5 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

5.1 Introduction 

This section describes the regulatory setting and the affected environment used for the analysis 

of impacts to minority and low-income populations; the impacts that would result from 

implementation of the Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative (F-B LGA); and 

avoidance and minimization measures and mitigation measures applicable to the F-B LGA that 

would reduce these impacts. Demographic analysis of socioeconomics, communities, and 

environmental justice, including race, ethnicity, income, and housing characteristics, is provided 

in the Fresno to Bakersfield Draft Supplemental Community Impact Assessment Technical Report 

(F-B LGA CIA) (California High-Speed Rail Authority [Authority] and Federal Railroad 

Administration [FRA] 2017). 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, are required to achieve 

environmental justice, by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and 

adverse human health or environmental impacts, including interrelated social and economic 

effects, of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations. Related 

topics that affect communities are also discussed in the various resource areas in Chapter 3 of 

this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. 

The analysis in this chapter also references and uses information contained in Section 3.12 of the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section California High-Speed Train Final Project EIR/EIS (Authority and 

FRA 2014)1

 and the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Community Impact Assessment Technical 

Report (Fresno to Bakersfield CIA) (Authority and FRA, July 2012). 

5.2 Regulatory Setting 

Federal, state, and other laws, regulations, orders, or plans relevant to environmental justice are 

presented below. The environmental justice analysis is required by federal law but not required by 

the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 

5.2.1 Federal 

5.2.1.1 Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (United States Code Title [U.S.C.] 42, Part 

2000(d) et seq.) 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, 

age, sex, or disability in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. Under Title 

VI, each federal agency is required to ensure that no person, on the grounds of race, color, or 

national origin, is excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or subjected to 

discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. 

5.2.1.2 Americans with Disabilities Act (United States Code [U.S.C.] Title 42, 

Sections 12101 to 12213) 

The Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits discrimination based on disability. 

5.2.1.3 U.S. Executive Order 13045 

U.S. Executive Order (USEO) 13045 requires federal agencies to minimize environmental health 

and safety risks to children, and to prioritize the identification and assessment of environmental 

health and safety risks that may have a disproportionate impact on children. 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

1

 No separate Environmental Justice chapter was included in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. The 

analysis of Environmental Justice is discussed in Section 3.12 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-1 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

5.2.1.4 Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations (USEO 12898) 

USEO 12898 outlines the federal government’s environmental justice policy. The USEO requires 

federal agencies to identify and address to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law 

the disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities, on minority and low-income populations in the United States. 

5.2.1.5 Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations (U.S. DOT Order 5610.2[a]) 

To implement USEO 12898, the U.S. DOT relies on U.S. DOT Order 5610.2(a), which applies to 

actions undertaken by U.S. DOT operating administrations, including the FRA. This U.S. DOT 

Order affirms the importance of considering environmental justice principles as part of early 

planning activities in order to avoid disproportionately high and adverse effects. The Order states 

that the U.S. DOT will not carry out any programs, policies, or activities that will have a 

disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority populations or low-income populations 

unless “further mitigation measures or alternatives that would avoid or reduce the 

disproportionately high and adverse effect are not practicable.” The Order defines environmental 

justice to mean an adverse impact that is predominantly borne by a minority or low-income 

population, or that would be suffered by the minority or low-income population, and that is 

appreciably more severe or greater in magnitude than would be suffered by the non-minority or 

non-low-income population. 

5.2.1.6 Presidential Memorandum Accompanying USEO 12898 

The Presidential Memorandum accompanying USEO 12898 calls for specific actions to be 

directed in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)-related activities. These actions include: 

 Analyzing environmental effects, including human health, economic, and social effects, on

minority and low-income populations when such analysis is required by NEPA.

 Ensuring that mitigation measures outlined or analyzed in Environmental Assessments, EISs,

and Records of Decision, whenever feasible, address disproportionately high and adverse

environmental effects or proposed actions on minority and low-income populations.

 Providing opportunities for community input in the NEPA process, including identifying

potential effects and mitigation measures in consultation with affected communities and

improving access to public meetings, official documents, and notices for affected

communities.

5.2.1.7 Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English 

Proficiency (USEO 13166) 

USEO 13166 requires each federal agency to ensure that recipients of federal financial 

assistance provide meaningful access to their programs and activities to limited English 

proficiency (LEP) applicants and beneficiaries. Meaningful access can include the availability of 

vital documents and printed and internet-based information in one or more languages, depending 

on the location of the project, as well as translation services during public meetings. 

5.2.1.8 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies 

Act (U.S.C. Title 42, Part 61) 

The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Program ensures that persons displaced 

as a result of a federal action or by an undertaking involving federal funds are treated fairly, 

consistently, and equitably. This helps to ensure persons will not suffer disproportionate injuries 

as a result of projects designed for the benefit of the public as a whole. 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-2 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

5.2.2 State 

5.2.2.1 California Government Code 65040.12(e) 

Section 65040.12(e) defines Environmental Justice as “the fair treatment of people of all races, 

cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” It does not, however, require an 

analysis of impacts to these populations as part of the CEQA process. 

5.2.2.2 California High-Speed Rail Authority Environmental Justice Policy 

In August 2012, the Authority adopted an Environmental Justice Policy (Authority 2012c). The 

policy states: 

 The Authority shall develop and maintain an Environmental Justice Guidance in compliance

with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Presidential Executive Order 12898, and

California State law—Government Code Section 65040.2 et seq. and Public Resources Code

(Public Res. Code) Section 1110 et seq.

 The Authority will promote environmental justice in its programs, policies, and activities to

avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high human health and environmental effects,

including social and economic effects on minority and low-income populations.

 The Authority will duly emphasize the fair and meaningful involvement of all people

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the High-Speed Rail

(HSR) project planning, development, operations, and maintenance.

 The Authority will engage the public through public participation forums so that decisions are

mitigated and reflect Environmental Justice for all communities.

5.2.2.3 California High-Speed Rail Title VI Plan 

In March 2012, the Authority adopted a policy and plan to ensure that the California HSR 

Program complies with Title VI. The policy states: 

 The Authority is committed to ensuring that no person in the State of California is excluded

from participation in, nor denied the benefits of, its programs, activities, and services on the

basis of race, color, national origin, age, sex, or disability as afforded by Title VI of the Civil

Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes.

 The Authority, as a federal grant recipient, is required by the FRA to conform to Title VI of the

Civil Rights Act of 1964 and related statutes. The Authority’s sub-recipients and contractors

are required to prevent discrimination and ensure non-discrimination in all of their programs,

activities, and services.

 As permitted and authorized by Title VI, the Authority will administer a Title VI Program in

accordance with the spirit and intent of the non-discrimination laws and regulations. The Title

VI Plan includes a commitment to inclusive public involvement of all persons affected by the

HSR project (Authority 2012).

5.2.2.4 California High-Speed Rail Limited English Proficiency Policy and Plan 

In May 2012, the Authority adopted a policy and plan to ensure the California HSR Program 

complies with the requirements of USEO 13166. The policy states: 

 It is the policy of the Authority to communicate effectively and provide meaningful access to

LEP individuals to all the Authority’s programs, services, and activities. The Authority will

provide free language assistance services to LEP individuals encountered or whenever an

LEP individual requests language assistance services.

 The Authority will treat LEP individuals with dignity and respect. Language assistance will be

provided through a variety of methods, including staff interpreters, translation and interpreter

service contracts, and formal arrangements with local organizations providing interpretation

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-3 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

or translation services or telephonic interpreter services. The LEP Policy and Plan 

supplements the Title VI Plan (Limited English Proficiency Plan) (Authority 2012a); 

Resolution 12-15 (Authority 2012b). 

5.2.2.5 California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006: Greenhouse Gas 

Reduction Fund (Senate Bill 535, De León) 

This bill requires the California Environmental Protection Agency to identify disadvantaged 

communities for investment opportunities, as specified. The bill requires the California 

Department of Finance (CDOF), when developing a specified 3-year investment plan, to allocate 

25 percent of the available moneys in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to projects that 

provide benefits to disadvantaged communities, as specified, and to allocate a minimum of 10 

percent of the available moneys in the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to projects located 

within disadvantaged communities, as specified. The bill requires the CDOF, when developing 

funding guidelines, to include guidelines for how administering agencies should maximize 

benefits for disadvantaged communities. The bill requires administering agencies to report to the 

CDOF, and the CDOF is required to include, in a specified report to the state legislature, a 

description of how administering agencies have fulfilled specified requirements relating to projects 

providing benefits to, or located in, disadvantaged communities. 

5.2.3 Regional and Local 

As the HSR is a state project, there is no commitment on the part of the state to be fully in 

compliance with local regulations. Rather, local and regional plans were reviewed to ensure 

compatibility. Local regulations related to environmental justice are generally included in general 

plans, ordinance codes, local housing assessments, and county transportation plans. General 

plans were reviewed for those elements relevant to environmental justice, including land use, 

transportation and circulation, housing, open space and conservation, community facilities and 

services, and economic development. Other local plans were also summarized to the extent that 

they relate to these elements within the study area. Generally, these regulations promote the 

character, health, safety and the general welfare of communities. 

Section 3.0, Regulatory Setting, in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section CIA (Authority and FRA 

2012) provides a discussion of applicable regional and local regulations related to socioeconomic, 

community and environmental justice issues applicable to the HSR project, including the F-B 

LGA. Such regulations include the Kern County General Plan (2009a and 2009b), Kern County 

Bicycle Master Plan (2010a), the Kern County Economic Development Strategy (2010b), the Kern 

Council of Governments’ Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan (2014), City of Shafter General 

Plan (2005), City of Shafter Municipal Code (2017), Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan 

(2007), the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment Plan (in progress; 2017), and Southeast 

Bakersfield Redevelopment Plan (2010). Detailed review and a list of local regulations associated 

with environmental justice from those agencies within the F-B LGA study area that were changed, 

updated, or added since publication of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section CIA (Authority and FRA 

2012) is provided in the F-B LGA CIA (Authority and FRA 2017). 

5.3 Methodology for Data Collection and the Identification of LowIncome and Minority Communities 

5.3.1 Data Collection 

The methodologies used to collect and compile the data for the affected environment section are 

summarized here and detailed in Appendix A of the F-B LGA CIA (Authority and FRA 2017). The 

detailed data used to develop this description of the affected environment are presented in the 

community profiles provided in Appendix B of the F-B LGA CIA (Authority and FRA 2017). 

The process for identifying minority and low-income populations for the F-B LGA followed the 

methodology that was used for the Fresno to Bakersfield CIA, in order to maintain comparability 

between the F-B LGA and the May 2014 Project. No variations from these procedures were made 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-4 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
 

 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

for the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA analysis, but United States Census (U.S. Census) 

data was updated. 

Data sources include the 2000 and 2010 decennial U.S. Censuses and 2013 American 

Community Survey (ACS). As the decennial census has the largest data set (100 percent of the 

population), it is considered the most reliable. Decennial census data was, therefore, used for this 

analysis whenever possible. For information not available from the decennial census (e.g., 

poverty, disability, and language statistics), 2013 ACS 5-Year estimates data was used. Although 

the sample size for the ACS is smaller, based on a survey of approximately one-sixth of the 

population, the 5-year data is released annually and generally provides the most up-to-date 

information available. The 5-year estimates data is also appropriate because it provides 5-year 

averages, which provide more accuracy than annual data when considering small areas where 

annual data may have a high margin of error. 

In order to make comparisons between data from different years, the correct data sets must be 

used. The U.S. Census compiles data from its decennial surveys into Summary Files (SF). This 

analysis uses data from the SF1 and SF3 data sets. SF1 provides data from 100 percent of the 

responding population refined to the Census Block level and contains information on age, sex, 

race, Hispanic/Latino origin, and household relationship, type, and size. SF3 provides population 

and housing information for a smaller sample of the population – 1 in 6 – at the Census Block 

Group level.2

 Data is generally comparable between the 2000 and the 2010 decennial U.S. 

