you too are now part of will be dictated by CHSRA and

their lawyers unless all of us pay attention, keep their feet to the fire and demand accountability,

responsibility and what voters approved in 2008. We call upon you to provide your service with

the highest degree of professionalism and, if additional resources are needed to ensure that you

are able to do that, that you demand help from CHSRA. To close, here are our major points:

• the studies must be done right or not at all

• third party, independent input is needed NOW into these GI plans

• strong USFS oversight and monitoring will be required

• our water supplies, wildlife, emergency response and other resources are significantly at

risk because CHSRA does not execute at the high level they promise

• the limited 5 site testing, conducted at a point in time, rather than more extensive testing

conducted over at least a one year period will not yield an adequate range or amount of data upon

which the USFS would have to make decisions on the Special Use Permit

• the tests are being rushed - they should not be conducted concurrently, especially given

the lack of experience of the CHSRA group. They should do one test; evaluate it and then apply

lessons learned to the next tests on a one by one basis to ensure all their top resources and people

are focused on each test. These tests cannot be done "cookie cutter" style.

• the Forest is protected land. It is bordered by or co-located with Wilderness areas and a

National Monument. There are proposals to create new Wilderness areas where these routes

would run.

We don't believe densely populated areas and sensitive environmental areas like the Forest are

suitable locations for high speed rail. We agreed to support testing of the water, seismic and

other resources to get the best information possible. This plan is not adequate to accomplish the

stated goal. Again, we say, make CHSRA obtain professional input and guidance and make them

do the studies right or not at all. We hope you agree with us that the submitted plan/proposal

needs a lot of work before it is ready for approval and/or implementation. Please make CHSRA

do this right. Let's make sure CHSRA's timeline and funding issues remain their problem and

don't add to ours.

An abundance of caution is called for and is the right thing to to. We look forward to meeting

with the USFS in November.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By permitting this commercial intrusion onto public land - will the Forest Service take

responsibility for making this project's progress transparent to the public and dedicate

knowledgeable personnel to monitoring and overseeing the project to ensure that no harm comes

to the lands USFS exists to preserve?

If FS does not commit to overseeing the drilling sites and publishing updates to the public (via

web or otherwise) on what's happening on these public lands then I am against permitting

drilling within the borders of the National Forest lands for a proposed commercial venture.

This drilling requires large equipment transported onto forest land with long term drilling

through rock; not your basic "home well". It can disrupt groundwater aquifers for the San

Fernando Valley during a prolonged drought and disturb the indigenous wildlife. This

requested permit is part of a bigger picture that could create serious impacts on preserved land.

If HSR is allowed to drill at multiple locations ,with little or no oversight, which other industrial

or politically driven egocentric projects will follow suit with similar requests?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I thought I would send one more communication regarding the permit process of the CHSRA in

determining whether approval to bore in the Angeles National Forest be granted.

CEQA

Foster interagency coordination in review of projects. This is a great concern regarding the

testing in the forest and the mountains. If the forestry is going to allow destruction to several

areas of interest, then please make sure you that there are many agencies involved in this process.

If you feel you have to grant these permits, please make sure everything is as protected as

possible.

And if the Forestry decides to move ahead, then please disclose to the public reasons for

approval since this testing could have significant environmental effects.

As this is a difficult decision, I trust that you weigh all the points. I understand you are an

engineer and at least as a concerned citizen, I know that you are analytical and will weigh in on

everything. I do not envy you your job at this time.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have been a resident of Shadow Hills in Sunland, Ca. since 1972 when my husband

and I moved here as newlyweds.

After rejecting several properties throughout the hilly

communities of Los Angeles for our new home, we chose Shadow Hills for its unique

topography in the foothills of the San Gabriel and Verdugo Mountains, to the north and south

respectively, and for its rustic beauty and quiet, rural environment in a unique equestrian

community: “country living in the city” as SHPOA, our Homeowners Association, states as

its motto. As long as I have lived here, the Board of Directors of SHPOA has fought tirelessly

and with dogged determination to protect and maintain this beautiful rural environment that

all our residents cherish. One of my greatest ongoing delights since the 70s has been to see

the majestic San Gabriel Mountains opening in a panoramic view before me as I drive eastward

on Sunland Blvd.

Now, like a jolt to our collective peace and sense of security, we are faced with an

unexpected and totally unreasonable major threat to our communitiesnot

only Shadow Hills,

but also Lake View Terrace, La Tuna Canyon, Sun Valley, SunlandTujunga

and Kagel Canyonthat

is; the proposed alternative routes for the high speed rail directly through our communities,

Corridors E1, E2 and E3. Besides impacting the National Forest and the San Gabriel

Mountains,

Corridor E2 would tunnel under my immediate neighborhood! As we had been informed last

year by SHPOA, the original plan was to follow Hwy 14 and Hwy 5 , already established

corridors, from Palmdale through Santa Clarita and Acton to Burbank which seems a more

logical and easily accessible construction plan. However, Supervisor Antonovich who knew of

the E1, E2 and E3 proposals neglected to inform our more easterly communities. Well, we

found out!! and have been rallying together ever since and our outcrys and opinions are

definitely being heard now by CHSRA and other concerned authorities!!

In their unrelenting drive to destroy our mountains, the National Forest and portions of

our communities while pursuing their own goals which, by the way, will probably assure

lucrative contracts to the “Old Buddies Group” in moving forward with their plans, the CHSRA

wants to conduct their own ( RED FLAG ALERT ) groundwater, earthquake factors and

tunneling

issues in the Angeles National Forest. They have submitted plans for geophysical and

geotechnical investigations or “GI” plans to the USFS. Though SHPOA and residents of these

communities including myself support studies of these issues, I would suggest that they

should be carried out by independent, unbiased geological experts, not by the CHSRA’s

hand picked and obviously prejudiced geoengineers. Additionally, the plan for the proposed

studies should be submitted to our community organizations like SHPOA for review before

implementation.

In addition to being a resident of Shadow Hills, I also have professional interests

in the preservation of our cherished San Gabriel Mountains and the National Forest.

I am a Registered Nurse but also have a Graduate Degree in Physical Anthropology

and Archaeology. This academic background guides my personal interest and concerns

in two ways. Firstly, in 1990, during a geology field trip, my professor took our class to an

area of the San Andreas Fault just north of the San Gabriel Mountains and due north

of Shadow Hills. Here, he encouraged each of us to touch the fracture line. I was very

impressed that this major area of tectonic activity is so close to Shadow Hills. This area

of the San Andreas Fault, a strike/slip fault, runs southeast to northwest where the margins

of the Pacific Plate and the North American Plate slip past each other. Los Angeles is on

the Pacific Plate and moving slowly north. However, that’s not all the story. Another long

fault line, the San Gabriel Fault, runs from southeast to northwest following the southern

boundary of the Angeles Forest and San Gabriel Mountains where it joins the San Andreas

Fault. Therefore, two major fault lines circumscribe the San Gabriel Mountains and Angeles

National Forest. Does the CHSRA really want to “tinker with” and possibly disturb nature to

this degree? I would think not!

Secondly, I am concerned for the cultural and historical rights of the present

Native American descendants of tribes in the area: the Siletz, Gabrieleno/Tongas, the

Chumash, the Fernandeno/Tatavian, the Kitanemuk and the Serrano. These peoples are

seeking to preserve their cultural dignity, to respect their sacred customs and to protect

their tribal lands such as the mountain ranges and national forests mentioned above.

Because of the ARPA, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, and NAGRA, the

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990), these areas would

require an archaeological assessment for any impact on the tribes involved. Has the

CHSRA even considered these issues?

Finally, but equally important, I was thrilled when President Barack Obama,

using the 108 year old Antiquities Act, declared 350,000 acres of the San Gabriel Mountains

as a National Monument on October 10, 2014. More than 15 million people live within 90

minutes of this magnificent recreational area and “playground” for Los Angeles residents.

Considering the issues I have discussed above, I am asking the USFS to

please require that the CHSRA exercise due diligence, honesty and responsibility in any

actions that they seek to carry out and that the rights of local residents and the majesty

of the San Gabriel Mountains, the National Forest and the natural resources of these

areas are protected and preserved for future generations.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a resident of Kagel Canyon and my property lies within the borders of the Angeles National

Forest. I am writing to protest the proposed test drilling in the forest. My family relies on a well

for our water and I have many concerns about how the drilling could affect my drinking water,

either by damaging the supply or polluting the quality of our water. I have heard that perhaps as

much as 15% of Los Angeles drinking water comes from the Angeles forest. It seems un

thinkable to me that anything would be allowed that could possibly threaten water supplies

during one of the worst draughts in years.

Please do not let these frivolous tests happen. They are unnecessary and potentially harmful.

I would also ask that when decisions like this are being made, that the public is better informed.

If not for the vigilance of my neighbors I would not have heard about this.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a resident of Shadow Hills, and on many occasions have enjoyed the plentiful opportunities

the Angeles National Forest provides, thanks to your stewardship of this treasured resource.

I am very concerned that each of the high speed rail route alternatives - E1, E2, E3 and SR14 -

would severely and irreversibly disrupt the Angeles National Forest, and the Foothill

communities that border it (Shadow Hills, La Tuna Canyon, Sun Valley, Sunland-Tujunga, Lake

View Terrace and Kagel Canyon).

The CHSRA seems overly hasty in its rush forward - for example, they do not appear to have

engaged a third-party peer review team to study their project, they do not appear to have

sufficiently planned for how to safeguard local water sources from their planned drilling and

testing activities, and their testing plans seem woefully insufficient (particularly worrisome is

their lack of consideration of performing a yearlong baseline study rather than testing at a single

point in time). Further concerns include CHSRA's plans' lack of detail concerning protection of

recreational and environmental assets during their planned testing, what they intend to do to

ameliorate disruption and nuisance from truck traffic, and whether they have taken into

consideration southern California's climate challenges (notably the heightened risk of activities

during fire season, or the heavy rains from an El Nino).

I urge you to continue your exemplary protection of the Angeles National Forest by extending

the public comment period, and, most importantly, by pressuring the CHSRA to address the

many concerns that stem from their as-yet woefully insufficient planning and outreach.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am opposed to the proposed study by the California High Speed Rail Authority for drilling and

testing in the Angeles National Forest.

As I am sure you are aware, Southern California is in a severe drought and we have very few

natural water supplies remaining. CHSRA’s plans do not provide adequate details about how to

safeguard local water wells and supplies from the planned drilling and testing activities. We

should be much more concerned with protecting any and all water sources rather that this

proposal which may cause irreversible damage to some of our only natural water sources. Also,

the plans need to identify how routine equestrian, hiking, biking, camping, hang gliding and

other activities and participants will be protected from truck traffic, noise, vibration and other

testing-related impacts.

The CHSRA has not followed through on conducting sufficient planning and research prior to

submitting a plan for this project. Environmental impact studies are imperative to understanding

the effects this type of disruption will cause to the forest, water sources, wildlife, and air quality.

I strongly oppose any and all disruptions to the Angeles National Forest, primarily for the

reasons outlined above but notwithstanding the devastating effects to the communities,

recreational and equestrian activities that occur in the forest and foothills.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have only addressed two concerns in this communication: the danger to Los Angeles Co.water

and toxics proposed for the GI. I apologize for the unprofessional look of this email and trust

that this input will be considered. I have reviewed The Project Environment. and the CHSRA

Geotechnical Investigation documents and wish there were sufficient time to deal with all the

concerns- I feel the “outreach” requirement for public comment needs more time and

publicizing.

CONCERN #1

SCOPING INFORMATION NEEDS TO REACH A WIDER AUDIENCE. NON-

GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS (NGO’s) and COALITIONS OF NGO’s and

GOVERNMENT WERE OMITTED FROM THE STAKEHOLDERS SUGGESTED…three

examples attached:

***all three attribute the import of the Angeles forest for protecting our water system

Concern #2

******(ii) the public interest is preserving our water, not injecting toxics which endanger the

ecosystem…please review the Halliburton chemical examples attached. The disclaimers

attached to the companies involved in the project, are they not red flags for water and wildlife

sustainability?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The community of Kagel Canyon, which represents some 350 homes, does not support drilling

in the Angeles National Forest. Many of our residences lie within forest boundaries, including

the fifty homes that use private wells for water in the upper part of the canyon.

Jeffrey Vail, Forest Supervisor, recently wrote a letter about an application from the High

Speed Rail Authority to do geophysical/geotechnical drilling in the Angeles Forest. We strongly

oppose this from occurring. We believe boring holes in the Dillon Divide area would be

upstream within a mile of our homes and pose significant risk to our water supply.