Censuses SF1 100-percent data sets. However, more detailed SF3 data from the 2000 decennial 

U.S. Census is comparable to the ACS 5-Year estimates data sets from 2009 and later. This 

comparability is because the SF3 sample data set includes more detailed socioeconomic 

information than the SF1 and SF2 100-percent data sets as the SF3 data was collected via the 

“long-form” questionnaire and the U.S. Census Bureau stopped collecting SF3 sample data as 

part of the decennial census after the 2000 U.S. Census. The 5-Year ACS includes this long-form 

community data, however, and has been published every year since 2009. Most data is 

comparable between the two data sets, with the exception of disability information, as the 

questions used to generate these statistics were updated in 2008. 

The analysis in this Chapter uses SF1 100-percent data and SF3 sample data from 2000 in order 

to provide information on changes that occurred between that time and preparation of this 

analysis (2010 for the U.S. Census or 2013 for ACS data). 

For the incorporated Cities of Shafter and Bakersfield, changes in census data between 2000 and 

later years are based on: (1) changes that occurred within the cities’ incorporated boundaries, as 

defined in 2000; and (2) changes related to the expansions of these boundaries that occurred 

after 2000. The Cities of Shafter and Bakersfield annexed large areas of land into their 

incorporated boundaries between 2000 and 2010, 10.0 and 29.1 square miles, respectively,3

 and 

are continuing to expand geographically. As a result, census data showing population increases 

between 2000 and 2010 for these two cities reflect increases beyond those related to changes 

within the cities’ jurisdictional boundaries in 2000, and are therefore higher than those related 

purely to births, deaths, and relocations. 

5.3.2 Identification of Minority and Low-Income Communities 

The resource study area for environmental justice is located within Kern County and is defined as 

the project corridor for the F-B LGA, which runs south from the north end of the City of Shafter to 

the southeast end of Bakersfield, and includes the census blocks and block groups that lie 

2

 A census block group is a geographical unit used by the U.S. Census Bureau that is comprised of a collection of census 

blocks. It is the second smallest geographical unit used by the Census Bureau next to the census block, and the smallest 

geographical unit for which the bureau publishes sample data (i.e., data which is only collected from a fraction of all 

households). 

3

 The incorporated boundary for the City of Shafter expanded from 17.9 to 27.9 square miles between 2000 and 2010, 

while the incorporated boundary for the City of Bakersfield expanded from 114.6 to 143.7 square miles over the same 

period. 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-5 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-6 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

completely or partially within a 0.5-mile radius of the F-B LGA, proposed F Street station and 

maintenance of infrastructure facility (MOIF). 

Consistent with the methodology used in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, 

minority and low-income areas are defined as census block and block group populations that 

meet either or both of the following criteria: 

 The census block contains 50 percent or more minority persons and/or the census block

group contain 25 percent or more low-income persons.

 The percentage of minority and/or low-income persons in any census block or census block

group is more than 10 percentage points greater than county average (Authority and FRA

2017). 

Because the study area for this analysis is entirely contained within Kern County, data from the 

county was used to determine whether an area qualifies as a minority or low-income area under 

the second criterion above. Given that 61.4 percent of Kern County residents qualify as minorities 

and 22.9 percent of the population is below the poverty line, under the secondary criterion, 

communities with a minority population of 71.4 percent and/or a low-income population of 32.9 

percent (Table 5-1) would be considered minority or low-income communities. Any area meeting 

this second criterion would have already met the first criterion for qualifying as a minority or lowincome community; this analysis, therefore, only considers the first criterion of 50 percent or more 

minority persons and/or 25 percent or more low-income persons. 

Table 5-1 Community Demographic Characteristics 

Characteristics State of 

California 

Four 

County

Region1 

Reference 

Community:

Kern County 

City of 

Shafter 

Community 

of Oildale 

City of 

Bakersfield 

Size in square miles 155,779 20,405 8,163 27.9 6.5 143.6 

Total population2 (2010) 37,253,956 2,365,242 839,631 16,988 32,684 347,483 

Total households2 (2010) 12,577,498 715,586 254,610 4,230 12,023 111,132 

% population minority3 (2010) 15.9 65.1% 61.4% 83.0% 24.9% 62.2% 

% population low-income4 

(2013) 15.9 24.6% 22.9% 19.1% 30.8% 20.4% 

% of limited English speaking 

households5 (2013) 9.9% 10.3% 9.1% 23.5% 1.7% 6.7% 

% children under 18 years2 

(2010) 25.0% 30.4% 30.3% 36.0% 28.8% 31.5% 

% over 652 (2010) 11.4% 9.4% 9.0% 6.6% 10.0% 8.4% 

% unemployed (2013) 11.5% 14.3% 13.7% 11.8% 17.4% 12.3% 

 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2013b, 2013c, and 2013d 

1 The Four-County Region consists of Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Kern counties. 

2 U.S. Census Bureau 2010. 

3 The minority population was calculated as the entire population minus all individuals who are White and non-Hispanic/Latino. 4 The percentage of the population that qualifies as low-income is based on the number of people for whom poverty status was determined in 2013. 5 A limited English-speaking household is defined as one in which no member 14 years old and over (1) speaks only English or (2) speaks a nonEnglish language and speaks English "very well." In other words, all members 14 years old and over have at least some difficulty with English. 

U.S. = United States 
 

 

 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

For this environmental justice analysis, minority persons are defined as all individuals who are not 

identified as both White only and non-Hispanic/Latino in the 2010 U.S. Census. Low-income 

persons are defined as individuals with household incomes below the U.S. Census Bureau 

poverty threshold, as discussed in the environmental justice methodology in Appendix A of the FB LGA CIA (Authority and FRA 2017). 

Although 2010 U.S. Census data is now over 5 years old, the decennial census is considered the 

most reliable source of data on race and ethnicity because it is based on a 100 percent 

population survey of all geographical areas, rather than sampling or estimating techniques as are 

used in the more recently published ACS data. The California Department of Transportation has 

reported that minority and low-income characteristics are slow to change in California 

communities, making the data relevant and reliable over a relatively long period of time (California 

Department of Transportation 1997). These assumptions were confirmed as part of the analysis 

of the Fresno to Bakersfield CIA (Authority and FRA 2012). 

This analysis uses the 2010 U.S. Census data for minority populations and the 2013 ACS data for 

poverty status. These data sets were selected for the following reasons: 

 Minority Population: The 2010 decennial U.S. Census was selected for the determination of

minority population because it has the largest sample set (100 percent of the population) and

therefore provides the most accurate data.

 Low-Income Population: Poverty status is no longer reported in the decennial census and

must therefore be obtained from the ACS, which has included poverty status information

since 2009. Since poverty status is only surveyed in the ACS and the most recent data is

from 2013, the 2013 ACS represents the best available data.

5.4 Affected Environment 

5.4.1 Reference Community and Resource Study Area Definition 

To establish a context for the environmental justice analysis, it is necessary to identify the 

reference community.4

 Because the F-B LGA and the May 2014 Project are located entirely 

within Kern County, the reference community for this analysis is Kern County, which includes the 

population that could be impacted (both adverse and beneficial) from implementation of the May 

2014 Project or F-B LGA.5

 The resource study area is the F-B LGA and the area (U.S. Census 

Blocks and Block Groups) within 0.5 mile of the F-B LGA (including alignment, station and MOIF), 

running south from the north end of the City of Shafter to the southeast end of Bakersfield. To 

determine the area comprising the general population that will be affected by the project, this 

resource study area also includes all U.S. Census Blocks that fully or partially overlie the F-B 

LGA study area, which includes Kern County, City of Shafter, Community of Oildale, and, City of 

Bakersfield, as defined above. Note that the community of Crome, which would be affected by the 

May 2014 Project, is not in the study area because the F-B LGA alignment would not affect this 

community. Figure 5-1 shows the environmental justice resource study areas for the May 2014 

Project and the F-B LGA. Table 5-1 shows the demographic characteristics of the reference 

community. 

4

 A reference community represents the general population that could be affected positively or negatively by the project. 

Examples of reference communities include counties, transit service districts, councils of government, and metropolitan 

planning organizations. 

5

 The reference community for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section was defined as the four counties of Fresno, Kings, 

Tulare, and Kern, within the San Joaquin Valley. 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-7 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

This page intentionally left blank 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-8 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
California High-Speed Rail Authority 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

Chapte

Figure 5-1 Study Area and Geographic Areas Cons
 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

5.4.2 Summary of the May 2014 Project Affected Environment 

For the May 2014 Project, the Affected Environment consists of a comparison of the F-B LGA to 

the complementary portion of the Preferred Alternative that was identified in the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. As discussed in Section 1.1.3 of this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS, the complementary portion of the Preferred Alternative consists of the portion of the 

BNSF Alternative from Poplar Avenue to Hageman Road and the Bakersfield Hybrid from 

Hageman Road to Oswell Street (further referenced as the “May 2014 Project” in this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS). Since the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS does not evaluate 

the May 2014 Project as a discrete subsection of the Fresno to Bakersfield Project (as it did for 

example for the Allensworth Bypass), affected environment and impact summary discussion 

included in this section for the May 2014 Project has been extrapolated from the available 

information contained within the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. 

Within Kern County, the May 2014 Project directly affects two urban areas and one suburban 

area: the incorporated Cities of Shafter and Bakersfield, and the unincorporated community of 

Crome. Unincorporated portions of Kern County are also included in the resource study area. A 

total of 72,009 people reside within the environmental justice resource study area for the May 

2014 Project. Of that population, 70.1 percent are minority and 24.2 percent are low-income.6 

Figure 5-2 provides an overview of the location of minority or low-income populations in the 

region. Light orange is used to indicate U.S. Census Blocks containing minority or low-income 

populations, and darker orange is representative of minority or low-income blocks with higher 

population densities. The red dashed lines represent the study area, and the purple line and 

shaded areas represent the May 2014 centerline and the footprint of the proposed station. 

Minority or low-income populations located outside the May 2014 Project study area are 

displayed to add regional context to the results and to show that the concentration of minority or 

low-income populations in the study area is similar to concentrations found in surrounding areas. 

As shown in Figure 5-2, minority, and low-income populations in the May 2014 Project study area 

are located primarily in the urban areas of Shafter and Bakersfield. Within Shafter, the existing 

BNSF railroad represents a dividing line through the city. The high school and newer, higher 

income housing are located to the northeast of the BNSF railway, and the low-income 

neighborhoods and downtown area are located to the southwest. No concentrations of minority 

and low-income populations were identified in the Bakersfield Northwest District. Central 

Bakersfield contains a number of areas with minority and low-income populations, particularly 

south of Truxtun Avenue. The environmental justice study area in the Bakersfield Northeast 

District also contains areas of minority and low-income populations moving west to east from 

Central Bakersfield through Oswell Street. For a description of minority and low-income areas 

affected by the May 2014 Project, refer to the Fresno to Bakersfield CIA (Authority and FRA 

2012: pages 4-30 through 4-39). 

6

 The percentage of the population that qualifies as low-income is based on the number of people for whom poverty status 

was determined in 2013 in the area comprised of all Census block groups that fully or partially overlie the study area. This 

data was used because 2013 data was the most recently available at the time of this study and the block group level is 

the smallest geographic area for which income status is provided. 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-10 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
 

Figure 5-2 Minority or Low-Income Communities by Census Block for the May 2014 Project 

(Sheet 1 of 2) 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-11 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 
November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-12 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

Figure 5-2 Minority or Low-Income Communities by Census Block for the May 2014 Project 

(Sheet 2 of 2) 
 

5.4.3 Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative 

Within Kern County, the F-B LGA directly affects three urban areas: the incorporated Cities of 

Shafter and Bakersfield, and the unincorporated community of Oildale. Unincorporated portions of 

Kern County are also included in the resource study area. In order to describe the existing 

setting, the two cities, the unincorporated community of Oildale, and unincorporated Kern County 

areas were each summarized based on census data for each of these areas. Table 5-2 shows 

the demographics of the F-B LGA resource study area. 