Not only do we fear disruption to our mountains through possible tunneling, we are

concerned about the effects that test holes might have upon our wells. We need reassurance

that our source of water is preserved. At minimum, before the Forest Service issues permits,

we would like the following addressed:

• Materials intended for use in the project include hazardous materials that may be

toxic to fish and mammals and contaminate water supplies.

• It is possible that water levels will be reduced. Because well water levels are tested

regularly to meet fire prevention restrictions, owners cannot afford and water

reduction.

• In the event that the water table is affected and people lose their source of water,

who will pay for damages?

As noted above, we are against the drilling but before the Forestry Service accepts the

application for boring into the forest, we recommend a Hazardous Assessment Study

for the project and a 3rd party review.

We are concerned about supervision of the work, about the spread of hazardous

materials during rain, about possible damage both to wildlife and the forest itself

through fire, about the possibility of producing earthquakes by drilling into a fault line,

and lastly about the length of time for such a project.

The forest Service is important to our community’s wellbeing. You have always done a

wonderful job in maintaining a valued assest of the people. We depend upon your

services to protect this land.

ADDENDUM: FEASIBILITY STUDY QUESTIONS

• There is a need for a 3rd party review

• It is unrealistic for the Forest Service to respond to High Speed Rail in only one week.

• If we have written to High Speed Rail we should have gotten a letter from the Forest

Service about the feasibility study.

• Where else has this type of deep drilling occurred?

• There should be baselines – before and after monitoring of wells.

• The boring should do one well at a time, learning as they go from the process.

• We need expert opinions that these spots are the best ones to use.

• How can a 35-40 mile route be determined by 5 5foot wells?

• Page 14 – What is the source of water for the drilling?

• The US Forest Service should approve subcontractors, equipment, procedures, and all

matters of methodology.

• There is a need for specific mitigations.

• Will there be any welding? Will work be done during high fire season days? Would

drilling be shut down if a fire is caused?

• What are the decibel levels of equipment?

• How will the work be monitored?

• There should be an opportunity to have input on the L.A. County Permit Application.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing to you and the US Forest Service to voice my strong objection to the proposed

drilling in the Angeles National Forest by the California High Speed Rail Authority.

As a resident of Kagel Canyon, I am concerned about the serious health risks posed by these

invasive activities. Animals and plants in our forest would be devastated by water and habitat

contamination, and by the noise and vibrations from drilling and the onslaught of workers and

heavy machinery. Also, the California Condor, a bird once close to extinction, would be

negatively affected by this.

I implore you to please continue to protect our treasured woodland and wildlife, and the health

of the public, by rejecting the permit application from California High Speed Rail Authority to

conduct testing in the Angeles National Forest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a homeowner in Lake View Terrace, a licensed Civil Engineer and also a member of the

Save Angeles Forest for Everyone (SAFE) Coalition. I would first like to fully endorse the letter

that was previously sent to you by SAFE. I would also like to individually express my concerns

regarding the CAHSRA application to perform a Geotechnical Investigation in the Angeles

National Forest.

My concerns are as follows:

• It is not clear how the proposed boring locations will adequately cover exploration of all

expected rock formations along the alignments. The expected rock types, faults and groundwater

zones that each hole would encounter should be presented in table form.

• I have serious concerns about the feasibility of this drilling program at such great depths,

particularly at an incline. Holes several thousands feet deep are difficult enough to drill

vertically, especially when the holes are uncased. The periodic cleaning of drilling mud to

perform packer tests and video surveys will likely make the boreholes unstable.

• A full detailed list of all the equipment they are planning to use should be provided. Based

on the type of operation they are describing this will be a substantial amount of heavy equipment

coming in and out of the forest. The impact this could have on the existing roads needs to be

considered.

• I am very concerned about potential contamination of the groundwater and surface water

streams as a result of this investigation. The drilling could cause groundwater at different levels

to be mixed and also introduce contaminants into the groundwater. Any contaminants at the

work site could also make its way into the above ground streams and pose a hazard to

downstream users of that water including endangered wildlife.

I strongly urge to you to take a very critical look at the plans for this study and to assess whether

it can be completed without causing damage to the forest. If this investigation is allowed to

proceed, at a minimum, third party expert oversight must be required to make sure that it is done

right and that the forest is protected.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a native California who remains concerned about the entire state of which I have traversed

over the years. Thank you for your consideration of the attached letter which outlines

environmental concerns in the Angeles National Forest due to the California High-Speed Rail

project.

I'd also like to suggest that the comment period also be extended.

The June 9, 2015 California High-Speed Rail Authority Board meeting held

in Downtown Los Angeles was a marathon event and also very telling about

the additional environmental impacts in the southern part of the state.

Those who attended witnessed hours of testimony from residents in the

pristine mountainous areas of the Angeles National Forest. An area where

one test boring is slated to take three months to complete according to a

close friend who was alerted by their homeowners’ association.

I encourage you to listen to and also read the words from that meeting a few

months ago. The following is a link to the audio version (there were two (2)

videos due to the length: Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMuIgYamFKc&feature=youtu.be and

Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6heuF-GJeFU&feature=youtu.be

along with a transcript:

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/brdmeetings/2015/brdmtg_060915_Board_Meet

ing_Trancript.pdf that is 298 pages in length.

As someone who has spent a good portion of her adult life in Southern

California, I am aware of the many unusual seasons and not the standard

winter, spring, summer and fall. There is a fire season in SoCal, which leads

to one of mudslides.

Of late, the drought has exacerbated this, as evidenced by last week’s

(October 15) killer flash mudslide on the 58 Highway that takes you through

the Tehachapi’s from Bakersfield to Los Angeles and/or vice versa. A route

that the California High-Speed Rail Authority plans to use to connect the

Golden State.

Time and again, the environmental impacts of the California High-Speed

Rail project tend to be taken too lightly by those who are on a muchshortened

timetable to get everything done.

Constructing the largest infrastructure project in the nation and perhaps the

world, means that extra care and concern needs to be taken. The U.S. Forest

Service in addition to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers who patrol the

waterways of America (which are also impacted by the rail project) must not

let a precedent be set by weakening the very environmental laws that protect

California and the nation.

How much more proof will the U.S. Forest Service need that additional time

is warranted to properly assess what is going on, not to mention that test

drillings during a time of sever weather conditions will only lead to more

environmental trauma?

Thank you for your time and consideration of the above comments. Not

mentioned above, is the propensity for earthquakes in California, which

should also be factored in.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing this comment letter as a follow-up to our recent conversation regarding the 1000'

foot area of influence CAHSR has claimed in their scoping report specifically for one of the

boring hole sites located one mile upstream from residential water wells in upper Kagel Canyon.

I have since contacted my well provider as well as two other expert well drilling companies who

have been in the drilling business for over 40 years; one is located in Lancaster and one is

located in Northern California. I have been advised by all three experts that our residential wells

in upper Kagel Canyon could easily be compromised by the close proximity and depth of this

test boring site. The potential to divert and pollute our water source by this boring operation is a

very real threat that must be addressed.

The California High Speed Rail Authority has been advised on three separate occasions that their

maps did not include any of the residential wells located in upper Kagel Canyon. I first informed

Michelle Boehm of this fact at an open house located in Pacoima earlier this summer. Next, I

advised one of their engineers during another community open house in Burbank. Finally, I

spoke with Lorraine Ahlquist, the environmental project manager for the Palmdale to Burbank

segment at the last community outreach meeting held in Sylmar. Lorraine was very aware of the

issue that our wells had not been plotted on their maps and she told me that they were very

concerned about the water within these mountains.

I question the method CAHSR used to calculate the 1000' foot area of influence. First, the closest

well sited in their document for the calculation is not a residential well used as a daily domestic

water source. Second, the closest well sited in their document is located North East and upstream

from the boring site. The waters in these aquifers travel South West so the well they cited for

their calculation is not relevant.

Finally, their scoping document states that they plan to mitigate water volumes of 1.5 gpm when

they pierce the aquifer. I would like to know how they came up with this estimate. Some of our

wells in upper Kagel Canyon produce volumes much higher than that. The fact is, they do not

have any idea and the information provided in their scoping report is biased and not factual or

based on any real research.

Please include all the comments from my original letter copied below as part of the decision

making process for this permit. I believe my comments to be valid based on my findings. I trust

the US Forest Service will protect these public lands and waters and will find that this permit and

the damage it will cause within our National Forests and Open Space is not in the best interest of

the people of California and therefore should be denied.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing you today in regards to the California High Speed Rail Authorities (CHSRA)

application to perform a geophysical/geotechnical investigation (GI) prior to tunneling through

our Angeles National Forest (ANF).

First I want to thank the United States Forest Service (USFS) for your commitment to protecting

our Forest and for being so proactive regarding the CHSR- and for seeking public comment

regarding the GI.

However, I do not feel the CHSRA provided the USFS with complete lists of people who had

previously submitted comments to the CHSRA, as both my husband and myself have submitted

comments to the CHSRA and was only made aware of your public comment period through

other channels- the ANF did not contact us. I was sent an e mail from SAFE on October 16,

2015, letting me know of the comment period deadline. Due to CHSRA's failure to provide full

stakeholder information to the ANF, please extend the comment period at least 30 days. I have

not had adequate time to go over the 53 page project description and the 190 pages of appendices

in order to make informed comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Review of the USFS Letters (09/08 & 09/18/2015) and related documents clearly show that those

conducting the NEPA/permit review/considerations are as confused and ill-informed as the

public readers/reviewers to the process and documents for the "Project" and/or "Proposal".

Rescind, review, revise, and re-circulate the current documents and bring them into form for

public participation, revieww, and meaningful public comments.

The Project description is also incomplete as the proposed activities on federal lands must be

presumed to be a portion of an overall geotechnical program for the entire route segment from

the Palmdale station area to the link up with the Burbank-Los Angeles Union Station segment

which includes similar activities in State, County, and municipal jurisdictions. Therefore a single

program must be prepared and submitted to the relevant jurisdictions at the same time

All current considerations must be rescinded and revised and then recirculated for timely reviews

and substantive comments.

For meaningful (re-)consideration, the proponent/Forest Service must/shall provide the

following:

An independent review of proposal/proponent documents and comments by a USGS geologist

with direct experience with crystalline basement complex, seismicity, and groundwater

resources;

Public hearing and an Environmental Assessment (rather than Categorical Exemption);

A public meeting is required to clarify and reconsider the current process and to recommend

further consideration of Environmental Assessment/NEPA preparation along with Mitigated

Negative Declaration/CEQA in coordination of CHSRA and USFS/ANF

Develop, operate, update, automate direct, maintain, and provide subscriptions to a project

specific on-line webpage;

Specific number of five (5) borings at five (5) sites with alternative borings at up to three (3)

alternative sites, and the total number of borings shall not be a "total of up to eight (8)";

As three tunnel alternative alignments lie within the USFS lands, 2-3 borings/alignment seems

appropriate for the alignments and yields 6 or 9 borings rather than 5 or 8; technical justification

must be provided for arbitrary 5, 6, 8, or 9 boring locations (recommend adding one for total of 6

or 2 borings/alternative);

Maps and 1940s + 2015 aerial photos of all proposed locations (1:1000 scale) with standard

boring layouts for all equipment on each site and delineation of existing vegetation and

trails/nesting/roosting areas, etc.;

Quarterly Lidar Surface Surveys for three alternative routes (5280ft either side of alignment)

within ANF starting prior to first boring and composite topographic changes related to borings,

fault zones, and expected groundwater recharge/discharge areas;

Illustrated/graphic relationship of borings' depths and tunnel depths at the same locations,

distances between boring/tunnel, and known/expected stratigraphy/formation, geo-structure

(faults, folds, & placement), and groundwater re-discharge areas;

For all known or expected fault zones, expected planar orientation and dips at tunnel crossings

and boring intersections;

For fault zones within 2500ft of alignments, install, operate, record, and report microseismicity

monitoring (-3-+2 Richt.Magn.) from Jan.1, 2016 to 2030 for baseline, modeling, and forecasts;

3-D/3000+ft depths Seismic Surveys of at least 1000ft within 2500ft of projected surface fault

traces along all public roads and suitable (25ft width) USFS roads.