Table 5-2 Minority and Low-Income Percentages in the Reference and Resource Study

Area 

Area Total Area Environmental Justice Resource Study Area 

Population 

in 2010 

% 

Minority 

% LowIncome1 

Population % % Low- Key Minority 

in 2010 Minority Income1 Demographic 

Reference 

Community: Kern 

County 

839,631 61.4% 22.9% 61,197 76.0% 33.6% Hispanic 

City of Shafter 16,988 83.0% 19.1% 11,087 78.6% 19.7% Hispanic 

Community of Oildale 32,684 24.9% 30.8% 5,568 25.1% 42.1% Hispanic 

City of Bakersfield 347,483 62.2% 20.4% 18,698 78.8% 38.7% Hispanic 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

Sources: U.S. Census Bureau 2010 and 2013c 

1 The percentage of the population that qualifies as low-income is based on the number of people for whom poverty status was determined in 2013. 

These preliminary numbers are based on the F-B LGA, as defined on September 16, 2015. They will need to be amended based on any further 

updates to the project footprint. 

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative 

U.S. = United States 

In the F-B LGA CIA (Authority and FRA 2017)), the City of Bakersfield was not divided into 

districts as was done for the Fresno to Bakersfield CIA (2012) because the F-B LGA does not 

traverse the City’s neighborhoods. The F-B LGA would primarily follow existing and longestablished highway and railroad corridors that traverse the study area. The alignment would 

pass through the cities of Shafter and Bakersfield and unincorporated areas of Kern County, 

including the community of Oildale. Historically, these communities have grown on either side of 

the existing heavy rail corridors and on either side of the area’s major highways, which currently 

act as natural dividers between neighborhoods. When the F-B LGA first enters Bakersfield, it runs 

along State Route (SR) 99, between Bakersfield’s northwest and northeast districts, as shown in 

Figure 3.12-3 in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: page 

3.12-26) and defined in the Fresno to Bakersfield CIA (2012). As the F-B LGA continues across 

the central district and into the eastern portion of the northeast district, it follows SR 204 and then 

the existing railroad corridor that traverses the city. Because of the existing transportation 

features (i.e., SR 99, SR 204, and the Union Pacific Railroad corridor) dividing communities along 

this section, it is not necessary to organize the analysis by district. The F-B LGA would be located 

on the edges of neighborhoods that have been developed in the vicinity of the existing rail 

corridor and highways over the past decades. Further, the F-B LGA would be elevated on a 

viaduct structure and would not, therefore, block passage on any of the streets that cross the 

alignment through the city, and existing connections and linkages between neighborhoods would 

be maintained. Baseline data for the city was, therefore, presented as a whole. Although the 

analysis provides Census data for the city as a whole, a qualitative analysis was performed at the 

community scale for the F-B LGA regarding the potential division of neighborhoods. Additionally, 

a quantitative analysis of minority and low-income communities was performed for all U.S. 

Census Blocks along the proposed alignment as described in the F-B LGA CIA, with the results of 

this analysis presented here (Authority and FRA 2017). 

Table 5-2 presents population estimates with minority and low-income percentages for the 

geographic areas in the vicinity of the study area and for the population living in the 

environmental justice resource study area (i.e., within the U.S. Census Blocks that are fully or 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-13 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
 

     

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

partially included in the 0.5-mile radius from the centerline of the F-B LGA and the footprint of the 

station). A total of 61,197 people reside within the environmental justice resource study area for 

the F-B LGA. Of that population, 76.0 percent are minority and 33.6 percent are low-income. 7 

The total population within the environmental justice study area represents a count of individuals 

potentially affected by the F-B LGA. The actual number of individuals affected may be much 

smaller than these baseline totals, as the environmental justice study area extends beyond the 

0.5-mile buffer from the centerline in some places and would likely not be affected across its 

entirety. 

Within the environmental justice resource study area, 

30.8 percent of the population resides in the City of 

Bakersfield, 19.1 percent in the City of Shafter, 

9.1 percent in the community of Oildale, and the 

remaining 42.2 percent in unincorporated areas of Kern 

County that are outside Shafter, Bakersfield, and 

Oildale. Each of these jurisdictions include populations 

that meet the thresholds of either 50 percent minority or 

25 percent low-income, as shown in Table 5-2. 

Environmental Justice Population

Of the 61,197 residents in the environmental

justice study area, 57,043 (93.2 percent)

reside in U.S. Census Blocks that are

identified as minority or low‐income based

on minority composition and/or poverty

status.

The reference community has a high percentage of minority and low-income individuals. 

According to the 2010 U.S. Census, 61.4 percent of the total county population is minority and 

22.9 percent is living below the U.S. Census Bureau poverty threshold. Within the environmental 

justice study area, these percentages are even higher, with minority and low-income individuals 

totaling 76.0 percent and 33.6 percent of the environmental justice study area population, 

respectively. Persons of Hispanic and Latino ethnicity are the predominant minority in the 

environmental justice study area, accounting for 89.4 percent of the minority population. 

The environmental justice study area totals 38.6 square miles, and 12.4 square miles (or 

32.2 percent) are identified as U.S. Census Blocks, which have disproportionately high minority or 

low-income populations.8 Of the area identified as minority or low-income U.S. Census Blocks, 

approximately half is rural with low-density populations (6.3 of the 12.4 square miles), with the 

remaining area (6.1 square miles) containing more urban, medium- to high-density populations. 

Given that the study area crosses both highly urbanized and very rural areas (e.g., the Cities of 

Bakersfield and Shafter and the unincorporated agricultural lands between these communities), it 

is important to identify minority or low-income populations according to population density, as it 

provides insight into the number of potentially affected individuals in these areas. The region’s 

urban Cities of Bakersfield and Shafter have higher population densities; therefore, impacts to 

those minority or low-income populations would affect more individuals than impacts to minority 

and low-income populations in less dense (e.g., rural) areas. 

7

 The percentage of the population that qualifies as low-income is based on the number of people for whom poverty status 

was determined in 2013 in the area comprised of all Census block groups that fully or partially overlie the study area. This 

data was used because 2013 data was the most recently available at the time of this study and the block group level is 

the smallest geographic area for which income status is provided. 

8

 The area calculated for the environmental justice study area is different from the study areas presented for other 

resource topics in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS because it includes all U.S. Census Blocks that are completely or 

partially contained within the 0.5-mile radius from the centerline of the F-B LGA and the footprints of the station and MOIF. 

Therefore, the areas of partially contained U.S. Census Blocks outside the 0.5-mile radius are included, resulting in a 

slightly larger study area for environmental justice than for other resource topics. This difference will be greater in rural 

areas, where the U.S. Census Blocks are larger. 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-14 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
 

 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

Figure 5-3 provides an overview of the location of minority or low-income populations throughout 

the region. The red dashed lines represent the F-B LGA study area, and the purple line and 

shaded areas represent the F-B LGA centerline and the footprint of the proposed station. Minority 

or low-income populations located outside the study area are displayed to add regional context to 

the results and to show that the concentration of minority or low-income populations in the study 

area is similar to concentrations found in surrounding areas. 

5.5 Engagement with Potential Environmental Justice Populations 

USEO 12898 requires that federal agencies ensure effective public participation and access to 

information. An extensive public and agency outreach program was conducted through the 

EIR/EIS process and will continue through the design and construction phases. Since 2007, over 

170 meetings were held regarding the Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the HSR project, including 

meetings to identify minority and low-income areas and with various community leaders to identify 

strategies for outreach to those communities and gain their input. More recently, since 2014, 

additional meetings targeted at minority and low-income populations have been held to inform the 

F-B LGA and the analysis of environmental impacts identified in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. 

A summary of all meetings conducted for the F-B LGA is provided in Chapter 9, Public and 

Agency Involvement, of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. 

5.5.1 Affected Populations and Communities 

The purpose of the outreach was to receive input on minority and low-income populations 

regarding the project; to obtain their comments as part of the public record; to identify potential 

impacts and mitigation to avoid, minimize, or mitigate disproportionately high and adverse effects 

on these populations; to ensure the full and fair participation by minority and low-income 

populations in the planning process; and to prevent denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in 

the receipt of project benefits by minority and low-income populations. During the analysis of 

impacts, FRA and the Authority identified whether any of the minority and low-income populations 

would potentially be disproportionately affected by the project, taking into consideration the 

potential benefits to the community. 

A description of the outreach process and a list of all public outreach meetings are provided in the 

F-B LGA CIA (Authority and FRA 2017). Generally, the outreach process consisted of the 

following steps: 

 Identify and engage minority and/or low-income interest groups within the study area;

 Engage community leaders and organizations;

 Identify how HSR Project information would be made available to the community;

 Conduct environmental justice-specific community meetings to inform community members

about the HSR Project, solicit input about community-based concerns, and establish

opportunities for participation by community members in potentially affected minority and lowincome areas;

 Develop modifications to avoid or minimize impacts on minority and low-income areas; and

 Document public information meetings and other outreach to minority and low-income

populations.

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-15 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

This page intentionally left blank 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-16 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
 

 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

Figure 5-3 Minority or Low-Income Communities by Census Block for the F-B LGA 

(Sheet 1 of 2) 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-17 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-18 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

Figure 5-3 Minority or Low-Income Communities by Census Block for the F-B LGA 

(Sheet 2 of 2) 
 

 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

5.5.1.1 Engagement Methods 

The Authority conducted specific outreach efforts to low-income and minority populations and to 

communities of concern, including Limited English Proficiency persons. Environmental justice 

populations were identified using year 2000 and 2010 data from the U.S. Census Bureau, as well 

as 2013 ACS data. The F-B LGA CIA (Authority and FRA 2017) contains a list of environmentaljustice-related interest groups that have been engaged through outreach efforts. 

The public outreach program utilized a variety of different methods and activities to reach these 

communities, including: community open house meetings, one-on-one stakeholder meetings, 

presentations to major groups and organizations, activity center outreach, and stakeholder 

working group meetings. A summary of the outreach activities conducted between May 2015 and 

October 2016 that targets and/or included minority and low-income populations and communities 

is provided in Section 5.5.1.2. The goals of these activities were to provide updates on the 

statewide HSR program, to provide information about the F-B LGA and the proposed F Street 

station location, to inform the public about the release of the environmental document, and 

directing outreach to stakeholders in proximity to the F-B LGA. In summary, as part of the F-B 

LGA planning process the Authority held more than 65 one-on-one stakeholder meetings, five 

community open houses, and information sessions with several organizations, working groups, 

and community representatives. 

Informational materials including statewide fact sheets, the F-B LGA fact sheet, and the F-B LGA 

map, were made available at each public meeting. Special outreach conducted for minority and 

low-income populations in these communities included availability of Spanish-language versions 

of presentation materials and availability of Spanish-language interpreters at public meetings. 

Flyers were delivered or emailed to advertise each open house to several community and public 

spaces serving potentially impacted low-income and minority populations, including schools, 

business groups, and other local groups. 

5.5.1.2 Outreach Events 

Statewide agency meetings were held starting in 2007 for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section. 

Public workshops, open houses, and other informational sessions were held, public comments 

were accepted, and draft documents were widely circulated. Details on public outreach, including 

outreach to minority and low-income communities, conducted for the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section can be found in Chapter 8 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority 

and FRA 2014: pages 8-2 through 8-4). Table 8-1 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS lists the meetings held through March 2014 as part of the lead agencies’ outreach effort 

for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section (Authority and FRA 2014: pages 8-19 through 8-63). 

Since May 2015, the Authority has conducted five community open house meetings to present 

updates about the overall HSR program and the proposed F-B LGA and provide the community 

an opportunity to ask questions and provide comments about the F-B LGA. Events were held in 

impacted areas at centralized facilities that were accessible to surrounding residents and 

businesses. Community open house meetings were held at the Bakersfield Marriott at the 

Convention Center in Bakersfield (August 25, 2015), the Shafter Veterans Hall (September 17, 

2015), the Rabobank Arena Convention Center in Bakersfield (November 5, 2015), the Riverview 

Community Center in Oildale (June 22, 2016), and the Shafter Veterans Hall (August 25, 2016). 

Outreach activities for these meetings included: canvassing of Sumner Street and the El Mercado 

Latino Area; mailing bilingual postcards to adjacent buildings,9

 buildings within 0.5 mile of the 

proposed stations, elected officials and key stakeholders, and people who previously commented 

on the F-B LGA Section; e-blast notifications to database contacts; delivering flyers to 

organizations including faith-based and environmental justice groups, social service agencies, 

local libraries, and community centers; and print and internet advertising (Martinez 2016). 

9

 Addresses for buildings 500 feet from the centerline on either side of the F-B LGA and May 2014 Project. 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-19 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

In addition, as part of the outreach for the F-B LGA, the Authority hosted an activity center at El 

Mercado Latino Tianguis on August 23, 2015. The event was staffed by Spanish speakers and 

offered vendors and El Mercado Latino Tianguis patrons an opportunity to learn about the 

proposed F-B LGA. The activity center consisted of an information table in the Mercado, a 

marketplace predominantly frequented by Spanish-speaking patrons, where Spanish-speakers 

were able to obtain information and ask questions about the HSR project. The activity center was 

set up for several hours on a Sunday, which is believed to be the busiest day of the week for the 

Mercado, and was an effective way of reaching out to the Spanish-speaking community in 

Bakersfield. 

As described above, the Authority and the City of Bakersfield hosted community open house 

meetings on August 25, 2015 and November 5, 2015, and the Authority hosted a community 

information event in Shafter on September 17, 2015, to discuss the F-B LGA and to provide an 

opportunity for the community to ask questions and provide comments about the alignment that is 

being studied (Authority and City of Bakersfield 2015). Additionally, the Authority held a 

community open house meeting in the City of Shafter on August 25, 2016, to present the 

proposed F-B LGA alignment and the retained fill design feature and gather community feedback. 

As part of the overall public outreach for the F-B LGA, the Authority has conducted more than 

65 one-on-one stakeholder meetings, including the following stakeholders who are identified, 

either because of location, clientele, or socioeconomic background, as having minority or lowincome status: 

 Bakersfield City School District

 Fairfax School District

 Mercado Latino Tianguis Owner

 Titan Cold Storage

 Bakersfield Cotton Warehouse (Jess Smith & Sons Cotton and Almonds)

 Beardsley School District

 Rain for Rent

 Kern High School District

 Jaco Oil

 Rain for Rent

 Golden Empire Gleaners

 Kern County Farm Bureau (presentation by Steve Milton)

 Bakersfield Rotary Club

 Bakersfield Homeless Shelter

 Pensinger Trailer Rentals

 Steeler Construction Supply (6022 State Road, Oildale)

 Brian Hall Properties (5801, 5940, 5950, 5960 State Road, Oildale)

 Kern 4HMF

The Authority also gave presentations to both the Greater Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce 

and the Shafter Chamber of Commerce and conducted working group meetings with the Sumner 

Street Businesses. 

An F-B LGA-specific environmental justice-focused outreach community meeting, the Oildale 

Community Meeting, was held on June 22, 2016 at the Riverview Community Center-Gymnasium 

in Bakersfield. This meeting included a formal presentation by the Authority, followed by a 

question and answer session. A Comments and Jobs Station was available, and factsheets were 

provided in both English and Spanish. 

Oildale was determined to be a prime area for a community outreach meeting because of its 

proximity to the F-B LGA alignment and proposed F Street station, and its socioeconomic 

makeup (e.g., 31.9 percent of the community is living below the poverty level). Approximately 

20 people attended the meeting, eleven of which identified themselves as Oildale residents, four 

identified themselves as from within a 500-foot radius of the proposed track, and four identified 

themselves as business owners near the alignment in the Oildale area (Martinez 2016). 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-20 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

A number of opportunities for public involvement have been made available through the F-B LGA 

with the purpose of ensuring minority and low-income populations had access to information on 

the project and to solicit their input about community-based concerns. Throughout this outreach 

effort, the Authority identified potentially disproportionate impacts on minority and/or low-income 

populations and developed ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate for the impacts. A list of the 

meetings that pertain to the F-B LGA is provided in F-B LGA CIA (Authority and FRA 2017) and in 

Chapter 9.0, Public and Agency Involvement, of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. Specific efforts 

aimed at outreach to the environmental justice communities in the study area are ongoing, as 

described in SO-MM#6 in Section 5.8.1.2. Additional outreach efforts will be incorporated here as 

such outreach occurs. 

5.5.2 Issues and Concerns 

5.5.2.1 Areas of Concern 

Many concerns expressed during outreach efforts for the F-B LGA are similar to those identified 

during outreach efforts for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the HSR project. A list of 

previously identified concerns can be found in Section 4.3.2 of the Fresno to Bakersfield CIA 

(Authority and FRA 2012: pages 4-41 and 4-42). Concerns raised during the public outreach 

conducted for the F-B LGA include: impacts to homes, businesses and public facilities; 

construction costs; job creation; station connectivity to other transportation modes; safety and 

security concerns; and electromagnetic field and noise impacts. Issues raised during outreach 

activities for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section EIR/EIS that were not raised during the outreach 

for the F-B LGA, include: concerns that the HSR would divide or further divide communities; lack 

of access to appropriate job training; concerns that the HSR will not benefit the Central Valley 

traveler; impacts to local churches, schools, and local landmarks/facilities; and concerns 

regarding the ability of low-income or unemployed community members to relocate if impacted. 

Specific questions raised by the Oildale Community Meeting participants included the rail’s 

operation, practicability, and local impact. Other inquiries were broad in scope. Specific questions 

from Oildale residents and business owners included the following: 

 How many farmers will be displaced between here and Fresno?

 Where is the water going to come from?

 What is the contact information for small business owners who would like to work on

contracts related to the project?

Questions from other attendees included the following: 

 Noise and vibration concerns

 Operation hours and cost

 Viability for commuting to work

 Overall project cost and funding sources

 Route’s effect on Shafter, California

 Cost benefit of HSR compared to freeways

 Alignment specifics

 The Authority’s environmental process

No other specific environmental justice related comments have been raised during the public 

outreach conducted for the F-B LGA. The Authority will continue to coordinate with the affected 

communities to gather information regarding their concerns. 

5.6 Assessment of Adverse Effects and Disparate Impacts 

This section describes the impact analysis relating to environmental justice for the F-B LGA and 

summarizes the impact analysis for the May 2014 Project. 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-21 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

5.6.1 Methodology for the Assessment of Adverse Effects and Disparate 

Impacts 

This section summarizes the approach the Authority and FRA used to identify potential effects on 

minority and low-income communities under the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA. This 

examination took a detailed, step-by-step approach to identify areas with minority and low-income 

populations and then evaluate the potential for the project to result in disproportionately high and 

adverse effects on minority or low-income populations in the environmental justice study area, by 

comparing the impacts experienced by the minority and low-income populations to the nonminority and/or non-low-income population and the reference community, which are tools to 

compare the proportionality of impacts. 

The analysis presented in Section 5.3.3, Identification of Minority and Low-Income Communities, 

identified the locations of potential environmental justice populations within the project study area 

(see Appendix A of the F-B LGA CIA (Authority and FRA 2017 for a detailed description of the 

environmental justice methodology). 

This Chapter uses the analysis of potential adverse project-related effects on human health and 

environmental resources in the study area, including transportation and traffic congestion; air 

quality and global climate change; noise and vibration; electromagnetic fields and 

electromagnetic interference; public utilities and energy; biological resources and wetlands; 

hydrology and water resources, including water pollution; geology, soils, and seismicity; 

hazardous materials/wastes; safety and security, including bodily impairment, infirmity, illness or 

death; socioeconomics and communities, including disruption of community cohesion, 

displacement of residents and businesses, adverse employment effects, and isolation/separation 

of individuals from the community; local growth, station planning, and land use; agricultural lands; 

parks, recreation, and open space; aesthetics and visual resources; and cultural resources. 

These effects were identified by geographic area and type of impact. The analysis also 

considered the access of minority and low-income communities to project benefits. 

When minority or low-income populations were identified, the impacts experienced by that 

population were compared with the resource study area and the larger reference community 

(Kern County) to determine whether the project would result in a disproportionately high and 

adverse impact. A disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low-income 

populations is defined as an impact that is predominantly borne by a minority and/or low-income 

population or will be suffered by the minority and/or low-income population and is appreciably 

more severe or greater in magnitude than the adverse effect suffered by the non-minority and/or 

non-low income population in the affected area and the reference community. In addition, in 

determining whether the impact would be disproportionately borne by a minority and/or lowincome population, the analysis considered if the project would implement measures to avoid or 

reduce the adverse effect, and/or provide benefits that would affect the minority and low-income 

populations. 

The following sections describe the potential for project-related effects in the environmental 

justice study area for the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA. After these effects are described, 

the discussion examines the effects for their potential to be disproportionately high and adverse 

for minority or low-income communities along these alignments. Benefits of the HSR project are 

also considered when evaluating impacts to minority or low-income communities. These benefits 

are similar for all HSR alternatives, and are discussed in Section 5.3.3.5, Project Benefits, of the 

Fresno to Bakersfield CIA (Authority and FRA 2012: page 5-95). 

5.6.2 Summary of Analysis for the May 2014 Project 

The May 2014 Project traverses areas with minority and low-income populations and would result 

in disproportionately high and adverse effects on these populations. For additional information 

regarding effects to minority and low-income communities under the May 2014 Project, refer to 

Section 3.12.8.2, High-Speed Train Alternatives, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS, Section 3.12 Socioeconomics, Communities and Environmental Justice (Authority and 

FRA 2014: 3.12-107 to 3.12-135). 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-22 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-23 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

As shown in Figure 5-2 and described above, minority and low-income populations in the May 

2014 Project study area are located primarily in the urban areas of Shafter and Bakersfield. The 

communities around the proposed Truxtun Avenue Station contain many minority and low-income 

populations. The MOIF would be located along the May 2014 Project alternative just north of the 

City of Bakersfield and 7th Standard Road. The communities south and east of the proposed 

MOIF site for the May 2014 Project contain minority and low-income populations. 

5.6.2.1 Construction Period Impacts 

Construction activities associated with the May 2014 Project would have impacts on all the 

communities in the May 2014 Project study area, including minority and low-income populations. 

However, application of mitigation measures, as described further below, would achieve a 

reduction in impacts and eliminate the adverse impacts on all communities. Consequently, 

construction activities associated with the May 2014 Project would not result in disproportionately 

high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. A summary of constructionrelated impacts by resource topic is provided below. 

Transportation 

Construction activities would result in additional traffic in the study area as a result of temporary 

road or lane modifications. However, temporary road closures and detours would not impact 

traffic circulation, create operational hazards, or incompatible uses. Existing or planned Safe 

Routes to Schools would not be impacted by construction activities. The temporary increase in 

traffic would impact all communities in both urban and rural areas, including minority and lowincome populations. 

Impacts experienced by minority and low-income populations would be the same as impacts 

experienced by the non-minority and/or non-low-income populations in the affected area and are 

not unique to minority and low-income populations when compared to the reference community. 

Therefore, these adverse impacts would not be borne primarily by minority and low-income 

populations and consequently, construction activities would not result in disproportionately high 

and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. 

Implementation of the project design features described in Section 3.2.6 of the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.2-121 through 3.2-124), 

including the development of a construction transportation plan (CTP) in coordination with the 

appropriate city and county engineering departments, would minimize all potential impacts, 

including those that would be experienced by minority and low-income populations, since the 

design features are applied equally throughout the project area during construction. 

Therefore, transportation impacts during construction of the May 2014 Project would not have 

disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. 

Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

Emissions associated with the concurrent construction of track, station, and maintenance facilities 

under the May 2014 Project would exceed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

pollutant emissions thresholds for construction. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is not in 

attainment of federal and state air quality standards for ozone and PM2.5 and not in attainment of 

state standards for respirable particulate matter (PM10). As described in Section 3.3.6.3 of the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.3-46 through 3.3-

53), project construction emissions would not cause state or federal ambient air quality standards 

to be exceeded locally and would not exceed applicable thresholds for health risks and exposure 

to toxic air contaminants. Therefore, construction of the May 2014 Project would not cause local 

air quality impacts to any population in the study area, including minority and low-income 

communities. 