Placement (Lat./Lon./Depth) of all recorded seismic events (e.g., sources:

http://service.scedc.caltech.edu/cgi-bin/catalog/) and fault planes in graphic model of events,

known and unknown active faults, and tunnel proximity;

Statistical relationships of prior/following seismic events for potential pre-warning and after-

shock estimates;

Video Site Monitoring during one weeks prior and throughout investigations with pole-mounted

camera including joy stick Rotation/Zooming in real time and time lapse (frame/minute)

daily/weekly summaries feeds;

All sites with complete still/video documentation as to vegetation, trails, eroded areas before,

mid-way, before and after restoration;

Boring sites only with less than 5000sqft of vegetation removal mitigated by 100% native plant

restoration plus 5000sf compensation land purchases by CHSRA for USFS/ANF;

Lighting controls 24/7 - no direct light visible beyond site boundary;

Perimeter Noise/Light barriers if noise is modeled at >35/50 levels at site boundaries

Noise Mitigation Program: Equipment delivery and setup barrier and monitoring for baseline,

Prohibition of helicopter use, without emergency status, Quiet Mode Sun-Set/-Rise operations;

Noise levels controls to 35dBA nighttime and 50dBA daytime averaged at 10min. at site

boundaries;

Noise abatement barriers for equipment with operating noise levels >60dBA/6 feet;

Groundwater inventory within 5000ft of the borings and thereby a coincident portion of the

proposed tunnel including all recharge areas, discharge sites and areas, existing or known water

wells, and most probable groundwater movement routes between Recharge/Discharge areas.

Other Comments and requests based on -

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/about/legislative_affairs/SB1029_Project_Update_Report_030115.p

df March 2015 50/5 Developing and completing phased geotechnical investigation programs

to support the environmental review process and evaluation of geologic conditions, seismic

ground motions, ground water depths and hydrostatic pressure are required for the development

of design, construction and to secure permits. The Authority has established a geotechnical

steering committee to review and make recommendations for work programs and is moving

forward with a Phase 1 investigation program in the Palmdale to Burbank section.

Provide investigations for seismicity based on current data bases, project installed seismometers

rather than for cores of cemented/pulverized fault zones/gouge.

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/statewide_rail/proj_sections/Palmdale_Burbank/Palmdale

_Burbank_PB_2014_Scoping_Report_November_2014.pdf Scoping Report Nov. 2014 3-

2/1 ...Corps of Engineers expressed concern about large tunnels potentially lowering

groundwater levels, which could then in turn affect aquatic resources....Fish and Wildlife Service

also commented on potential groundwater impacts, and requested that geotechnical studies be

incorporated into the analysis to ensure that dewatering of groundwater and surface features does

not occur;...

Groundwater in igneous/metamorphic formations has not been reviewed by a

component/experienced geologist or hydrogeologist and no inventory of Inflows-

Recharge/Diversions-Pathway/Outflows/Discharges has been provided to ascertain the

appropriateness of the boring locations of five to eight or perhaps more for properly assessing the

feasibility of three 20-plus mile tunnels through the ANF.

An independent, experienced and qualified geologist/hydrogeologist/ geophysist must be used to

review all documents and comments and attest to the appropriateness of the GI-Plan and its goals

and objects.

1/3 "...at five to eight locations..."

Five locations are preferred while three others are alternatives to three preferred locations.

1/3...at the edge of existing...roads...

Several locations are not at the edge of "roads", in that they are not near cleared, surfaced roads

and many locations would cover the entire "width" of the "road".

1/3...in close proximity to the alternative alignments...

Several locations are more than 200 feet from the drawn alignments.

2/7 "The proposed drill locations will be adjacent to Forest System roads, where there are no

conflicting uses."

As at least one of the 5-8 locations requires helicopter access to the location and others are not

adjacent to all weather roadways, this statement, "...adjacent to Forest Service roads, where

there are no conflicting uses.", is not supported by the information provided.

1/3 ...potentially challenging conditions for tunnel design...by investigating groundwater

pressures, hydraulic conductivity, and adverse geology including faults."

All efforts appear to be focused on groundwater issues with only simple reference to "faults",

fractured, sheared, and shattered rocks, while two active fault zones cross all HSR

alignments/routes in/under/near the ANF. HSRA has prohibited underground runnel crossing of

the San Andreas Fault, while under the ANF. three tunnel alternatives cross either or both the

San Gabriel and Sierra Madre faults.

Many Federal, State, and even county references, guides, manuals, and standards are available

for use in development and implementation of a Geophysical/Geotechnical/Geohydrological

study, surveys, monitorings, and assessment. Some have been referenced but without specific

assignments of chapters and verses/paragraphs to support the generalized GI-Plan activities,

implementation, and reportings to the public and the USFS/ANF

AS EXAMPLES-

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/construction/hsr_13_06_b3_pte_sub5_geotechnical_baseli

ne_report_mf.pdf

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/eir_memos/Proj_Guidelines_TM2_9_1R01.pdf

FRA, High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, FRA Report

No. 293630-1, December 1998

FHWA, Subsurface Investigations – Geotechnical Site Characterization, NHI Course Manual

No. 132031, FHWA-NHI-01-031, 2002

FHWA, Evaluation of Soil and Rock Properties, Geotechnical Engineering Circular No. 5,

FHWA-IF-02-034, 2002

FHWA, Checklist and Guidelines for Review of Geotechnical Reports and Preliminary Plans and

Specifications, FHWA-ED-88-053, 1988, revised February 2003

FHWA (2003), Exhibit 3.2-F of the GTGM are some of the most common.

Geophysical Methods - Standards for geophysical methods-PDDM Section 6.3.2.3.2. FHWA

DTFH68-02-P- 00083 Geophysical Methods Technical Manual (2003). FHWA, Road Tunnel

Design Guidelines, FHWA-IF-05-023, 2004

FHWA, Geophysical Methods - Technical Manual (Application of Geophysical Methods to

Highway Related Problems, cooperatively with Blackhawk Geosciences), DTFH68- 02-P-00083,

2003

FHWA, Soils and Foundations Workshop, NHI Course No. 132012, Volumes I and II FHWA-

NHI-06-088, and FHWA-NHI-06-089, 2006

FHWA, Geotechnical Technical Guidance Manual (Draft), May 2007

FHWA, Project Development and Design Manual – Chapter 6 - Geotechnical, March 2008

NHI 132031 and USACE EM 1110-1-1802. Generally, geophysical methods

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/studies/idea/finalreports/highway/NCHRP107_Final

_Report.pdf magnetics, resistivity, conductance

Seismicity for the GI-Plan area http://service.scedc.caltech.edu/eq-catalogs/date_mag_loc.php

with 3000+ measurable events of -1 - +6 1932-date is available but not referenced in the GI-

Plan or the feasibility assessment.

The purposes and needs of the proposed activities

p.1/parg.2 ...conduct geophysical/geotechnical (GI) testing at several locations within the ANF.

...selected to investigate in-situ rock conditions and

to measure groundwater pressures along the proposed tunnel alternatives.

...needed to test site conditions in locations that lie in close proximity to the alternative

alignments proposed by the Authority.

...provide data to help evaluate potentially challenging conditions for tunnel design and

construction at depth within the ANF by investigating groundwater pressures, hydraulic

conductivity, and adverse geology, including faults, rock conditions, and squeezing ground.

...five are preferred for investigations to be completed during 2015 as a first step in

understanding the hydrogeological and geotechnical conditions at the tunnel depths within the

ANF.

The purposes/needs-goal/objectives, and scope of the study and the GI-Plan are confused as to

whether they include the feasibility studies or the geotechnical/geological/geophysical

information that will be used to develop the feasibility plan and recommendations as to the

alternatives. Similarly the scope seems to not reflect the entire alternatives and the studies that

will be conducted in the non-federal portions of the alternatives. Herein discussion of adverse

grounds and geophysics appear to be restricted to "fault zones" rather than a more open

geophysics scope of seismicity, ground movements, and other broader geophysical studies.

Basically the entire document(s) and reviews cannot be a factual and objective basis with regard

to the geophysical basis of feasibilities of the various alternative tunnel alignments. The enitre

project submittal and findings based thereon must be withdrawn and perhaps based on comments

from this initial effort be used to review and revise the documents, then recirculate the

documents and updated findings for public review and comments.

1/3 The GI Plan was prepared in general accordance with relevant CA HSR Technical

Memoranda. Additional guidelines provided by the Engineering Management Team (EMT) in

the Draft Protocol for Conducting Subsurface Investigation Programs (PB, 2014b)...incorporated

into the GI Plan.

General accordance does not relate any specific guidelines, requirements, standards, or manuals

regarding groundwater, rock properties, or seismicity to the proposed GI-Plan or its

undocumented components.

1/4 The small diameter core holes...under permits issued by the County of Los Angeles

Department of Public Health (County DPH), in accordance with Environmental Health, Bureau

of Environmental Protections, Drinking Water Program, Requirements for Well

Construction/Decommissioning.... according to County of Los Angeles and State of California

regulatory guidelines...accordance with the permitting agency, County DPH....(in accordance

with Department of Water Resources Bulletins 74-81 and 74-90, and...County DPH). The above

procedures and requirements...well established for these activities in the State of California and

have been successfully implemented for similar geophysical/geotechnical investigations.

As indicated herein the GI-Plan has been issued permits by other agencies without reference to

all agencies within the scopes of the three tunnel alternatives. Therefore the Federal portion

herein under review is a segment of a much larger an perhaps better defined and described than

herein. Although general, vague references to permit conditions, bulletins, codes, and well

established .procedures and requirements, the proposal and GI-Plan as provided to ANF does not

relate the activities and their implementation to specific governing sections of the referenced

document.

Therefore public comments cannot be developed and applied to such a generalized document and

the documents, proposal, and GI-Plan must be withdrawn, reviewed in light of comments,

revised as appropriate, and recirculated for meaningful review and comment by the public and

their specialists.

1/5 Included...estimates of vertical groundwater flow through the core hole,

estimates of areas of potential influence near the core holes, and

trigger points for drilling operations

to implement mitigation measures and potential need for grouting fractured zones before drilling

resumption.

The entire discussion of the drilling in basement formations for assessing groundwater appears to

have been written by a preparer with little experience in groundwater resources in crystalline

basement formation with little or no formation rock permeability - nanno-microdracy levels and

which depends largely on fracture permeability. Similarly the preparers appear to not appreciate

the steep topography of the tunnel alignments and the effects on fracture flows from recharge

areas passing through the boring locations to eventual discharge areas/points via the fracture

patterns.

Boring fluids may be lost to fractures encountered or may be diluted by rapid, high pressure

inflows from fracture conduits with 1000ft of hydrostatic head.

Therefore public comments cannot be developed and applied to such a generalized document and

the documents, proposal, and GI-Plan must be withdrawn, reviewed in light of comments,

revised as appropriate, and recirculated for meaningful review and comment by the public and

their specialists.

2/2 The information within this GI Plan supports the USFS requirements for conducting

geophysical investigations which use existing roads for

drilling core holes,

temperature gradient holes, or

seismic shot holes.

The preparer apparently may not be a geophysicist as the first survey systems should be airborne

along each of the three alternatives, then along any major linear features (e.g., faults and

formation contacts). Due to the sensitive character of a National Forest and monument all roads

must be surveyed by non-explosive/shot systems (e.g., "Thumper Trucks") along with magnetic,

electrical, an gravity systems. Percussion seismic survey must also be used in close coordination

with down-hole seismic sensors (capable of -1 - -3 RM) for maximum benefits.

Due to the absence of clarity and specificity with regard to the geophysical studies, their

development, and use in feasibility of three different alignments of the proposed 20-mile long

tunnel alternative, the current submitted "GI-Plan" must be revised and resubmitted along with

other current reviews and findings. Therefore public comments cannot be developed and applied

to such a generalized document and the documents, proposal, and GI-Plan must be withdrawn,

reviewed in light of comments, revised as appropriate, and recirculated for meaningful review

and comment by the public and their specialists.

2/4 The geophysical surveys and in-situ testing will be conducted...and are located at various

sites that lie on one of the alternatives ....

The GI-Plan does not specify the geophysical surveys and in-situ testing to be conducted and

therefore no meaningful comments can be made, nor findings/appropriateness can be judged

based on the available information.

The GI-Plan must include short- and long-term monitoring of low level (-1 - -3 RM) seismic

events with the area (5 mi radius of each of the 5-8 borings.

For surveys, the entire western area of the ANF/NM must be surveyed by LIDAR for potential

seismic movements from prior to the earliest boring, throughout the boring program, and for the

period up to initiation of construction in order to establish a background setting, natural

variations, and perhaps those induced by natural seismic events, and those from construction

activities.

Due to the absence of clarity and specificity with regard to the geophysical studies, their

development, and use in feasibility of three different alignments of the proposed 20-mile long

tunnel alternative, the current submitted "GI-Plan" must be revised and resubmitted along with

other current reviews and findings. Therefore public comments cannot be developed and applied

to such a generalized document and the documents, proposal, and GI-Plan must be withdrawn,

reviewed in light of comments, revised as appropriate, and recirculated for meaningful review

and comment by the public and their specialists.

2/5 The eight core hole sites have been selected to investigate in-situ rock conditions and to

measure groundwater pressures and temperature gradient....geophysical/core hole sites have been

selected, generally, along roads intersecting the potential tunnel alternatives for this preliminary

evaluation.... Locations include areas of highest overburden at the crest of the San Gabriel

Mountains...in areas of previously mapped faults. From the eight sites, five preferred locations

are identified for the field investigation involving geophysical surveying and testing in drilled

core holes.