Implementation of mitigation measures, AQ-MM#1, AQ-MM#2, and AQ-MM#4, identified in the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.3-86 through 3.3-

89) will ensure that construction of the May 2014 Project will result in no net increase in regional

pollutant concentrations. Therefore, May 2014 Project construction would not result in air quality 
Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

impacts to any regional population. In addition, May 2014 Project construction emissions would 

not cause local air quality or health risk impacts to any population in the study area. Furthermore, 

the Authority will implement the appropriate project design features to further reduce any potential 

air quality impacts during construction (see Section 3.3, Air Quality and Global Climate Change, 

of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS [Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.3-85 and 

3.3-86]). Therefore, because the application of mitigation will ensure no net increase in regional 

emissions and because no communities will experience any localized adverse air quality or health 

impacts during construction, no communities within the study area, including low-income and 

minority populations, will experience disproportionately high or adverse impacts resulting from 

May 2014 Project construction. 

Therefore, air quality and global climate change impacts during construction of the May 2014 

Project would not have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income 

populations. 

Noise and Vibration 

Noise from construction activities would temporarily exceed noise standards along the entire May 

2014 Project study area and adversely affect sensitive receivers (e.g., residences, schools, 

hospitals, parks). Construction vibration only has the potential to result in damages to buildings 

within 50 feet of pile driving activities. The increase in noise and vibration would impact all 

communities near construction activities, including minority and low-income populations. 

Implementation of mitigation measures, N&V-MM#1 and N&V-MM#2, identified in Section 3.4.7.1 

of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.4-56 to 3.4-

57) will minimize potential construction noise impacts, including those that would be experienced

by minority and low-income populations, since the mitigation measures are applied equally 

throughout the project area during construction. Therefore, noise impacts during construction of 

the May 2014 Project would not have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and 

low-income populations. 

Electromagnetic Frequency/Electromagnetic Interference 

There would be no adverse Electromagnetic Frequency (EMF)/Electromagnetic Interference 

(EMI) construction impacts on communities because construction equipment would generate low 

EMF and EMI levels (see Section 3.5 Electromagnetic Fields and Electromagnetic Interference of 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS [Authority and FRA 2014: page 3.5-14]). 

Therefore, EMF/EMI impacts associated with construction of the May 2014 Project would not 

have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. 

Public Utilities and Energy 

There would be no adverse public utility and energy impacts because phasing of construction 

activities would avoid or minimize temporary interruptions of utility services (see Section 3.6, 

Public Utilities and Energy, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS [Authority and FRA 

2014: pages 3.6-44 through 3.6-50]). Because no adverse public utility and energy impacts would 

occur during construction, no minority or low-income populations would be adversely impacted. 

Biological Resources and Wetlands 

Construction activities would impact special status plants, wildlife, and habitats of concern, but 

would not result in adverse effects on human health or environments in any communities, 

including those with minority and low-income populations (see Section 3.7, Biological Resources 

and Wetlands, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS [Authority and FRA 2014: 

pages 3.7-51 through 3.7-103]). While some adverse effects to biological resources and wetlands 

are likely to occur during May 2014 Project construction, the resources affected are not related to 

human health or specific areas or resources used by the general public, including minority or lowincome populations. Therefore, these impacts would not result in adverse impacts to minority and 

low-income populations. 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-24 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

Hydrology and Water Resources 

Construction activities such as excavation and dewatering in work areas have the potential to 

degrade water quality. However, in accordance with Construction General Permit (Order No. 

2009-0009 DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002), a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) 

will be prepared and implemented for May 2014 Project construction, which will provide best 

management practices (BMP) to minimize potential short-term increases in sediment transport 

caused by construction, including erosion control requirements, stormwater management, and 

channel dewatering for affected stream crossings (see Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water 

Resources, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS [Authority and FRA 2014: pages 

3.8-72 through 3.8-75]). These BMPs will include measures to provide permeable surfaces where 

feasible and to retain or detain and treat stormwater onsite. Other BMPs include strategies to 

manage the overall amount and quality of stormwater runoff. The SWPPP will be implemented 

uniformly throughout the project alignment and will effectively reduce the potential adverse 

impacts to water resources to all communities during construction, including minority and lowincome populations. 

Best management practices called for in the SWPPP will be implemented uniformly at all 

construction locations and will effectively reduce potential construction impacts. Therefore, as a 

result, construction impacts (as well as the associated avoidance of such impacts from project 

design features) would be the same as experienced by all communities in the study area and are 

not unique to minority and low-income populations. Consequently, construction activities 

associated with the May 2014 Project would not result in disproportionately high and adverse 

effects on minority and low-income populations. 

Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources 

Construction activities could deposit unstable soils and contribute to soil erosion, but would not 

result in adverse effects on human health or environments in any communities, including those 

with minority and low-income populations (see Section 3.9, Geology, Soils and Seismicity, of the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS [Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.9-28 through 3.9-

33]). Therefore, construction impacts related to geology, soils, seismicity, and paleontological 

resources for the May 2014 Project would not have disproportionately high and adverse effects 

on minority and low-income populations. 

Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

Construction activities would be similar along the entire May 2014 Project area and would involve 

transporting, using, and disposing of hazardous materials and wastes and have the potential to 

result in accidental spills or releases and result in temporary hazards at all locations near 

construction activities, including at schools. The segment of the May 2014 Project with the 

highest risk for existing hazardous waste sites and for the accidental release of hazardous wastes 

is in Shafter, where low-income and minority populations are located adjacent to the alignment. 

Such an accident could disproportionately affect the low-income and minority populations of these 

cities. However, remediation of hazardous waste sites in accordance with federal, station, and 

local regulations would be applied equally throughout the alignment prior to initiating construction 

and would reduce the potential risk for such an accident to a very low level in all communities 

along the alignment, including minority and low-income communities. 

Construction staging areas would have the highest concentrations of hazardous materials used 

for the May 2014 Project and therefore the greatest risk for accidental spills. Construction staging 

areas are distributed roughly equally throughout the alignment primarily in agricultural areas and 

vacant or underutilized lands in urban areas and are not specifically located in minority and lowincome communities. Because construction staging areas would be distributed roughly equally 

throughout the alignment, accidental spills of hazardous materials during construction would not 

occur disproportionately in low-income and/or minority communities. Adherence to federal, state, 

and local regulations will minimize the risk of a spill or accidental release of hazardous materials; 

see Section 3.10.6, Project Design Features, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS 

(Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.7-37 and 3.7-38). 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-25 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

Schools are particularly sensitive locations for the accidental release of hazardous materials due 

to the potential impacts on children’s health and safety. Schools within 0.25 mile of construction 

activities that could be at risk for hazardous waste spills are located in both Shafter and 

Bakersfield. These schools are distributed among low-income and minority populations, as well 

as among non-minority and/or non-low-income populations. The application of Mitigation Measure 

HMW-MM#1 will reduce the risk of a hazardous materials spill near any of these schools 

(Authority and FRA 2014: page 3.7-38). Therefore, the impacts experienced by minority and lowincome populations would be the same as experienced by the rest of the population within the 

reference community. 

Consequently, construction activities associated with the May 2014 Project would not result in 

disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. 

Safety and Security 

As discussed in Section 3.11, Safety and Security, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS, construction activities would result in temporary road closures and rerouting that could 

pose safety risks to communities (Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.11-26 through 3.11-28). At 

these sites, lane closures and detours could potentially create a distraction to automobile drivers, 

pedestrians, and cyclists. Distraction and unfamiliarity with detours could lead to accidents. In 

addition, the road closures, detours, and localized automobile congestion could increase the 

response time for law enforcement, fire, and emergency services personnel and school buses. 

The temporary increase in traffic would impact all communities in both urban and rural areas, 

including minority and low-income populations. 

Impacts associated with construction of the May 2014 Project will be mitigated through the 

development of a CTP, which will reduce the impact throughout the affected area and eliminate 

the adverse effect (Authority and FRA 2014: page 3.11-43). Consequently, construction activities 

would not result in disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income 

populations. 

Socioeconomics and Communities 

Construction activities associated with the May 2014 Project could impact community cohesion by 

affecting important facilities providing services and altering social interactions through temporary 

increases in noise, visual changes, and road closures. Construction activities would be disruptive 

to all communities near construction areas, including minority and low-income populations. 

Minority and low-income populations in the study area would experience adverse community 

cohesion impacts as a result of project construction. In most cases, these impacts would also be 

experienced by the non-minority and/or non-low-income populations in the affected area. 

However, access to important community facilities, such as the Mercado Latino Tianguis, which is 

used primarily by low-income and minority populations, could be modified temporarily during 

construction resulting in an inconvenience to minority and low-income patrons in Bakersfield. In 

addition, Bakersfield High School could be impacted, which is a facility used by the community as 

a whole, including minority and low-income populations. 

However, the application of project design features and mitigation measures to address 

transportation, noise and vibration and visual effects, including TR-MM#1, which would provide 

alternate access for properties impacted by road closures, will reduce the impact throughout the 

affected area and eliminate the adverse effect (Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.2-125 and 3.2-

126). Through the implementation of these project design features and mitigation measures, the 

impacts to important community facilities serving low-income and minority populations would be 

greatly reduced to a level similar to impacts experienced by the reference community as a whole. 

Consequently, construction activities associated with the May 2014 Project would not result in 

disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-26 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-27 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

Station Planning, Land Use, and Development 

There would be no adverse land use impacts because lands used for temporary construction 

would be acquired from willing landowners and restored to their previous condition at the end of 

the construction period. Temporary use of this land would not change the long-term pattern or 

intensity of land use or cause incompatibility with adjacent land uses (see Section 3.13, Station 

Planning, Land Use, and Development, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS 

[Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.13-36 and 3.13-37]). Because no adverse land use impacts 

would occur during construction of the May 2014 Project, no minority or low-income populations 

would be adversely impacted. 

Agricultural Lands 

Construction activities for the May 2014 Project would require the temporary use of agricultural 

land, but would not result in adverse effects on human health or environments in any 

communities, including those with minority and low-income populations (see Section 3.14, 

Agricultural Lands, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS [Authority and FRA 2014: 

pages 3.14-42 through 3.14-46]). Therefore, these impacts would not result in adverse impacts to 

minority and low-income populations. 

Parks, Recreation, and Open Space 

Construction activities for the May 2014 Project would result in temporary closures, access 

restrictions, noise, and visual impacts at parks and school district play areas near construction 

areas, including in communities with minority and low-income populations. The greatest effects 

would be experienced at Kern River Parkway and Bakersfield High School recreation facilities in 

Bakersfield. 

Construction activities that result in increases in noise and vibration and visual disturbances 

would be reduced through mitigation measures described in Section 3.4, Noise and Vibration, 

and Section 3.16, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.4-56 to 3.4-57 and 3.16-141 to 3.16-142). Mitigation 

Measure PP-MM#1 would reduce the impact of partial park closures by providing alternative 

access that allows for continued use of the impacted parks (see Section 3.15, Parks, Recreation, 

and Open Space, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS [Authority and FRA 2014: 

page 3.15-48]). 

Impacts on parks and school district play areas would be distributed along the entire study area, 

and would be experienced by all park visitors, including minority and low-income populations. 

However, the greatest impacts to parks and play areas would occur in urban areas with minority 

and low-income populations along the project study area, including Bakersfield. The application of 

mitigation measures to address noise and vibration and visual disturbances, as well as PPMM#1, will reduce the impact and eliminate the adverse effect. After the implementation of 

mitigation measures, all community members including minority and low-income populations will 

continue to have access to parks and recreation areas during construction and their use will not 

be substantially impaired by construction activities. Consequently, construction activities 

associated with the May 2014 Project would not result in disproportionately high and adverse 

parks, recreation, and open space effects on minority and low-income populations. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources 

Construction activities associated with the May 2014 Project would reduce the visual quality of 

scenic vistas and existing landscapes, and introduce new sources of light and glare. The visual 

impacts would impact all communities in both urban and rural areas, including minority and lowincome populations. These impacts are the same as experienced by the non-minority and/or nonlow-income populations in the affected area and are not unique to minority and low-income 

populations. Therefore, these adverse impacts would not be borne primarily by minority and lowincome populations. 