3/2 "...expressly allowed to be categorically excluded under NEPA and is not prohibited."

As indicated elsewhere the "Proposal"/"Project" may be simple geotechnical investigation

activities or it may be a "feasibility study". It is not clear as to whether other bores will be drilled

under county or municipal jurisdictions outside of the ANF segment but as part of the same

program. Absence of a clear comprehensive total "project" definition and description renders the

above statement questionable.

Given that a NEPA Environmental Assessment has been prepared for Ranger Peak

Telecommunications Project (Cell-Towers) in the San Jacinto Ranger District, San Bernardino

National Forest Riverside County, California (2009;

http://a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai.com/11558/www/ne

pa/43095_FSPLT1_016493.pdf) and that the confusion and controversy surround this

Geophysical/Geotechnical Investigation warrant the preparation of an Environmental

Assessment for the "Proposal"/"Project".

3-3/3 3.3.7 Geology, Soils, Seismicity,...Resources...risks of seismic activities and potential of

construction activities associated with the Project to trigger earthquakes near known active

faults...about tunnel stability...near active fault zones and routes crossing several active fault

zones,...concern about soil compaction and subsidence.

The GI-Plan must provide for an assessment of the seismic activities -past, current and short-

term future until construction is complete. Such an assessment must include geographical/depth

coordination with know fault planes and surface locations.

4/4 The San Gabriel (SG) Mountains...bounded on the north and south by the Mojave Desert

and San Fernando Valley [and San Gabriel Valley], respectively. The project site is within the

western part of the SG Mountains [western end of SG Mountains bounded only by the San

Fernando Valley and Verdugo Hills and Valley - Altadena-Pacoima].

The general discussion of the regional features demonstrates that the preparers aree not familar

with the geographical context of the project and therefore the geology, stratigraphy, structure,

and tecctonic contexts of the project.

11/1 For the preliminary evaluation...key issues of this investigation are the hydrogeological

and rock mass conditions deep below the ground surface....potential hydraulic head at the tunnel

elevation will exert force on the tunnel lining and on gaskets between lining segments affecting

lining thickness, gasket design, and groundwater flow control....long-term preservation of

groundwater resources...for the tunnel design and construction.

Rock mass conditions will also govern the rate of tunnel advancement, the method of tunneling,

and the temporary and final engineered support system. Rock loads and squeezing ground will

influence tunnel lining design and thickness.

Tunnel displacements at an active fault intersection will require planning and special design of

lining systems for timely repair of the tunnel lining and realignment of the HSR track.

Previous design approaches have been stated that no active fault crossings would be made

underground and the northern end of this HSR segment is displaced to avoid underground

crossing of the San Andreas Fault. No mention is made of this approach and its impacts upon the

crossing of the San Gabriel and perhaps the Sierra Madre Faults within the ANF area.

12/4 The above procedures and requirements are well established for these activities in the State

of California and have been successfully implemented for similar geophysical/geotechnical

investigations.

No references for similar studies in ANF or other federal forests or monuments.

16/1 E1-B1 Preferred 2,515ft On Road, 100ft east of Tunnel Route E1 ...core

hole...vertically to the depth of the tunnel to evaluate rock conditions, conduct geophysical

surveys, and measure in-situ water pressures....encounter medium to very coarse grained

anorthosite and granite pegmatite and...diorite, norite and/or gabbro....sheared, shattered

(fractured) and brecciated anorthosite and gabbro...may also be encountered at depth in the core

hole.

Provide basis for selection of near rather than on the road over the Route

Provide details as to how in-situ water pressure will be measured and add water sampling and/or

water quality monitoring along with pressure for four-plus months

Provide for continuing deep bore water pressure monitoring at Route depth.

Provide sources of reported "sheared, shattered (fractured) and brecciated" basement.

Clarify technical differences between jointed, fractured, sheared, scattered, and brecciated rocks.

17/1 E1-B2 Preferred 880ft On Road, <100ft NW to Route ...core hole...inclined

approximately 60 degrees to the northeast to intersect a northern trace of the San Gabriel

fault...estimate a depth of the core hole, detailed geologic mapping would need to be completed

in advance of confirming the surface location of targeted fault trace...encounter predominantly

granodiorite...Quartz Diorite, Lowe Granodiorite, and Wilson Diorite....mostly

massive...gneissoid rock near contacts with older rocks...inclusions and pendants of gneiss and

Placerita metasediments.

Provide basis for selection of near rather than on the road over the Route without slant drilling.

Provide the or a name for the "northern trace" of the SG Fault.

Provide a detailed fault map of all known faults and any recognized trace or branch of all

known/reported faults along the routes within the Angeles National Forest.

Provide similar water pressure and quality measurements and monitoring as in E1-B1 and details

as to how in-situ water pressure will be measured and add water sampling and/or water quality

monitoring along with pressure for four-plus months.

Provide basis for locating surface and Route depth fault plane interpretations/projections.

CHSRA has indicated that the rail route will cross all active fault on the surface and not in

tunnel; provide basis for passing the San Gabriel Fault below ground and the San Andreas above

ground in all alternatives south of Palmdale and north of Acton.

Provide search through http://scedc.caltech.edu/ and review of all recorded seisms within two

times the deepest depths of proposed bore holes and their locations (i.e., 2 x 2790 = 5580 feet

radius of each bore location).

Provide fault lines within 5.2 miles (10 x depth) of the San Fernando Earthquake Magnitude: 6.6,

Date: Feb. 9, 1971, Time: 6:01am, Depth: 8.4 km, Location: Lat. 34.411467 x Long. -

118.400473 and all recorded seisms with 5580 of known traces of San Gabriel and Sierra Madre

Faults Type of Faulting, Surface Rupture Age, Dip:, Jennings (1994); Hart and others (1988);

Slip Rate: Petersen and Wesnousky (1994); Jennings, Charles W. (1994). Fault Activity Map of

California and Adjacent Areas with Location and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions. California

Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6. California Division of Mines and Geology.

18/1 E1-B3 Preferred 965ft depth 400ft NW of Route, on Road The site would require

brush clearance and minor grading...encounter predominantly granodiorite that may include

Quartz Diorite, Lowe Granodiorite, and Wilson Diorite...mostly massive,...gneissoid rock near

contacts with older rocks and to see inclusions and pendants of gneiss and Placerita

metasediments....inclined approximately 60 degrees to the northeast to intersect a southern trace

of the San Gabriel fault (De Mille fault) for in-situ testing and instrumentation...confirming the

targeted fault traces with respect to core hole location. Within the San Gabriel fault zone, dark

Diorite gneiss including metadiorite, massive hornblende diorite and amphibolite and biotite

schist...

Provide basis for selection of the road 600ft from a road location over the Route without slant

drilling.

Provide details as to "in-situ testing and instrumentation" includes.








tunnel; provide basis for passing the San Gabriel Fault below ground and the San Andreas Fault

above ground in all alternatives south of Palmdale and north of Acton.

16/1 E1-B1 Preferred 2,515ft On Road, 100ft east of Tunnel Route E1 ...core

hole...vertically to the depth of the tunnel to evaluate rock conditions, conduct geophysical

surveys, and measure in-situ water pressures....encounter medium to very coarse grained

anorthosite and granite pegmatite and...diorite, norite and/or gabbro....sheared, shattered

(fractured) and brecciated anorthosite and gabbro...may also be encountered at depth in the core

hole.

Provide basis for selection of near rather than on the road over the Route

Provide details as to how in-situ water pressure will be measured and add water sampling and/or

water quality monitoring along with pressure for four-plus months

Provide for continuing deep bore water pressure monitoring at Route depth.

Provide sources of reported "sheared, shattered (fractured) and brecciated" basement.

Clarify technical differences between jointed, fractured, sheared, scattered, and brecciated rocks.

17/1 E1-B2 Preferred 880ft On Road, <100ft NW to Route ...core hole...inclined

approximately 60 degrees to the northeast to intersect a northern trace of the San Gabriel

fault...estimate a depth of the core hole, detailed geologic mapping would need to be completed

in advance of confirming the surface location of targeted fault trace...encounter predominantly

granodiorite...Quartz Diorite, Lowe Granodiorite, and Wilson Diorite....mostly

massive...gneissoid rock near contacts with older rocks...inclusions and pendants of gneiss and

Placerita metasediments.

Provide basis for selection of near rather than on the road over the Route without slant drilling.

Provide the or a name for the "northern trace" of the SG Fault.










Provide search through http://scedc.caltech.edu/ and review of all recorded seisms within two

times the deepest depths of proposed bore holes and their locations (i.e., 2 x 2790 = 5580 feet

radius of each bore location).

Provide fault lines within 5.2 miles (10 x depth) of the San Fernando Earthquake Magnitude: 6.6,

Date: Feb. 9, 1971, Time: 6:01am, Depth: 8.4 km, Location: Lat. 34.411467 x Long. -

118.400473 and all recorded seisms with 5580 of known traces of San Gabriel and Sierra Madre

Faults Type of Faulting, Surface Rupture Age, Dip:, Jennings (1994); Hart and others (1988);

Slip Rate: Petersen and Wesnousky (1994); Jennings, Charles W. (1994). Fault Activity Map of

California and Adjacent Areas with Location and Ages of Recent Volcanic Eruptions. California

Geologic Data Map Series, Map No. 6. California Division of Mines and Geology.

18/1 E1-B3 Preferred 965ft depth 400ft NW of Route, on Road The site would require

brush clearance and minor grading...encounter predominantly granodiorite that may include

Quartz Diorite, Lowe Granodiorite, and Wilson Diorite...mostly massive,...gneissoid rock near

contacts with older rocks and to see inclusions and pendants of gneiss and Placerita

metasediments....inclined approximately 60 degrees to the northeast to intersect a southern trace

of the San Gabriel fault (De Mille fault) for in-situ testing and instrumentation...confirming the

targeted fault traces with respect to core hole location. Within the San Gabriel fault zone, dark

Diorite gneiss including metadiorite, massive hornblende diorite and amphibolite and biotite

schist...

Provide basis for selection of the road 600ft from a road location over the Route without slant

drilling.

Provide details as to "in-situ testing and instrumentation" includes.








tunnel; provide basis for passing the San Gabriel Fault below ground and the San Andreas Fault

above ground in all alternatives south of Palmdale and north of Acton.

19/1 E3-B2 Preferred 2,550ft 1100ft ESE of Road/Route site, Road ...site is located

approximately 975 feet southeast of the E3a/E3b Alternative Alignment....core hole will be

drilled vertically...evaluate rock conditions, conduct geophysical surveys, and measure in-situ

water pressures....encounter...syenite, a massive dark, augite to augite quartz syenite.

Provide basis for selection of the Road location 1000ft ESE from a road location over the Route

without slant drilling.

Provide a basis for discussion of E3a/E3b, rather than just E3, which are coincident throughout

most of the ANF

Provide details as to any geophysical or geotechnical sampling, measurements, testing, or

instrumentation" to be included for this bore.

20/1 FS-B1 Preferred 1,000 ft 600ft NW of Road Not on Route ...FS-B1...investigate a

fault/shear zone [unnamed?]...located between the E2 [Mid Route] and E3 [East Route]

Alternative Alignments and intersects these alternatives....faulted contact of the syenite, a

massive dark, augite to augite quartz syenite...weathers to a reddish colored rock...against

anorthosite, a light-colored feldspar rich rock...inclined...60 degrees to the northwest to intersect

the Transmission Line fault separating the anorthosite from syenite rock and would be used for

in-situ testing, groundwater pressure measurements, rock quality, and instrumentation. The

purpose...measure the width of shearing associated with the fault...evaluate the rock quality and

hydrogeologic conditions in association with the fault at depth.

Provide basis for selection of the Road location 1000ft from a road location over the Route


Provide details as to any geophysical or geotechnical sampling, measurements, testing, or

instrumentation" to be included for this bore.







21/1 E2-B1 Alternate [E1-B1] 2,515ft On Road - 700ft ENE of Road/Route crossing 400ft

SW of E2a/E2b Route The road is unpaved...near the proposed location...relatively flat area

south of and adjacent to the road...leveled by grading equipment...drilled vertically to the depth

of the tunnel...evaluate rock conditions, conduct geophysical surveys, and measure in-situ water

pressures....generally characterize the anorthosite bedrock and groundwater

conditions...encounter medium- to very coarse- grained anorthosite and granite pegmatite

and...diorite, norite and/or gabbro.

21/1 San Gabriel Mountains surface exposures of the anorthosite and gabbro are shattered and

brecciated, and likely host groundwater at the tunnel depth.

Provide basis for selection of the location 700ft from a road location over the Route with

proposed location with vertical drilling 400ft from the Route.

Provide details and basis for different GI activities for different bore holes and locations as to

"geophysical surveys", "in-situ testing and instrumentation", and "measure in-situ water

pressures". Recommend providing single table for all bores and all testing, measurements,

monitoring, etc. for geophysical and geotechnical properties at the Route depths and locations.



monitoring along with pressure for four-plus months

Provide basis for surface basement exposure of shattered and brecciated rock being the sources

of groundwater at 2500+ft below the surface, requiring direct vertical migration.

Provide fault analyses regarding presence of shattered and brecciated surface basement and lack

of associated fault zones in the area.

Provide a detailed brecciated/shattered surface map and any recognized fault trace or branch of

all known/reported faults along the routes within the Angeles National Forest.

22/1 E2-B3 Alternate [E1-B3] 200ft depth Road 1000ft NE of Route 400ft SE of

Route ...within the San Gabriel Fault Zone east of Little Tujunga Canyon Road [Gold Creek

Road]....inclined...60 degrees to the northeast [parallel to Route] to intersect another trace of the

San Gabriel fault, the De Mille fault....investigate the same major fault traces of the San Gabriel

fault, the De Mille fault, ...trends...northwest from E2-B3....characterize fault traces separating

granitic rock and granodioritic (quartz diorite) rocks and sedimentary rock and metamorphic rock

along the fault trace that intersects the E2a and E2b Alternative Alignments.... In order to

estimate a specific depth of the core hole,...may require brush clearing to expand the work area

on the northern shoulder of the road....encounter granitic and dioritic gneiss.

Provide basis for selection of the Road location 1000ft from a road location over the Route


Provide details as to any geophysical or geotechnical surveys, sampling, measurements, testing,

or instrumentation" to be included for this bore.







23/1 E3-B1 Alternate [E3-B2] 2,790 500ft NWN of Road, Ridgetop; 800 ft N of

Road along Route ...ridgetop fuel break...accessed via helicopter and by foot traffic...drilled

vertically...evaluate rock conditions, conduct geophysical surveys, and measure in-situ water

pressures....encounter predominantly syenite, a massive dark, augite to augite quartz

syenite...weathers to a reddish colored rock and soil at the ground surface.

Provide basis for selection of the Road location 800ft from a road location over the Route also

with vertical drilling.

Provide details as to any geophysical or geotechnical surveys, sampling, measurements, testing,

or instrumentation" to be included for this bore.

Provide basis for discussion of weathering phenomena and soils on the surface when route is

2790ft beneath the surface features.

23/3 Upon completion of drilling activities, drill sites will be rehabilitated to pre-exploration

condition,

in accordance with the USFS Special Use Permit requirements.

As no permit requirements are provided, provide current/draft permit requirements.

All drill site must have video documentation of pre-drilling conditions and then verified by post-

project restored conditions, available to the public

Provide webpage for all information to be posted within one week of activities.

24/4 We anticipate that difficult drilling conditions may be encountered, because of proximity

to faults and descriptions of rock being shattered and sheared in outcrops at the ground surface.

Clarify definitions and use consistently geological terms of fractures, faults, joints, brecciated,

scattered, and sheared basis for their specific use. Most basement rocks on the surface are

jointed without being sheared fractures, whereas at depths of 2000ft are not jointed unless

exposed to ambient surface conditions which cause jointing as a relief to internal stresses of

more than 1000psi.

24/4 We anticipate that drilling rates may average between 30 to 80 feet per day [2-30 days]...

Drilling rates are poor estimates of site disturbances, and schedules must be clear and estimated

consistently, although subject to changes. Provide an estimated duration of major activities for

each well:

Clearing and Setup,

Rigging Up and Connections,

Drilling/Coring,

Testing/Surveys/Sampling,

Plugging,

Rigging Down and Disassembly, and

Site Clearing, Recovery, and Landscaping.

26/3 These conditions have been successfully assessed and mitigated in similar GIs for other

projects in southern California and beyond, including deep core holes within National Forest

Lands. The drilling methods described have been used on many southern California projects

successfully for geotechnical investigations without recognized impacts to groundwater systems.

Some example tunnel projects with geotechnical coring as the means of exploration are listed

below. These projects include core holes with depths ranging from several hundred feet to as

deep as 2,500 feet all encountering groundwater in fractured bedrock environs.

Provide publicly accessible and web links for all referenced claims.

Provide listing and links of all projects to greater than 1000ft depth that did not encounter

"groundwater in fractured bedrock environs.

P.33

32-37/ Figures PRELIMINARY DRAFT/SUBJECT TO CHANGE - HSR ALIGNMENT IS

NOT DETERMINED

Source: CHSR, 2015; ICF, 2015; Kleinfelder, 2015; NWI, 2015; USFWS, 2015

p.32-pdf37 Map 1 of 4 Boring Hole Areas of Influence Overview August 21, 2015

Figure 13 Core Hole Areas of Influence Overview

p.33-pdf38 Map 2 of 4 Figure 14 Core Hole Areas of Influence Overview August 21, 2015



Provide inset overall area location map for Maps 1-4.

Provide revised maps with current alternative routes and all known surface and subsurface faults

and traces.

Reference to "Kleinfelder, 2015" is totally inadequate and incomplete as the reference is totally

incomplete and not supported by any web-links, bibliography, or list of reference for complete

citations

37/3 Procedures specified in standard ASTM D7400 will be utilized for measuring the seismic

velocity of the upper 100-200 feet of the borehole....record seismic wave arrivals from both

compressional (P) and shear (S)-wave energy sources at the ground surface near the borehole.

The P and S waves will be generated using a hammer or air gun, and shear beam,

respectively....logged to a maximum depth of energy source detection at 5 and 10-foot intervals.

For depths deeper than 100-200 feet, the suspension P-S velocity logging method developed by

the OYO Corporation of Japan will be utilized. This method involves lowering a 7-meter [23ft]

probe, containing an energy source and two receivers spaced 3.28 ft] 1 meter apart, into the

borehole to specified depths. The probe’s source generates a pressure wave in the borehole fluid.

The pressure wave is converted to P and S waves at the borehole wall. Along the wall at each

receiver location, the P and S waves are converted back to pressure waves in the fluid and

received by the geophones, which transmits the data to the recorder on the surface.

No mention of seismic monitoring during the temporal span of the study

39/7 In Situ Groundwater Sampling Groundwater samples...collected at depth intervals

selected...both random and where drilling indicates potentially higher hydraulic

conductivity...isolated at the bottom of the core hole...

Since...additives introduced for drilling purposes will be mixed with native groundwater

samples, a Quality Control...collected from each of the isolated sampling zones...to differentiate

its chemistry from that of the native groundwater.

Samples...collected in accordance with protocols established by the USGS National Water-

Quality Assessment Program (Koterba et al., 1995)...Field testing of indicator

parameters...and...samples ...transported to a laboratory for analytical testing.

No method of selection has been provided for testing intervals.

"Random" is a statistically quantifiable parameter based on some parameter (e.g., foot depth, foot

above bottom...). Provide quantified basis for selected and random intervals or depths for testing.

No quality control program for drilling, testing, sampling, or monitoring has been referenced or

provided or linkages given; provide a quality control program consistent with ISO 9000.

No sampling protocol is provided and general reference to "Koterba" is inadequate for field

conduct.

40/1 The analyses (field and laboratory) of the groundwater samples will include a suite of

water chemistry constituents similar to current parameter list being tested in the project

area...(Davis and Shelton, 2014). ...allow for a comparison of...the GAMA Program (i.e. baseline

conditions), with the conditions during core drilling.

Preliminary field testing of the groundwater on SITE...a few indicator parameters, such as, pH,

dissolved oxygen [REDOX], temperature, specific conductance, field alkalinity and bicarbonate

[vapor/gas-sampling - CO2, H2S, and radon]. The laboratory analyses...include indicator

parameters (e.g., pH, specific conductance, alkalinity, etc.), organic constituents (e.g., VOCs

TPHs, and pesticides [??]), inorganic constituents (e.g., trace elements, nutrients, major and

minor ions, silica, total dissolved solids, arsenic, chromium, and iron), perchlorate, isotope

tracers (of hydrogen, oxygen, boron, strontium, carbon-14 and tritium), and radioactive

constituents (i.e., helium, radon, uranium-234, -235, and -238).

Use of "such as" or "e.g." are meaningless rather than specific references to Appendices with a

full list of parameters to be sampled, monitored, and tested. Also change all "e.g." usage to

"i.e.," for clarity or references to Appendix tables.

"Major and minor ions" could include a very wide array of chemicals and the statement is

meaningless. Provide specific references to Appendices with a full list of specific parameters to

be sampled, monitored, and tested.

Confusing structure, rather than stating "e.g.", this sentence structure requires specific testing for

all listed isotopes but only if they are "isotope tracers", introduced during the project rather than

being "trace isotopes".

40/4 Although the method...throughout the international tunneling industry to depths...5,000

feet or more,...success rate is greatest at depths less than 800 feet.

No reference is provided and thereby renders the statement totally incomplete and inadequate.

Provide references, summary of usage, and review of "success rates" for <800ft compared tor

those of 900-1800 and 1900-2800ft.

43/2 3.9 Water Pressure Measurement In-situ water pressures...measured at depth using

vibrating wire (VW) pressure transducers...(approximately five)...at selected depths....grouted-in-

installation method of permanent installation summarized by McKenna (1995)

and...44/1...Mikkelsen (2002)....part of the core hole abandonment process...approximately two

to three weeks after the drilling is completed.

NO schedule of drilling and testing is specifically provided in draft or planning levels; provide

an initial, or draft, or tentative schedule of all bore-related activities for individual AND overall

program of all boreholes.

44/2 The pressure transducers...positioned in the hole at selected depths,...instrument string will

be grouted into place with...grout mix....in Appendix D. The grout mix ratio will consist

of...Portland Cement,...Quick-Gel bentonite and...water...McKenna (1995).

The only meaningful figure in Appendix D only show a bore of 94ft depth, although identified as

101ft, and two sensors. No mention is made of other boreholes and methods of sensor depths or

numbers selection. Provide methods of selection of numbers and depths of sensors for currently

preferred boreholes and draft/preliminary table of sensors for all boreholes.

44/3 Pressure transducers (vibrating wire) will be installed beginning with the deepest interval

of each core hole...(pressure range from 7.5 to 1.0 megapascal (Mpa) [psi is more publicly

accessible >1000psi...]. Each pressure transducer will be installed separately at a designated

elevation. Intervals between pressure transducers will vary between 250 to 500 feet. The drilling

subcontractor will install separate pressure transducers, each with its dedicated electric cable

connection to the surface. Cables will be supported by a strain release wire to withstand the

weight of the cable (in excess of 1,000 to 2,600 feet length).

Metric dimension values are not consistent with American standard dimensions and must be

consistent with public usage and knowledge; change megapascals to psi.

Ranges are usually given from lesser to higher values (1.0-7.5) rather than 7.5 to 1.0.

Review/revise and confirm values and depths currently provided in text:

1.0 150psi = >350ft 7.5 1100psi = >2500ft

45/5 The abandonment procedures...core holes immediately following completion of drilling,

in-situ testing, and geophysical surveys....depending on total depth, that the duration of drilling

will last...two to sixteen weeks followed by a week of testing and geophysical surveys. Core hole

abandonment...one to two days after completion of core hole geophysical surveys.

No preliminary schedule is provided for the "project" and its phases. Provide draft work-

breakdown-structure and schedule for project, e.g.,

Setup ??? 7??

Drilling 2-16 weeks 112d

In-situ Testing & 1 week 7

Geophysical Surveys included??

Abandonment <1 week 2d

Surface installations ???

45/6 3.11 Groundwater Data Monitoring Groundwater monitoring...establish...connectivity

within the groundwater system, seasonal variations (i.e. rainy season, prolonged drought,

withdrawal from local wells etc.) and responses of the groundwater system within the

mountains...

Monitoring of seasonal groundwater levels/pressure requires at least four seasonal cycles to be

meaningful.

Other Specific Comments:

File Code: 2710, Letter, 09/08/2015, J. Vail, Response to written proposal

1/1 "...determine the feasibility of several tunnel alignment alternatives..."

1/2 "This Proposal is only for this feasibility study..."

1/6 "...determine the feasibility of the proposed project or activity..."

2/1 "...determine feasibility of the Project." [=Proposal]

2/6 "...to determine the feasibility of tunneling a high speed rail under the ANF."

Proposed "Geotechnical Investigation" (GI) activities are to develop information which will be

used by HSRA to assess feasibility, but these investigations do not determine feasibility.