Mitigation measures AVR-MM#1a and AVR-MM#1b would reduce the visual disruption from 

construction activities by preserving vegetation and using temporary fencing and walls to screen 
Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

views (see Section 3.16, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Final EIR/EIS [Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.16-141 and 3.16-142]). Implementation of these 

mitigation measures will minimize all potential impacts, including those that would be experienced 

by minority and low-income populations, since the mitigation measures are applied equally 

throughout the project area during construction. Therefore, construction activities associated with 

the May 2014 Project would not result in disproportionately high and adverse visual effects on 

minority and low-income populations. 

Cultural Resources 

Construction activities would result in noise and vibration and visual impacts to structures that 

have been determined to be eligible for the National Historic Preservation Act. Historic 

architectural resources would be impacted in all communities near construction areas, including 

minority and low-income populations. However, adverse effects to historical properties, as 

discussed in Section 3.17, Cultural and Paleontological Resources, of the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.17-102 through 3.17-127) pertain solely 

to the structure itself, and not to the cultural environment. Consequently, these impacts would not 

result in adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations. 

5.6.2.2 Operation Period Impacts 

The May 2014 Project would result in disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and 

low-income populations. As described below, for most resource topics, implementation of 

avoidance and minimization measures, as well as mitigation measures would reduce identified 

impacts such that disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income 

populations would not occur. However, for noise and vibration, socioeconomics and communities, 

land use, parks and recreation, and visual resources, the mitigation measures would not 

completely reduce impacts resulting from operation of the May 2014 Project in communities with 

minority and low-income populations. Because the mitigation measures do not eliminate the 

adverse impacts and because the noise and vibration, socioeconomics and communities, land 

use, parks and recreation, and visual impacts would be greater for minority and low-income 

populations when compared to the reference community, operation of the May 2014 Project 

would have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low-income populations. 

May 2014 Project Operation Impacts Not Resulting in Disproportionately High and Adverse 

Effects 

In cases where no effects were identified or impacts were less than significant under CEQA, no 

further analysis was conducted on the potential of the May 2014 Project to affect a minority or 

low-income population. The resources that were found to have no effects or less than significant 

impacts to minority or low-income populations included: transportation; air quality and global 

climate change; EMF/EMI; public utilities and energy; biological resources and wetlands; 

hydrology and water resources; geology, soils, and seismicity; hazardous materials and wastes; 

safety and security; agricultural lands; and cultural resources. A brief discussion of these topics is 

provided below. 

Transportation 

The May 2014 Project would provide benefits to the regional transportation system by reducing 

vehicle trips on freeways by providing another mode of transportation for intercity passenger trips. 

All communities, including minority and low-income populations, would benefit from the reduction 

in roadway congestion and an increase in transportation options. 

Operation of the May 2014 Project would require the construction of roadway crossings and the 

permanent closure of some roads. The road closures have the potential to result in a loss of 

property access. The adverse impacts to roadways, intersections and property access would 

impact all communities near the May 2014 Project, including minority and low-income 

populations. Therefore, these adverse impacts would not be borne primarily by minority and lowincome populations and consequently, project operation would not result in disproportionately 

high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-28 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-29 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

Mitigation measures TR-MM #2, TR-MM #3, TR-MM#4, TR-MM#5, TR-MM#6, TR-MM#7, and 

TR-MM#8, as described in Section 3.2, Transportation, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.2-124 through 3.2-141), would reduce the impacts on 

roadways and intersections by improving traffic signals and adding new lanes. Mitigation measure 

TR-MM#1 would reduce the potential impact from loss of property access as a result of road 

closures by providing alternate access via new or existing road connections or, where necessary, 

replacement of the property. Implementation of these mitigation measures will minimize all 

potential impacts, including those that would be experienced by minority and low-income 

populations, since the mitigation measures are applied equally throughout the project area. 

Therefore, May 2014 Project operation transportation impacts would not have disproportionately 

high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. 

Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

At the regional level, operation of the May 2014 Project would result in lower pollutant emissions, 

reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and would be a net benefit to regional air 

quality (see Section 3.3, Air Quality and Global Climate Change, of the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section Final EIR/EIS [Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.3-57 through 3.3-84]). This impact would 

benefit all communities in the region, including minority and low-income populations. 

As described in Section 3.3.6.3 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and 

FRA 2014: pages 3.3-57 through 3.3-84), operational-related emissions at and in the vicinity of 

the Truxtun Avenue Station and MOIF site will not result in local exceedance of ambient air 

quality standards and will not increase health risks to any of the nearby communities. 

All communities would experience the regional air quality benefits, including minority and lowincome populations. Because May 2014 Project operation would result in an overall beneficial 

impact to minority and low-income populations and would not result in localized air quality 

impacts, the impacts would not be disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and 

low-income populations. 

Electromagnetic Frequency/Electromagnetic Interference 

There would be no adverse EMF/EMI operation impacts on communities because EMF/EMI 

impacts on schools, hospitals, businesses, colleges and residences would be below industry 

standard limits and prevented by dedicated frequency blocks (see Section 3.5, Electromagnetic 

Fields and Electromagnetic Interference, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS 

[Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.5-15 through 3.5-21]). Because no adverse EMF/EMI impacts 

would occur during project operation, no minority or low-income populations would be adversely 

impacted. 

Public Utilities and Energy 

There would be no adverse public utilities and energy impacts associated with project operation 

because May 2014 Project facilities would not permanently disrupt existing utility infrastructure or 

the services that the utility providers’ customers rely on (see Section 3.6, Public Utilities and 

Energy, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS [Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.6-

50 through 3.6-77]). Because no adverse public utility and energy impacts would occur during 

project operation, no minority or low-income populations would be adversely impacted. 

Biological Resources and Wetlands 

Operation of the May 2014 Project would affect special status plants, wildlife and habitats of 

concern, but would not result in adverse effects on human health or environments in any 

communities, including those with minority and low-income populations (see Section 3.7, 

Biological Resources and Wetlands, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS [Authority 

and FRA 2014: pages 3.7-103 through 3.7-169]). While some adverse effects to biological 

resources and wetlands are likely to occur during project operation, the resources affected are 

not related to human health, specific areas or resources used by the general public, including 

minority or low-income populations. Therefore, these impacts would not result in adverse impacts 

to minority and low-income populations. 
November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-30 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

Hydrology and Water Resources 

There would be no adverse water quality impacts associated with operation of the May 2014 

Project on any communities because the regenerative braking technology of the HSR would 

reduce the potential amount of metal particles deposited into the environment. In addition, any 

runoff from the right-of-way would be collected and treated, where required, prior to being 

discharged to a stormwater drainage system (see Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Resources, 

of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS [Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.8-50 

through 3.8-71]). Additionally, existing municipal treatment systems would prevent any potential 

water pollutants from affecting the municipal water supplies in the region. Because no adverse 

water quality impacts would occur in any communities during May 2014 Project operation, no 

minority or low-income populations would be adversely impacted. 

Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources 

There would be no adverse geology, soils, and seismicity impacts associated with operation of 

the May 2014 Project on any communities because the exposure of people to the potential effects 

from seismically induced surface fault rupture would be avoided by repairs that would occur with 

routine maintenance of the HSR (see Section 3.9, Geology, Soils and Seismicity, of the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS [Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.9-33 through 3.9-38]). 

Because no adverse geology, soils, and seismicity impacts would occur in any communities 

during May 2014 Project operation, no minority or low-income populations would be adversely 

impacted. 

Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

Operation of the May 2014 Project would involve transporting, using, and disposing of minor 

amounts of hazardous materials and wastes for routine maintenance. The potential for accidental 

spills or releases would impact all communities near the project, including minority and lowincome populations. However, the extent of the impact would be determined by the location of the 

spill or release. The risk of such spill or release and therefore the potential impacts are the same 

as experienced by the non-minority and/or non-low-income populations in the study area and are 

not unique to minority and low-income populations. Therefore, these adverse impacts would not 

be borne primarily by minority and low-income populations and consequently, project operation 

would not result in disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income 

populations. 

Adherence to the federal, state, and local regulations will minimize the risk of a spill or accidental 

release of hazardous materials (see Section 3.10, Hazardous Materials and Wastes, of the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS [Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.10-37 and 3.10-

38]), including those that would be experienced by minority and low-income populations, since 

adherence to federal, state and local regulations will occur throughout the project area. Therefore, 

hazardous materials and waste impacts associated with operation of the May 2014 Project would 

not have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. 

Safety and Security 

Operation of the May 2014 Project would provide a safety benefit because the system would use 

contemporary safety and signaling and be fully grade-separated to prevent conflicts with vehicles, 

pedestrians, and bicyclists. This impact would benefit all communities in the region, including 

minority and low-income populations. 

Nonetheless, operation of the May 2014 Project could impact the health and safety of populations 

near the right-of-way due to the possibility of train accidents. Emergency response times by law 

enforcement, fire, and emergency services personnel could be impacted as a result of permanent 

road closures or the need to access elevated track portions in the case of an accident. 

All populations in the study area could be exposed to adverse safety and security impacts as a 

result of project operation, including minority and low-income populations. In addition, the entire 

study area would experience the safety benefits from the grade-separated system. Neither the 

adverse impacts nor project benefits are unique to minority and low-income populations but would 
 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

be experienced by the community as a whole. Therefore, these adverse impacts would not be 

borne primarily by minority and low-income populations. 

The system safety and security measures will minimize safety and security risks by design 

features that would contain train sets within the operational corridor if a derailment were to occur, 

procedures to protect passenger and employee health, safety features to facilitate safe 

evacuations on elevated tracks, and coordination with emergency responders to incorporate 

roadway modifications that maintain existing traffic patterns and fulfill response route needs (see 

Section 3.11, Safety and Security, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (see 

Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Resources, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS 

[Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.11-43 through 3.11-45]). These project design features will 

minimize all potential impacts, including those that would be experienced by minority and lowincome populations, since the system safety and security measures will be applied throughout the 

project area. Therefore, safety and security impacts associated with operation of the May 2014 

Project would not have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income 

populations. 

Agricultural Lands 

Operation of the May 2014 Project would result in the permanent conversion of agricultural land 

to nonagricultural use and conflict with farmland protection contracts (e.g., Williamson Act 

contracts). The impacts to agricultural lands would impact rural agricultural communities along the 

project area, which contain few minority and low-income populations (see Section 3.14, 

Agricultural Lands, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS [Authority and FRA 2014: 

pages 3.14-46 through 3.14-60]). 

Agricultural land impacts would be distributed along rural agricultural areas in the May 2014 

Project study area. As shown in Figure 5-2, these areas have the lowest numbers of minority and 

low-income populations in the affected area and within the reference community. A few scattered, 

low-density minority and/or low-income populations are located between the urban areas of 

Shafter and Bakersfield, but most of the area impacted does not contain minority and/or lowincome populations. Therefore, these adverse impacts would not be borne primarily by minority 

and low-income populations and consequently, May 2014 Project operation would not result in 

disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. 

Cultural Resources 

There would be no adverse impacts on cultural resources associated with project operation 

because operational noise and vibration levels would not damage historic architectural resources 

(see Section 3.17, Cultural and Paleontological Resources, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Final EIR/EIS [Authority and FRA 2014: page 3.17-127). Because no adverse cultural resource 

impacts would occur during project operation, no minority or low-income populations would be 

adversely impacted. 

May 2014 Project Operation Impacts Resulting in Potential Disproportionately High and 

Adverse Effects 

This section describes the potential for operation period effects on environmental resources in the 

environmental justice study area for the May 2014 Project. Effects that were found to be 

significant before mitigation are described below. These effects were compared to the geographic 

locations of minority and low-income populations within the study area. This comparison was 

done to determine if any of these effects occurred disproportionately in minority or low-income 

communities or were of a disproportionately high magnitude within such communities, placing a 

potentially high burden of effect on minority and low-income populations. Impacts associated with 

noise and vibration; socioeconomics and communities; station planning, land use, and 

development; parks and recreation; and aesthetics and visual resources would have 

disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. These 

impacts are described in further detail below. 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-31 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

Noise and Vibration 

Operation of the May 2014 Project would increase ambient noise and vibration levels above 

standards and would affect sensitive receivers (e.g., residences, schools, hospitals, and parks) 

along the May 2014 Project alignment. These effects would be substantial and significant. Noise 

and vibration impacts would be distributed along the entire study area and mitigation measures 

would be applied, as appropriate. Implementation of mitigation measures, N&V-MM#, N&VMM#7, and N&V-MM#8, would reduce many of the impacts to less than significant under CEQA 

(see Section 3.4, Noise and Vibration, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS 

[Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.4-57 through 3.4-77]). However, 305 sensitive receptors would 

still experience substantial and significant operational noise or vibration impacts even with the 

implementation of proposed mitigation. These sensitive receptors are primarily located within 

urban areas in Shafter and Bakersfield containing minority and low-income populations. Because 

the mitigation measures do not eliminate the adverse effects, and because these areas are more 

likely to experience severe adverse noise and vibration impacts resulting from project operation, 

operational noise and vibration would have disproportionately high and adverse effects on 

minority and low-income populations in these areas. 