3/3

Still looking for reference and citation without a link renders statement unsubstantiated and not

in compliance with NEPA and public accessibility. Unclear as to ANF or San Bernardino

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP).

3/4 Statement above clearly indicates that the information is part of the feasibility

considerations of tunneling but confuses the reader. All discussions regarding "feasibility"

should be removed and the GI must be represented as only geological information gathering for

HSR engineering and planning. Persistent focus on groundwater does not reflect the stated

efforts for the rocks, their fractures, and their potential movements and the "adverse effects" on

the tunnels, their activities, and potential "surface expressions", e.g., seismic sinkholes.

4/2

No risk assessment/analysis is provided to establish the level of risks, especially as the item is

unclear as to whether there are 5-8 borings or 5 preferred and 3 alternatives to the preferred

borings.

No listing or references of "routinely performed" borings has been provided to support the

statement regarding "...not pose a risk to public safety."

No boring depths or rig setup areas information is provided for supporting the statement "deeper

than usual" nor "no different than for shallower, more commonly drilled borings." Rigs are

different for 25ft vs 2500ft, especially for coring and mud circulation systems.

Drilling for water wells is different from drilling/coring for deep hard-rock cores.

5/1

Statement clearly indicates that the information will "help" in the feasibility considerations of

tunneling but confuses the reader. All discussions regarding "feasibility" should be removed and

the GI must be represented as only geological information gathering for HSR engineering and

planning.

5/2

Statement clearly indicates that the information will "help" in the feasibility considerations of

tunneling but confuses the reader. All discussions regarding "feasibility" should be removed and

the GI must be represented as only geological information gathering for HSR engineering and

planning.

5/4

Statement clearly states, erroneously, that the "Proposal" (="Project") is for a feasibility study

and the feasibility of tunneling a railroad alignment but confuses the readers/reviewers. All

discussions regarding "feasibility" should be removed and the GI must be represented as only

geological information gathering for HSR engineering and planning.

File Code: 2710, Letter, 09/18/2015, J. Vail, Response to application for a special use permit

1/1

This G/GI will not determine the feasibility of construction and not the long-term operations of

underground crossing of faults, presence in seismic active areas, and presence of high pressure

and perhaps aggressive groundwater resources.

1/2

1/3

Although I have submitted comments for previous alternatives and scoping regarding the

Palmdale-Burbank segment of CHSR, I did NOT receive hard-/digital-copy of the scoping letter.

As the USFS has indicated but not clearly stated that the USFS considers the current proposed

activities only requires issuing a "Categorical Exemption" and therefore is NOT a request for

comments for scoping of an environmental assessment or Environmental Impact Statement.

1.3

No indication has been provided as to whether other agencies beyond the ANF have received

similar related applications for proposed drilling in municipal or town areas for tunnel

alignments. The CHSRA has not provided a comprehensive drilling program, only for that

within the ANF and therefore appears to be segmenting the GI activities.

1.3

For county jurisdiction, the CHSRA must gain drilling permits from the County of Los Angeles,

Department of Public Works, not just the Health Department with regard to groundwater.

No indication has been provided as to whether other County agencies beyond the ANF have

received similar related applications for proposed drilling in unincorporated areas for tunnel



For State jurisdiction, the CHSRA must notify and gain permits from the State Regional Water

Quality Control District for both drilling and extracting/injecting fluids into the groundwater

table which has local jurisdiction with regard to groundwater.

No indication has been provided as to whether other agencies beyond the ANF have received

similar related applications for proposed drilling in groundwater resources along the tunnel



General Comments

HSRA restricts passage of tunnels through the SA fault zone but allows tunnels in all three major

alternative routes to pass through the San Gabriel and Sierra Madre fault zones without

restrictions or comments. GI efforts in fact are directed to documenting geological and

geotechnical conditions of the fault zones without comment on background seismic activities.

Provide the technical basis and comparisons for discriminating between tunnels through the San

Andreas fault zone, north of Acton and south of Palmdale (shown in Figure....), and those

through the San Gabriel and Sierra Madre fault zones of the ANF and boundaries.

Provide comparisons of HSRA, Caltrans, and LACoMTA policies for tunnels passing through

known faults and any prohibitions, restrictions, and/or special requirements.

Provide a forecasted slippage under the expected 1/100yr seismic event along the known faults in

the western ANF and the expected depth of tunnels penetrating the known faults along the

alternative routes.

Provide all map figures with best known traces of all known faults, active, inactive, ancient, and

reported.

Provide a map of all reported seismic events with 25 miles of the tunnel routes and faults within

the ANF.

Develop and include a seismic monitoring station network for -3 to 0.0, 0.1 to 2.0, and 2.1 to 4.0

richter magnitude (RM, or suitable alternative classifications) for the tunnel routes and the

general western ANF area, during the period from commencement of GI activities through the

selection of the preferred alternative and up to commencement of tunneling through any portion

of the ANF. Include installation of downhole-sensors for seismic events of <0.0 RM. Integrate

ANF with existing systems in Southern California.

Provide an integration early warning system for stress/strain buildup, ground-surface changes,

and pre-major event seismic tremors - Seismic Fore-Warning System.

1/2 ...conduct geophysical/geotechnical (GI) testing at several locations within the ANF.

...selected to investigate in-situ rock conditions and to measure groundwater pressures along the

proposed tunnel alternatives.

...needed to test site conditions in locations that lie in close proximity to the alternative

alignments proposed by the Authority.

...provide data to help evaluate potentially challenging conditions for tunnel design and

construction at depth within the ANF by investigating groundwater pressures, hydraulic

conductivity, and adverse geology, including faults, rock conditions, and squeezing ground.

...five are preferred for investigations to be completed during 2015 as a first step in

understanding the hydrogeological and geotechnical conditions at the tunnel depths within the

ANF.

Proponent does not appear to be familiar with groundwater resources in crystalline-igneous-

metamorphic formations, elevation-driven fracture-flows, topographic/hydrostatic influences,

and importance of fracture patterns.

Proponent must provide inventory of groundwater recharge, movement, and discharge systems

and related to areas, runoffs, elevations, and capacities for each of the tunnel alignments and then

integrate tunnels and boring locations in order to understand their context and prospective

impacts of borings and tunneling.

1/3 The GI Plan was prepared in general accordance with relevant CA HSR Technical

Memoranda. Additional guidelines provided by the Engineering Management Team (EMT) in

the Draft Protocol for Conducting Subsurface Investigation Programs (PB, 2014b)...incorporated

into the GI Plan.

1/4 ...core holes will be drilled and abandoned under permits issued by the County of Los

Angeles Department of Public Health (County DPH),...Environmental Health, Bureau of

Environmental Protections, Drinking Water Program, Requirements for Well Construction/

Decommissioning....abandoned according to County of Los Angeles and State of California

regulatory guidelines...in accordance with the permitting agency, County DPH....abandonment

procedure includes grouting...closed with a cement-bentonite grout mixture to close off hydraulic

communication between different levels...in accordance with Department of Water Resources

Bulletins 74-81 and 74-90, and...County DPH). The above procedures and requirements are well

established...and have been successfully implemented for similar geophysical/geotechnical

investigations.

No documentation of the statements is provided via specific references and on-line links within

the supporting documents and linkages from the GI Plan to the references and protocols.

1/5 Included...estimates of vertical groundwater flow through the core hole,...estimates of areas

of potential influence near the core holes, and trigger points for drilling operations to implement

mitigation measures and potential need for grouting fractured zones before drilling resumption.

Proponent does not appear to be familiar with groundwater resources in crystalline-igneous-

metamorphic formations, elevation-driven fracture-flows, topographic/hydrostatic influences,

and importance of fracture patterns and how unlimited mud and grouting losses could strongly

impact affected fractures and their flows..

Proponent must provide inventory of groundwater recharge, movement, and discharge systems

and related to areas, runoffs, elevations, and capacities for each of the tunnel alignments and then

integrate tunnels and boring locations in order to understand their context and prospective

impacts of borings and tunneling.

2/2 The information within this GI Plan supports the USFS requirements for conducting

geophysical investigations which use existing roads for drilling core holes, temperature gradient

holes, or seismic shot holes.

The GI Plan does not include any specific geophysical surveying programs for the borings during

and after the boring of the holes; surface or aerial geophysical surveys are NOT proposed even

though faults, ground/tunnel movement, and seismic shocks are pivotal to design, construction,

and operational emergencies

Surface 3-D seismic surveys can be used with low strength "shot" sources - thumper trucks.

The GI-Plan must install longer term micro-low level seismic (-3 - +2RM) sensors in boreholes

and record natural responses and these sensors can be integrated with 3-D surface seismic

surveying.

The GI-Plan must incorporate existing seismic records (1932-Date), those from surveying, and

those recorded during the progress of the GI-Plan into a 3-D map/section with all seismic events

related to specific fault planes.

2/4 The geophysical surveys and in-situ testing will be conducted within core holes drilled to the

approximate depth below ground surface of the potential tunnel alternatives estimated to range in

depth from approximately 200 to 2,790 feet below ground surface (bgs) and are located at

various sites that lie on one of the alternatives ....

Specific information or tables are NOT provided as to what geophysical surveys, testing, sensors,

and monitoring therefore the statement is meaningless. Revise GI-Plan and add seismic

monitoring within each boring (down to -3 RM) throughout the boring phase and following until

the Alternative is selected and approved. The monitoring system can then be used in conjunction

with surface seismic surveys throughout the ANF.

2/5 The eight core hole sites have been selected...Based on these criteria, geophysical/core hole

sites have been selected, generally, along roads intersecting the potential tunnel alternatives for

this preliminary evaluation. Locations include areas of highest overburden at the crest of the San

Gabriel Mountains along the alternatives within the ANF and in areas of previously mapped

faults. From the eight sites, five preferred locations are identified for the field investigation

involving geophysical surveying and testing in drilled core holes.

This assumes that eight borings will be conducted and misrepresents the remainder of the public

documents and confuses the public with regard to "preferred" and "alternative" designations and

their meanings.

Out of eight, only five sites (or locations) are along "roads" without defining the "roads"

No parameters nor criteria have been provided for selection of geophysical uses and monitoring

of the borings.

11/1 For the preliminary evaluation...key issues of this investigation are the hydrogeological

and rock mass conditions deep below the ground surface....potential hydraulic head at the tunnel

elevation will exert force on the tunnel lining and on gaskets between lining segments affecting

lining thickness, gasket design, and groundwater flow control....long-term preservation of

groundwater resources...for the tunnel design and construction.

Rock mass conditions will also govern the rate of tunnel advancement, the method of tunneling,

and the temporary and final engineered support system. Rock loads and squeezing ground will

influence tunnel lining design and thickness.

Tunnel displacements at an active fault intersection will require planning and special design of

lining systems for timely repair of the tunnel lining and realignment of the HSR track.

Previous design approaches have been stated that no active fault crossings would be made

underground and the northern end of this HSR segment is displaced to avoid underground

crossing of the San Andreas Fault. No mention is made of this approach and its impacts upon the

crossing of the San Gabriel and perhaps the Sierra Madre Faults within the ANF area.

12/4 The above procedures and requirements are well established for these activities in the State

of California and have been successfully implemented for similar geophysical/geotechnical

investigations.

No reference for similar studies in ANF or other federal forests or monuments.

40/4 Although the method...throughout the international tunneling industry to depths...5,000

feet or more,...success rate is greatest at depths less than 800 feet.

No reference is provided and thereby renders the statement totally incomplete and inadequate.

Provide references, summary of usage, and review of "success rates" for <800ft compared tor

those of 900-1800 and 1900-2800ft.

43/2 3.9 Water Pressure Measurement In-situ water pressures...measured at depth using

vibrating wire (VW) pressure transducers...(approximately five)...at selected depths....grouted-in-

installation method of permanent installation summarized by McKenna (1995)

and...44/1...Mikkelsen (2002)....part of the core hole abandonment process...approximately two

to three weeks after the drilling is completed.

NO schedule of drilling and testing is specifically provided in draft or planning levels; provide

an initial, or draft, or tentative schedule of all bore-related activities for individual AND overall

program of all boreholes.

44/2 The pressure transducers...positioned in the hole at selected depths,...instrument string will

be grouted into place with...grout mix....in Appendix D. The grout mix ratio will consist

of...Portland Cement,...Quick-Gel bentonite and...water...McKenna (1995).

The only meaningful figure in Appendix D only show a bore of 94ft depth, although identified as

101ft, and two sensors. No mention is made of other boreholes and methods of sensor depths or

numbers selection. Provide methods of selection of numbers and depths of sensors for currently

preferred boreholes and draft/preliminary table of sensors for all boreholes.

44/3 Pressure transducers (vibrating wire) will be installed beginning with the deepest interval

of each core hole...(pressure range from 7.5 to 1.0 megapascal (Mpa) [psi is more publicly

accessible >1000psi...]. Each pressure transducer will be installed separately at a designated

elevation. Intervals between pressure transducers will vary between 250 to 500 feet. The drilling

subcontractor will install separate pressure transducers, each with its dedicated electric cable

connection to the surface. Cables will be supported by a strain release wire to withstand the

weight of the cable (in excess of 1,000 to 2,600 feet length).

Metric dimension values are not consistent with American standard dimensions and must be

consistent with public usage and knowledge; change megapascals to psi.

Ranges are usually given from lesser to higher values (1.0-7.5) rather than 7.5 to 1.0.

Review/revise and confirm values and depths currently provided in text:

1.0 150psi = >350ft 7.5 1100psi = >2500ft

45/2 The field calibration data for the vibrating wire transducers will be recorded according to

the Geokon

Instruction Manual.

45/3 ...datum of interest is the fluid pressure...interpreted as the hydrostatic pressure exerted by

an overlying column of water, and the location of the groundwater table.

Location - no - migratory pathway and elevation of highest point of free water surface of that

pathway.

45/5 The abandonment procedures...core holes immediately following completion of drilling,

in-situ testing, and geophysical surveys....depending on total depth, that the duration of drilling

will last...two to sixteen weeks followed by a week of testing and geophysical surveys. Core hole

abandonment...one to two days after completion of core hole geophysical surveys.

No preliminary schedule is provided for the "project" and its phases. Provide draft work-

breakdown-structure and schedule for project, e.g.,

Setup ??? 7??

Drilling 2-16 weeks 112d

In-situ Testing & 1 week 7

Geophysical Surveys included??

Abandonment <1 week 2d

Surface installations ???

45/6 3.11 Groundwater Data Monitoring Groundwater monitoring...establish...connectivity

within the groundwater system, seasonal variations (i.e. rainy season, prolonged drought,

withdrawal from local wells etc.) and responses of the groundwater system within the

mountains...

Monitoring of seasonal groundwater levels/pressure requires at least four seasonal cycles to be

meaningful.

45/7 Data Loggers Dedicated data logging equipment will be installed in a locking, recessed

utility vault...flush mounted with the ground surface at each core hole.

.

090815 USFS Ltr

1/1 ..."HSRA"...written proposal ("Proposal") to perform a geophysical/ geotechnical

investigation to determine the feasibility of several [3] tunnel alignment alternatives

on...("ANF").

1/2 ...to perform a geophysical/ geotechnical investigation to determine the feasibility of these

[3] alignments. This Proposal is only for this feasibility study;...alignment on the ANF.

1/3 ...requesting to conduct geophysical/ geotechnical investigation (GI) by drilling, testing,

installing and backfilling borings at five to eight locations ...are at the edge of existing Forest

Service System roads, in close proximity to the alternative alignments ...use requested...will

provide data to help evaluate potentially challenging conditions for tunnel design and

construction at depth...by investigating groundwater pressures, hydraulic conductivity, and

adverse geology including faults.

2/3 conclusions

...Proposal will yield groundwater data that could be used to study groundwater under the ANF,

and to determine the feasibility of tunneling a high speed rail under the ANF.

Makes the most judicious use of the land: The proposed drill locations will be adjacent to Forest

System roads, where there are no conflicting uses.

Is harmonious with other Forest resources:...that the proposed activities are harmonious (can

coexist without harming) with other Forest resources...Proponent will survey the drill locations

to determine if any resource conditions exist that may constitute "extraordinary circumstances"

under NEPA....

3/3-4 The proposed use (feasibility study) can be considered a precursor to a potential future

use. The potential future use is addressed in ANF Land Management Plan Part III, Page 10, S45:

"All construction, reconstruction, operation and maintenance of tunnels on National Forest

System lands shall use practices that minimize adverse effects on groundwater aquifers and their

surface expressions."

3/4 ...no LMP standards...applicable to the proposed use in the Proposal (feasibility study;

geophysical/ geotechnical investigation)...protecting groundwater resources...addressed in the

Proposal...will minimize adverse effects on groundwater aquifers and their surface expressions...

3/4-Steps ... Step 1: The hydraulic pressure maintained to circulate the drilling mud will far

exceed the hydraulic head of groundwater in the rock fractures....its pressure will prevent

groundwater from flowing into the borings.

Pressure must be closely matched to that of surrounding groundwater which due to its context

will be highly variable and rapidly changeable.

Drilling mud is primarily useful in granular and somewhat permeable formations so as to a form

a cake which both holds the mud and drilling fluids in the bore while reduces inflow

permeability.

Due to the specific intent of drilling through fault zones and general intent of boring/coring in

igneous and metamorphic (I/M) formations drilling fluids and pressure are difficult to control

and balance to avoid losses to the formations and fault gouge zones and inflow to the bore.

Information provided here and in other documents do not reflect appreciation of the radically

different character of of I/M formations compared to the more typical sedimentary formations

outside of the ANF and similar I/M mountains and hills.

3/4 Step 2: ...circulation is lost into fractured bedrock..., the hydraulic pressure needed to

prevent groundwater from flowing into the boring may be lost...trigger points to indicate when

mud circulation is about to be lost completely....will implement step 3.

No apparent concern regarding loss of drilling mud to the formation

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I do think the Forest Service should permit test drilling in the Angeles Forest to determine

underground composition and water flow, BUT ONLY WITH THE FOLLOWING

PROVISIONS:

1. Impacts on ground and underground must be kept at a minimum and in accordance with

CEQA and NEPA standards.

2. Wildlife and wild habitat must be protected from undue noise, vibrations and other

disturbances that could disrupt its activity. This would include large and/or long term

construction of testing sites, roads, and equipment.

3. The areas to be studied must be in keeping with the proposed routes available to the public. It

appears that the segments to be studied are not properly aligned with published routes.

4. Since the proposed testing would not reach more than 1,000 feet, a rationale must be

presented for the proposed shallow drilling, and a plan to test for the distribution of underground

water must be developed and approved by an unaffiliated third party. Water under the San

Gabriel Mountains is vital not only for the Forest, but for the San Gabriel Valley and points

south.

5. Since all indications are for an unprecedented El Nino year of rains, flooding and mudslides,

the testing should be postponed, and the period for comment should be extended at least until

late December.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing in response to your request for public comments regarding the California High

Speed Rail Authority permit to access the Angeles National Forrest to take core samples as part

of their EIR process. I would never presume to say don’t issue them a permit, but to put it

bluntly, I would encourage you to proceed with caution in dealing with CHSRA.

The CHSRA has been less than forthcoming with local communities and public entities for the

past year. So I would encourage you to do your own due diligence before agreeing to

accommodate their request or you could be left to clean up after their incompetence, at the

expense of the Forest Service and further expense to the tax payer and our beautiful recreational

area. Even though the Authority has agreed to involve third party entities in preliminary studies

involving the local routes through our lovely mountains, it is a mystery if such studies have even

been implemented, although updates have been promised but not delivered. As you know, this

project is huge and never attempted before in the United States. The least we can do is proceed

carefully.

I read through the Authorities’ permit request and it seems woefully incomplete. It goes into

some detail about core drilling, but completely ignores safety issues such as road blockages

during a fire season, inconvenience to the public who enjoy our Forrest such as hang gliders,

horsemen, hikers, and never even mentions the disruption to the wildlife ecosystem. You may

have certainly issued access permits to other entities such as mining operations, but remember,

CHSRA has never in fact done any studies of this nature and really doesn’t have the experience

to anticipate unexpected problems that may arise during these drilling operations. Or at least

their plans don’t reflect such experience.

Mitigation plans for concerns such as fire restoration and reforestation, drill site repair, and

possible interruption of water sources are either barely discussed, dismissed or omitted

altogether. Employee safety and evacuation planning seem to be of no concern to the Authority.

The fact that gas deposits may be encountered is not even considered even though people lost

their lives several years ago in Sylmar when they accidentally drilled into a gas pocket. I

personally brought the possibility of gas deposits to the attention of the CHSRA at their board

meeting in Palmdale last year.

Moreover, they publicly lament the very fact that you even required a public comment period.

The Authority feels they have a mandate and prefer to cut corners if it endangers any part of their

woefully short funding. As our appointed caretakers, please don’t let them cut corners when it

comes to our beloved Forest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My husband and I received your letter regarding CHSRA’s proposal to conduct geophysical and

geotechnical investigations through the National Forest. Thank you for inviting our comments.

It is our hope that you will consider them carefully.

While I do believe that such studies are required before any further action on the part of the

CHSRA, I strongly believe that it needs be gone about in a more comprehensive manner. Below

are some of the major concerns that we have.

The CHSRA has not been transparent in their plans for the environmental studies, building of,

and analysis of impacts on our environment, water sources, and human/ animal populations. We

would like them to extend the comment period so that people may study the plans and submit

comments further.

We find it imperative that GI studies be conducted by an independent 3rd party team rather than

through their own sources. We feel that their studies will only represent items that suit their

own, poorly planned interest. If we must delay GI studies to find an independent 3rd party- then

so be it.

The USFS must be vigilant in its oversight and monitoring of the GI studies, and should be

compensated justly. The CHSRA lacks the experience and knowhow of how to properly conduct

these studies. The USFS needs to ensure that the CHSRA’s lack of experience does not result in

a major detriment to our national forest ecosystems, water supply, and natural resources.

We have MAJOR concerns about the CHSRA’s vague plans to protect and safeguard water

sources, private wells, and overall water quality. There is insufficient information regarding the

chemicals used and amount of water needed in the drilling/boring process. There remains a huge

potential that there studies will result in the contamination of local water sources! How will

private individuals be compensated if their water sources or health is compromised as a result of

the drilling boring process?

With our severe drought, we cannot afford to waste any of our precious water in this manner.

The CHSRA should be supplying their own water if needed and before any testing is begun- we

demand a thorough report and analysis of impacts on water quality and sources.

What contingencies and protocols have been put into place in the event of a natural disaster

during drilling? There is a high likelihood that heavy machinery may cause damage and/or be

damaged in the case of a flood, fire, and earthquake. How will private individuals be

compensated if there property or health is compromised in these cases?

IF/When testing should begin, it needs take into account the vastly changing topography

throughout the seasons due to rain, flooding, erosion, or seismic activities. Studies should not

just be conducted in a short time period, but rather regularly over a year long period to gather a

more comprehensive sample.

The amount of heavy machinery, trucks, traffic, human impact, road closures, air pollution, and

all of the pollution that comes with these things (oil leaks, fuel spills, trash, noise, debris, etc.) is

SURE to make a significant negative impact on recreational users of the National Forest.

Equestrians, hikers, hang gliders, bikers, and of course the wildlife who make these areas their

home will be offered no protection or compensation for having to deal with these horrible issues.

I greatly value your time and consideration of the above comments. I truly hope that before the

USFS agrees to allow poorly planned drilling/boring tests to occur, you will thoughtfully

consider the gross amount of negative impact on our National Forest and Foothill communities

that cherish the forest as their own.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing in opposition to granting the CAHSRA permits for drilling testing in the Angeles

Forest. As a concerned citizen who has a vested interest in protecting the integrity of the forest

and wildlife space I think it would be a disservice to the public to allow this testing.

It will always be more invasive and destructive then initially promised or planned. Any and all

disruption to the existing forest lands will have a ripple effect on water and animals that we can

not even imagine how to calculate at this time.

Drilling creates the potential for contamination of the water table during borings. This would

negatively impact both humans who ultimately receive this water "downstream" as part of the

Greater Los Angeles water supply, and animals who drink from the streams located within the


Wildlife within the Forest will be impacted by the noise and vibrations generated by the drilling

machine, as well as by the hammer and air guns that are used for seismic testing.

The construction, drilling and people associated with it will be so disruptive to the existing

Wildlife that I do not believe there is a way to mitigate that and maintain the protective nature of

the National Forest.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On a beautiful Monday morning I got to see two deer’s coming up my hill. The opportunity to

see that up close and personal amazes me every time. To the birds, owls, hawks and falcons, the

excitement I feel knowing I made the right choice to live here and with my family.

I lived in Angeles National Forest area for over 20 year. For you to make the decision to

destroy what beauty we have here is not right!! And just for your testing if it is possible to have

tunnel through the San Gabriel Mountains! You have known idea on what kind of impact you are

creating on our way of living.

Do you understand that the traffic, the drilling, the water supply you will be using will scared our

wildlife away! What happened if a fire starts? We are all told not to smoke, not to use fireworks

near our homes because of the risk of fires that can start! We comply with doing our part by

weed abatement and when you bring heavy machinery in the forest, there is no guaranty you will

not cause a fire!!