Socioeconomics and Communities 

Implementation of the May 2014 Project would divide communities in the northeast and northwest 

neighborhoods in Bakersfield, as well as rural areas such as Crome; remove 384 homes, 392 

businesses, and 11 community services or amenities; directly affect an additional 9 community 

facilities; and permanently alter the character of existing communities or neighborhoods. The 

displacements and residual community impacts associated with operation of the May 2014 

Project Alternative would affect the minority and low-income populations in the urban 

communities, particularly in Bakersfield’s northwest and northeast districts (as defined in the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Community Impact Assessment [Authority and FRA 2012; pages 4-9 and 4-

10), as well as in the rural communities, especially in Crome. These effects would remain even 

with implementation of proposed mitigation measures. As detailed in the Fresno to Bakersfield 

CIA, high concentrations of residential displacements would occur under the May 2014 Project. 

The analysis suggests that relocation of residents may affect high numbers of disabled, female 

heads of households, and linguistically isolated populations. 

Important community facilities would also be displaced as a result of project operation. The May 

2014 Project would displace the Industrial Arts building at Bakersfield High School, which is 

attended by predominantly minority and low-income students. Further, the May 2014 Project 

would displace the Bakersfield Homeless Shelter, which serves low-income families, as well as 

the Mercado, which serves a minority community, and several buildings of the Mercy Hospital 

medical complex, which has programs dedicated to low-income communities. Although all 

community facilities would be relocated, the displacement still represents an adverse impact. 

Given that the communities that would be divided by the alignment are predominantly minority 

and low-income communities and the project would affect community facilities that primarily serve 

minority and low-income communities, implementation of the May 2014 Project would 

disproportionately affect minority and low-income communities. 

Station Planning, Land Use, and Development 

Land use impacts would be distributed along the entire study area, but the adverse effects would 

be highest in places where the May 2014 Project would be incompatible with adjacent land uses, 

including urban areas in Bakersfield. Although there is already an incompatibility between the 

existing freight rail line and adjacent residential uses in these areas, the May 2014 Project would 

enhance the existing incompatibility by increasing the intensity of the use of the land, which would 

be incompatible with adjacent residential uses. However, the May 2014 Project would not induce 

development along the project area. Many high-density minority and low-income populations are 

located in Bakersfield. Because the urban areas in Bakersfield containing minority and lowincome populations are more likely to experience severe land use impacts resulting from 

implementation of the May 2014 Project, when compared to the larger reference community, land 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-32 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

use conversion would have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and lowincome communities in Bakersfield. 

Parks, Recreation, and Open Space 

The May 2014 Project would impact the character of Kern River Parkway, Mill Creek Linear Park, 

the Bakersfield Amtrak Station playground, and the recreational facilities at Bakersfield High 

School due to increases in noise, visual disturbance, and facility use. Mitigation measures would 

be applied to address these impacts as discussed in Section 3.4, Noise and Vibration; 3.15, 

Parks, Recreation, and Open Space; and 3.16, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, of the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.4-57 through 3.4-77, 3.11-

43, 3.15-48 and 3.15-49, and 3.16-142 through 3.16-145]). However, these mitigation measures 

would not completely reduce the impacts to park and recreation resources in Bakersfield. Many of 

the parks that may be affected in Bakersfield are utilized by nearby minority and low-income 

populations. Because the mitigation measures do not eliminate the adverse impacts within areas 

containing minority and low-income populations and these populations would experience greater 

adverse impacts when compared to the larger reference community, operation of the May 2014 

Project would have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income 

populations in these locations. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources 

The May 2014 Project would result in aesthetics and visual resources effects, including the 

introduction of permanent project features that would impact the existing visual character and 

quality and new sources of light and glare. The visual effects would occur in those areas where 

the alignment would be elevated, which would occur primarily in urban areas of Shafter and 

Bakersfield where minority and low-income populations reside. Nighttime lighting would be 

required, and the introduction of elevated viaducts into the viewshed and the resulting visual 

impacts would not be mitigated to less than significant under CEQA with the proposed mitigation 

measures. Therefore, implementation of the May 2014 Project would have a disproportionately 

high and adverse effect on minority and low-income populations. 

Because the mitigation measures do not eliminate the adverse impacts within areas containing 

minority and low-income populations and because these communities would bear a higher 

burden from these impacts when compared to the larger study area, implementation of the May 

2014 Project would have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income 

populations in these locations. 

5.6.3 Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative 

A complete definition of the F-B LGA is provided in Chapter 2 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. 

5.6.3.1 Construction Period Impacts 

Impact EJ#1 –Effects of Project Construction on Minority or Low-Income Populations 

Like the May 2014 Project, construction activities associated with the F-B LGA would have 

impacts on all the communities in the study area, including minority and low-income populations. 

However, application of mitigation measures, as described further below, would achieve a 

reduction in impacts and eliminate the adverse impacts on all communities. Consequently, 

construction activities associated with the F-B LGA would not result in disproportionately high and 

adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. A discussion of construction-related 

impacts by resource topic is provided below. 

Transportation 

In rural areas, the primary traffic impacts during construction would occur at locations where 

overcrossings are needed to carry minor roadways over the tracks. At these locations, the 

affected roadway would either be rerouted onto a temporary alignment or temporarily closed. 

Because detours would be limited in rural areas and would affect few travelers, only small effects 

to traffic circulation would occur. Moreover, few minority or low-income communities are located 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-33 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

in these rural areas. Therefore, construction-related traffic impacts in rural areas would not have 

disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income communities in rural 

areas. 

In urban areas, project-related construction traffic would contribute to interference with 

pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit where existing sidewalks, paths, and transit stops need to be 

temporarily closed or relocated to allow for construction of new facilities. Similarly, construction 

activities may create a temporary operational hazard or loss of access to community facilities, 

although emergency access would be maintained. Construction activities could require temporary 

lane or road closures and underground utility work. Construction activities could also lead to both 

temporary disruption of transportation system operations and possible damage to elements of the 

roadway system, such as pavement and bridges. 

During construction of the proposed F Street Station, approximately 170 peak-hour trips would be 

added to the transportation infrastructure, resulting in impacts to nine intersections in the vicinity 

of the proposed station. : 

 F Street/SR 204

 Chester Avenue/30th Street-SR 204 South Frontage Road

 Chester Avenue/34th Street

 M Street/30th Street

 Jewett Avenue/30th Street

 Jewett Avenue/34th Street

 Brown Street/Truxtun Avenue

 Quantico Avenue/Edison Highway

 Oswell Front Street West/Edison Highway

Many of these intersections are located in proximity to minority and low-income communities. All 

other construction activities on major roadways are being planned during non-peak hours of traffic 

operation and no closures or lane reductions are anticipated. 

Although some of these effects would be located within or in proximity to identified minority and/or 

low-income populations, all travelers through these areas would be affected by increased traffic 

congestion. However, implementation of the CTP and all other impact avoidance and 

minimization measures (TRA-AM#1 through TRA-AM#11) as described in Section 3.2 of this 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS would minimize all potential impacts, including those that would be 

experienced by minority and low-income populations, since the design features are applied 

equally throughout the study area during construction. Therefore, transportation impacts during 

construction of the F-B LGA would not have disproportionately high and adverse effects on 

minority and low-income populations. 

Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

Emissions associated with the construction of track, station, and maintenance facilities under the 

F-B LGA would exceed the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District pollutant emissions 

thresholds for construction. The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is not in attainment of federal and 

state air quality standards for ozone and PM2.5 and not in attainment of state standards for 

respirable particulate matter (PM10). As described in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Global Climate 

Change, of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, project construction emissions would not cause 

state or federal ambient air quality standards to be exceeded locally, and would not exceed 

applicable thresholds for health risks and exposure to toxic air contaminants. Therefore, 

construction of the F-B LGA would not cause local air quality impacts to any population in the 

study area, including minority and low-income communities. 

With implementation of mitigation measures AQ-MM#1, AQ-MM#2, AQ-MM#4, and AQ-MM#5 

identified in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Global Climate Change, of this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS, construction of the F-B LGA will result in no net increase in regional pollutant 

concentrations. Therefore, project construction would not result in air quality impacts to any 

regional population. In addition, project construction, emissions would not cause local air quality 

or health risk impacts to any population in the study area. Like the May 2014 Project, air quality 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-34 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-35 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

and global climate change impacts associated with construction of the F-B LGA would not have 

disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. 

Noise and Vibration 

Noise from construction activities would temporarily exceed noise standards evenly along the 

entire project corridor and adversely affect sensitive receivers (e.g., residences, schools, 

hospitals, and parks). Vibration from construction, including pile driving, would cause adverse 

impacts to sensitive receivers in the area. The increase in noise and vibration would impact all 

communities near construction activities, including minority and low-income populations. These 

effects would be temporary during construction and would be reduced with implementation of 

mitigation measures N&V-MM#1 and N&V-MM#2 described in Section 3.4 of this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS. Therefore, construction activities for the F-B LGA would not result in 

disproportionately high and adverse noise and vibration effects on minority and low-income 

populations. 

Electromagnetic Frequency/Electromagnetic Interference 

There would be no adverse EMF/ EMI construction impacts on communities because 

construction equipment would generate low EMF and EMI levels at or near existing background 

levels (see Section 3.5, Electromagnetic Fields and Electromagnetic Interference, of this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS). Therefore, EMF/EMI impacts associated with construction of the F-B 

LGA would not have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income 

populations. 

Public Utilities and Energy 

The construction of the F-B LGA could result in planned temporary interruption of utility service, 

accidental disruption of services, increased water use, increased waste generation, and 

increased energy consumption. However, planned interruptions would be of short duration and 

with implementation of avoidance and minimization measure PUE-IAMM#1 (see Section 3.6 

Public Utilities and Energy, of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS), as well as measures for 

stormwater management (see Section 3.6.6 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS 

[Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.6-77 and 3.6-78]), the F-B LGA would not result in prolonged 

disruption of services, would not result in the loss of or reduced access to public utility lines or 

pipes, or require or result in new water, wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal, or energy 

facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Because no adverse public utility and energy impacts 

would occur during construction of the F-B LGA, no minority or low-income populations would be 

adversely impacted. 

Biological Resources and Wetlands 

Construction activities would result in temporary and permanent impacts to special -status plant 

and wildlife species, special-status plant communities (black willow thickets), jurisdictional waters, 

protected trees, and wildlife corridors (see Section 3.7, Biological Resources and Wetlands, of 

this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS).While some adverse effects to biological resources and 

wetlands are likely to occur during project construction and operation, the resources affected are 

not related to human health and are not specific areas or resources used by the general public, 

including minority or low-income populations. Therefore, no minority or low-income populations 

would be adversely impacted by construction of the F-B LGA. 

Hydrology and Water Resources 

Construction activities such as grading, excavation, and dewatering in work areas could alter 

existing drainage patterns, degrade water quality, and temporarily impede and/or redirect flood 

flows (see Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Resources, of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS). In 

accordance with the Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ, as amended by 

2010-0014-DWG and 2012-0006-DWQ, NPDES No. CAS000002), a SWPPP would be prepared 

and implemented for project construction, which would provide BMPs, including but not limited to, 

erosion and sediment control BMPs to minimize erosion and retain sediment on site and good 

housekeeping BMPs to prevent spills, leaks, and discharges of construction debris and waste into 
Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

receiving waters. Standard measures would be implemented during construction to minimize 

impacts to floodplains consistent with the Central Valley Flood Protection Board requirements. 