Please do not do this!! Keep our Forest alive!! Please let me continue to be amazed to see deer’s

coming up my hill! This is my home and I am very proud living here!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am against this decision on hurting our Forest for your geophysical/geotechnical testing!!

I do a lot of hiking around here for my peace of mind after a long day from work. For you to

keep me out and hear all the noises from the trucks, drilling and the traffic you will bring here

make me angry!!

In the area I live at, most of us use wells for water supply. So, I have questions? What happens in

the event that a drop in the water table is determined, how will you mitigate this for property

owners? Will this force us to pay more money for water that you are creating for us? Did that

ever come across your table when you put this plan into actions!! I pay the price! Am I right!

We, who live here pay the price!!

Stop this now!! We do not want you here!!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I sent letters to HSR, and have their return e-mails, but never received a letter. I am in

opposition to the testing. I have a well, and am very concerned about losing my water.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am a student at Van Nuys High School whonis taking an environmental studies class and I do

not support the testing that is occurring. I hike in the San Gabriel mountains often and often

enjoy the various wildlife within the area. If the testing were to occur the ecosystem will be

devasted and I will not like for that occur. Over a period of three months so many animals and

plants can be destroyed and nonexistent within a decade due to the destruction of their habitat.

NOT OURS. Thank you for your time and have a nice day.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing in answer to the letter I received regarding the HSRA geotechnical investigation.

First of all, I would like to thank you and the USFS for your diligence in protecting the forest for

current and future generations to appreciate. If it weren't for you, the LA area would be one big

sprawling development, and many of California's unique eco systems would be lost forever.

I have serious concerns about CHSRA's proposal to bring the train under the mountain through

the forest. There are so many unknowns, and CSHRA has not yet demonstrated that they can

build a train at all, let alone execute one the longest tunnels ever, right through the sensitive

ecosystem of our beloved forest. I believe an independent third party should review their

planning for this testing to ensure that they are doing a thorough job with the GI and also not

disrupting the forest in the process. I have had a number of interactions with the HSRA recently,

and I noticed that they have a tendency to gloss over important details and just plow forward

because they have billions of dollars behind them. They seem to believe they are above the

standards that other developments need to adhere to, and that everyone else needs to get out of

their way - as if their train were the only priority. What are the risks to our water supply, fire

safety, wild life, and pollution? I do not trust CHSRA to provide objective answers to these

questions, and I ask that both the Forest Service and an objective third party provide the diligent

oversight needed to ensure that the GI is properly done.

Also your letter states that this is a "short term" study. I am not exactly sure what that means,

but I ask that at a minimum, the study be conducted over a period of 1 year so that seasonal

variations can be taken into account.

Finally, I really appreciate that the Forest Service is soliciting community inputs. However,

some of our neighbors who share my concerns did not receive the letter as I did. I ask that you

please review and expand the mailing list to ensure that all residents in the area are given the

opportunity to voice their opinions and that the deadline be extended to allow them time to

respond.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing to show my support for the studying of how high speed rails feasibility under the

Los Angeles national forest.

I urge you to consider letting the study go forward.

I like many other want to see all the possibilities and we won't fully know which is best unless

you approve the studies.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am responding to the Forest Service request for comments regarding an application received on

September 8, 2015, from the California High Speed Rail Authority, to study the feasibility of

constructing a high-speed rail tunnel(s) that the Authority is considering in some proposed

alternatives that would go transit through the Angeles National Forest and San Gabriel

Mountains National Monument.

My understanding is the Forest Service is proposing to process this feasibility study application

under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) as a Categorical Exclusion (short-term

geophysical study), and is seeking public comments over the next 30 days, ending October 23,

2015.

To begin with, the United States Forest Service should not even entertain this request and below

is my justification. This is a flawed and without question underfunded, poorly conceived project

that has been subject massive amounts of political missteps. Furthermore, I am hopeful that this

document will allow the correct decision to be made by the Angeles National Forest and San

Gabriel Mountains National Monument leadership who must deny this request until all the

conditions set forth in Proposition 1A are complied with to the letter of that legal document.

I begin with the link to Proposition 1A that makes very straightforward benchmarks that must be

adhered to prior to beginning any construction primary being all sections must be fully funded

prior to the start of any construction. That condition has not been achieved thus the project is out

of compliance. Unfortunately, due to political expediency the benchmarks were moved to

accommodate other entities rather than the primary standards clearly set forth in Proposition 1A -

San Francisco to Los Angeles in 2 hours and 40 minutes, at 220 Mph.

Proposition 1A link:

http://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_1A,_High-Speed_Rail_Act_(2008).

There is also a video link where there is a ‘must watch’ presentation by Mr. Joseph Vranich on

October 25, 2008 just prior to the vote on Proposition 1A. This clearly denotes that there were

serious issues. Furthermore, nothing has changed with the passage of Prop 1A less than two-

weeks later.

The below link reviews the comments and concerns of Judge Quentin Kopp, previous Chairman

of the Board, California High-Speed Rail and who is considered the “Father” of California High-

speed Rail.

http://calwatchdog.com/2014/03/19/high-speed-rail-brief-includes-quentin-kopp-objections/

Today’s political proposed alignment is a massive circuitous routing that at best, if ever the

project is completed, would take approximately 5+ hours to transit this most convoluted

alignment that clearly does not even comport with Proposition 1A mandates of law.

Over the last many years, with real opposition to this project beginning in earnest in 2009 and

since then, a number of qualified experts have provided and/or demonstrating the totality of the

Authorities superficial support data to be false. I will provide links to prove this claim.

Furthermore, the Authority requested “Expressions of Interest” from a number of private sector

firms sometime in the summer of 2015. From newspaper reports, the Authority received 36-

responses and at the time of this writing, the Authority has not posted them on their web site for

public review. It is appears that what can be extrapolated from media articles is media funding is

absolutely non-existence from the state level and clearly the private sector. I would ask you Mr.

Farra to request copies of these submissions to determine if there are other insurmountable issues

that just may further jeopardize this convoluted disaster of a project.

Now in regards to the technical issues involved in this matter, I would direct you to Ms.

Jacqueline Ayer, resident of Acton, California submitted letter of October 22, 2015 via e-mail as

I am in total concurrence with her excellent submission.

However, my narrative is based on the validly of the project to prove the request by the authority

is seriously premature as this entire project, as noted above and below in this correspondence, is

in such disarray as there are so many fractured issues missing since this project became a

political machination. Again, I enjoin your organization to review all the data from the technical

and the project side and I (we) are hopeful that the Forest Service denies the Authority’s request.

Below I am providing a number of transformative links for your review that clearly demonstrate

the failures of this project after almost 1 billion dollars has been expended without one single

audit by impartial auditing firm due to serious questions regarding expenditures. Furthermore,

the redo’s and legal actions since 2008 are significant only because of the Authorities failures in

proper oversight as demonstrated by industry experts and citizens who have countered with

quantifiable irrefutable evidence, thus requiring Draft Environmental Impact Report and Draft

Environment Impact Statement (DEIR’s & DEIS’s) to be pulled prior to final approval to repair

damages. Specific example the Fresno to Bakersfield was pulled 8-days before the closing date

and not finalized for nearly 18-months later because of serious flaws.

Furthermore, Cap and Trade (under legal actions at this writing) was supposed to be about the

reduction of greenhouse gases. Nevertheless, just look at what the State Politicians are funding

with the proceeds. Twenty-five percent (25%) of Cap and Trade revenues are now being directed

to HSR project, which will be for at least 50-year a proven net polluter according to all

supportive data. This does not bode well for anyone; however, we are now well aware of the

damages to forest environments especially during severe drought conditions such as we are

experiencing today and will again. This alone should create a NO response to the Authority for

failing to achieve environmental adherence standards in a shorter period thus negating the

requirement for any test borings.

Once again, I am reminded of a great statement –

“Government is not good at doing anything big!”

The first link has these comments leading into the article regarding Cap & Trade legislation –

This statement at the end of this article says a lot: -------- There’s a lot of unknowns here, and it's

not clear what direction the income generated by the auctions will go, said Stanley Young, an

agency spokesman.

The goal of this program is to reduce greenhouse gases emissions not to raise revenue, Young

added.

Link: http://www.bizjournals.com/sacramento/news/2015/10/21/siemens-raises-questions-about-

financial.html

Additional links for your review:

Let us begin with the this article in the Fresno Bee on October 22, 2015 regarding the comments

from Siemen’s

http://www.inquisitr.com/2501154/experts-question-whether-there-is-enough-money-to-build-

californias-high-speed-rail/

http://www.iol.co.za/business/international/banks-balk-at-68bn-bullet-train-

1.1932307#.Vimsx_mrSUl

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-1017-bullet-train-reality-20151017-story.html

http://americans.org/2015/10/19/californias-proposed-68-billion-high-speed-rail-running-into-

financial-hurdles/

http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/private-firms-question-california-high-speed-rail-funding-

34532739

http://cchsra.org/secret-money-funds-a-fresno-contingent-to-visit-spain-to-see-high-speed-rail-

infrastructure/

http://www.foxandhoundsdaily.com/2015/10/high-speed-rail-attempt-to-lure-private-investors-

to-show-us-the-money-fails-miserably/

Sacramento Bee editorial of March 4, 2014 by Dan Walters:

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/03/04/6205970/dan-walters-brown-must-show-the.html.

On March 27, 2014, the State of California, the Senate Transportation & Housing Informational

Hearing was held and there are four industry experts testifying as to why this project is failing

and the links below provide supportive evidence as to why this project needs to be terminated

now. Below are the links from this meeting and without question, the experts confirmed that

there are many deficiencies with this project. However, the testimony from the CEO of the

California High Speed Rail Authority was devoid of any supportive quantifiable substance and

he was very disturbed at the questioning from State Senator DeSaulnier. I was in attendance and

saw his reactions.

California State Senate hearing support links:

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_23191037/california-gov-jerry-brown-breaks-silence-cracked-

bay.

Expert presentations:

Jeremy Fraysse, LAO presenter: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qwhoM9hcNc

Lou Thompson, Chairman, HSR Peer Review Group:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZKFTptL1Ls

Professor Ibbs, UC Berkeley, Department of Civil Engineering:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHvBZo8JW7Q

Paul Dyson, President, Rail Passenger Association of California:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUvYGzdN5BQ

I am also reminded of this statement from my college day in the readings of ancient history -

“It is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established authorities are wrong” – Voltaire

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am writing to show my support for the study for the high speed rail under the Los Angeles

forest.

Please approve the study as with out further information we won't know what the best solution

would be.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please reject this geographical investigation proposal. Drilling these kinds of deep holes would

take heavy equipment, involve extensive traffic through the wilderness, causing stress to our

wildlife, water sources and roads.

The ANF has been under constant stress since the end of August, 2009 when the Station Fire

began a burn that destroyed 160,000 acres. Following the fire, the landscape was covered with

the charred bones of burnt wild animals. For those few that survived there was little left to eat.

Then, with the rains, came the mud slides which destroyed many of the fire roads.These fire

roads would need extensive repair using heavy equipment to be passable. This would present

another egregious assault on our wildlife.

The purpose of nationalizing a forest is to preserve the land, the resources on that land including

landmarks, watershed, water sources, fauna and flora. To even consider taking the first step, a

GI, in allowing the permanent degradation of our Angeles National Forest with a tunnel, exits,

dirt removal, and all that a tunnel entails is disturbing.

A GI would require the restructuring of many of the existing fire roads which were destroyed by

mud slides following the Station Fire, and is likely to require the use of our privately owned and

maintained roads which are unable to support an increase in traffic or the movement of heavy

equipment.

Over the last several years the fauna in the ANF no more than started to recover from the Station

Fire and the drought began and continues today. Now there is a proposal to do a GI entailing

another invasion of the forest with considerable traffic and heavy equipment to repair the fire

roads and to do deep drilling. As the agency in charge of caring for and maintaining the ANF,

why has this application not already been rejected?

I find it difficult to think that this proposal is even being considered. I am not knowledgeable as

to how severely the drilling would affect the water resources but find the boring of holes 900 to

2,500 feet deep highly suspect particularly when ground water would be affected up to 1,000 feet

away from the drill site. This is one of if not the last clean watershed within Los Angeles and

therefore one of the last sources of LA ground water.

As a resident of the Sunland-Tujunga part of which is located in the Special Studies Zone created

as a result of the extensive earth movement during the February 9, 1971 “San Fernando/Sylmar”

earthquake, I find it remarkable once again that any area anywhere along the Big Tujunga River

most of which is in the SSZ would even be considered as a site for a GI and the possibility of an

ensuing HSR tunnel. We are in a highly active seismic area.

Please protect our Angles National Forest from any further destruction and reject this HSRA GI

application.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

have been omitted. we also removed names and...

Documents