Best management practices called for in the SWPPP will be implemented uniformly at all 

construction locations and will effectively reduce potential construction impacts. Consequently, 

construction of the F-B LGA would not result in disproportionately high and adverse effects on 

minority and low-income populations. 

Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources 

Construction activities could encounter unstable soils and localized deposits of soft/loose soils 

and contribute to soil erosion. Areas with high potential for soil erosion have been identified in the 

southeastern portion of Bakersfield where minority and low-income communities occur. Standard 

construction practices, such as those listed in the Caltrans Construction Site Best Management 

Practices (BMP) Manual (Caltrans 2003a), the Construction Site Best Management Practice 

(BMP) Field Manual and Troubleshooting Guide (Caltrans 2003b), and the California Stormwater 

Quality Association BMP Handbook (CASQA 2015) will be implemented to reduce the potential 

for erosion. In areas with high paleontological sensitivity, ground-disturbing activities could result 

in adverse effects to paleontological resources. However, the resources affected are not related 

to human health and are not specific areas or resources used by the general public, including 

minority or low-income populations. 

With implementation of standard construction practices, no adverse geology, soils, and seismicity 

impacts would result from construction or operation of the F-B LGA (see Section 3.9 of this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS). Therefore, construction impacts related to geology, soils, seismicity, and 

paleontological resources would not have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority 

and low-income populations. 

Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

Construction activities would be similar along the entire F-B LGA alignment and would involve the 

temporary transport, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes associated 

with construction. There is also the potential for disturbance of contaminants at potentially 

explosive chemical sites that are located within the construction footprint or for accidental release 

of hazardous materials, creating a hazard to the public. 

The segments of the alignment with the highest risk for disturbing existing hazardous waste sites 

are located in Bakersfield and Shafter. Low-income and minority populations are located adjacent 

to the alignment in both of these areas. However, remediation of hazardous waste sites in 

accordance with federal, state, and local regulations would be applied equally through the 

alignment prior to initiation of project construction and this would reduce the potential risk for such 

as accidents to a very low level in all communities along the alignment, including those with 

minority and low-income populations. 

Schools are particularly sensitive locations for the accidental release of hazardous materials due 

to the potential impacts on children’s health and safety. Sixteen educational facilities are located 

within 0.25 mile of the construction footprint for the F-B LGA. These schools are distributed 

among low-income and minority populations as well as among non-minority and/or non-lowincome populations. Mitigation Measure HMW-MM#1, Limit use of extremely hazardous materials 

near schools during construction would be implemented to avoid or minimize potentially adverse 

effects associated with schools (see Section 3.10.5.1 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS [Authority and FRA 2014: page 3.10-34]). 

Adherence to federal, state, and local regulations would minimize the risk of a spill or accidental 

release of hazardous materials and remediation of hazardous waste sites in accordance with 

federal, state, and local regulations would be applied equally through the alignment prior to 

initiation of project construction. Further, a spill prevention, containment, and countermeasures 

control plan or, for smaller quantities, a spill prevention and response plan, which identifies BMPs 

for spill and release prevention and provides procedures and responsibilities for rapidly, 

effectively, and safely cleaning up and disposing of any spills or releases, would be established 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-36 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

for the F-B LGA. Compliance with existing laws and regulations, as well as the implementation of 

avoidance and minimization measures would reduce the potential risk for hazardous materials 

effects to a very low level in all communities along the alignment (see Section 3.10, Hazardous 

Materials and Wastes, of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS), including those with minority and lowincome populations. 

Safety and Security 

Construction of the F-B LGA could result in accidents at construction sites and in temporary 

increases in risks to motor vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycle safety from traffic detours, as well 

as increase response times for law enforcement, fire, and emergency services. The risk of 

accidents associated with construction-related detours would be highest in the cities of 

Bakersfield and Shafter (where low-income and minority populations are located) because of the 

relatively high traffic volumes and the large number of detours that would take place in these 

cities. Impact avoidance and minimization measures include the development of a detailed CTP, 

as discussed in Section 3.11.5.1, of Section 3.11 Safety and Security, of the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014: page 3.11-29), which would establish 

procedures for temporary road closures and require coordination with local jurisdictions on 

emergency vehicle access. Implementation of the CTP would reduce the impact throughout the 

affected areas; consequently, construction activities for the F-B LGA would not result in 

disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. 

Section 3.9, Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources, of this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS describes a total of nine oil and gas wells that are within the F-B LGA 

study area or 150 feet of the study area. Unless existing oil and gas wells as well as ancillary and 

appurtenant facilities necessary to maintain oil field operations are identified and remediated 

within the F-B LGA study area, they could be disrupted and have environmental consequences 

during construction. Contractors would use safe and explosion-proof equipment during project 

construction in areas where explosion hazards exist, and would test for gases regularly. 

Implementation of these measures would reduce the impact throughout the affected areas; 

consequently, construction activities would not result in disproportionately high and adverse 

effects on minority and low-income populations. 

Construction activities have the potential to generate exposure to the fungus Coccidioides spores 

that cause Valley Fever via inhalation of fugitive dust and soil. Valley Fever tends to infect people 

with jobs requiring digging in soil that contains the fungus. The fungus enters a person’s lungs 

causing cold and flu like symptoms and occasionally rashes. Implementation of impact avoidance 

and minimization measures, specifically S&S- AM#4b and S&S-AM#4c, will minimize exposure to 

those at risk from construction activities disturbing naturally occurring Coccidioides spores (see 

Section 3.11 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS). 

Socioeconomics and Communities 

Construction of the F-B LGA would result in temporary impacts to communities, such as 

disruption of established patterns via noise and visual changes, as well as traffic circulation; 

disruption of access to community facilities and emergency services; additional demand for 

services due to purchase of materials and equipment necessary for construction and construction 

workers; and the introduction of construction-period workers on the HSR alignment and station 

areas. These potential impacts are discussed below. 

Construction activities could impact community cohesion by affecting important facilities providing 

services and altering social interactions through temporary increases in noise, visual changes, 

and road closures. This disruption could include interference with established patterns of 

interactions among community residents, isolation of one part of a community from another, or 

disruption of residents’ access to community facilities and services. In general, construction would 

occur primarily outside (but in some areas adjacent to) established residential neighborhoods, in 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-37 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

areas associated with agricultural, commercial, or industrial uses.10 Construction activities would 

be disruptive to all communities near construction areas, including minority and low-income 

populations. In most cases, these impacts would also be experienced by the non-minority and/or 

non-low-income populations in the affected area. However, access to community facilities, such 

as the Kern County Parks and Recreation Department, Kern County Veterans Service 

Department, Iglesia de Dios Pentecostes La Hermosa, and State of California and Kern County 

offices that serve minority and low-income communities could be temporarily modified during 

construction, resulting in an inconvenience to minority and low-income patrons in these areas. 

Construction impacts associated with noise, dust and glare are addressed in other sections of this 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS and would be mitigated to less than significant with measures 

identified in those sections (see Section 3.3 Air Quality and Global Climate Change, Section 3.4 

Noise and Vibration, and Section 3.16 Aesthetics and Visual Resources, of this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS). Through the implementation of project design features and mitigation 

measures, the impacts to important community facilities serving low-income and minority 

populations would be greatly reduced to a level similar to impacts experienced by the reference 

community as a whole. Consequently, construction activities would not result in disproportionately 

high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. 

Construction would require a large number of employees but is not expected to have any 

negative effects related to temporary population increases such as overcrowding, housing 

shortages, or inadequate services, and there is not a projected need for increased housing and 

services that could disrupt existing community cohesion. Unemployment in the region remains 

relatively high (14.3 percent in the region and 11.8 to 17.4 percent in the local communities) (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2013a), so project-related construction jobs are expected to be filled by residents 

in the region who have the necessary skills. Because most of the jobs would be filled by area 

residents, no additional housing or services would be required, therefore avoiding the strain of an 

influx of new workers to communities in the area that would disrupt existing community cohesion. 

Construction activities would also result in additional revenues collected from related property and 

sales tax and temporary improvement in the employment rate for construction workers and 

workers in support service industries. These additional revenues and access to employment 

would benefit the communities within the study area, including low-income and minority 

populations. 

Station Planning, Land Use, and Development 

There would be no adverse land use impacts because land used temporarily for construction 

staging, laydown and fabrication areas would be acquired from willing landowners and restored to 

their previous condition at the end of the construction period. These activities would not change 

the long-term pattern or intensity of land use or cause incompatibility with adjacent land uses (see 

Section 3.13 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS). Because no adverse land use impacts would 

occur during construction, no minority or low-income populations would be adversely impacted. 

Agricultural Lands 

Construction activities for the F-B LGA would require the temporary use of agricultural land 

outside the permanent right-of-way and would result in disruption of some utilities and 

infrastructure in those areas. Appendix 3.12-A in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS 

describes the process for right-of-way acquisition and the rights of property owners under the 

Uniform Relocation Assistance Program. Because utility disruptions would be avoided or 

resolved, or the landowner would be compensated for losses during the right-of-way acquisition 

process, these disruptions would not result in the permanent conversion of Important Farmland to 

nonagricultural use (see Section 3.14 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS). Further, these impacts 

would not result in adverse effects on human health or environments in any communities, 

10 Impacts associated with displacement and relocation are addressed in Section 5.1.1, Property 

Displacements and Relocations. 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-38 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

including those with minority and low-income populations. Therefore, these impacts would not 

result in adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations. 

Parks, Recreation, and Open Space 

Construction activities for the F-B LGA would result in temporary closures, access restrictions, 

noise, dust, and visual impacts at parks and school district play areas near construction areas, 

including in communities with minority and low-income populations. The greatest impacts would 

be experienced at the Kern River Parkway, Weill Park, and the Metropolitan Recreation Area in 

Bakersfield. At the Kern River Parkway, which consists of an asphalt bike path on top of an 

earthen levee, there would a temporary bike and footpath detour; Weill Park, which consists of 

open grass areas and trees, would be closed during construction (approximately three to six 

months); users of the Metropolitan Recreation Area, which consists of ball fields, a recreational 

center, a picnic area, would experience temporary noise and dust impacts during construction. All 

three of these facilities are located in proximity to minority and low-income populations. However, 

both the Kern River Parkway and the Metropolitan Recreation Area are regional facilities that 

provide facilities for the entire Bakersfield area, not just adjacent neighborhoods. Weill Park is a 

small neighborhood park; however, it provides no recreational facilities and is not widely used. 

Construction activities that result in increases in noise and vibration, dust, and visual disturbances 

would be reduced through avoidance and minimization measures, PRO-IAMM#1, NV-IAMM#1, 

AQ-IAMM#2, and AVR-IAMM#1, as described in Sections 3.2, Transportation; 3.3, Air Quality; 

3.4, Noise and Vibration; and 3.16, Aesthetic and Visual Quality, of this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS. Mitigation measure, PP-MM#1, would reduce the impact of temporary park closures by 

providing alternate access that allows for continued use of the impacted parks (see Section 3.15, 

Parks, Recreation, and Open Space, of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS). In addition, as 

discussed in the Constructability Assessment Report (Authority 2016: page 6-2), as the alignment 

passes through the cities of Shafter and Bakersfield, pedestrian detouring and access will be 

required. With implementation of these measures, all community members, including minority and 

low-income populations would continue to have access to parks and recreation areas during 

construction and their use would not be substantially impaired by construction activities. 

Consequently, construction activities for the F-B LGA would not result in disproportionately high 

and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources 

Construction activities for the F-B LGA would reduce the visual quality of scenic vistas and 

existing landscapes, and introduce new sources of light and glare. The visual impacts would 

impact all communities in both urban and rural areas, including minority and low-income 

populations. These impacts are the same as experienced by the non-minority and/or non-lowincome populations in the affected area and are not unique to minority and low-income 

populations. Therefore, these adverse impacts would not be borne primarily by minority and lowincome populations. 

Mitigation measures AVR-MM#1a and AVR-MM#1b would reduce the visual disruption from 

construction activities by preserving vegetation and using temporary fencing and walls to screen 

views (see Section 3.16, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS). 

Implementation of these mitigation measures will minimize all potential impacts, including those 

that would be experienced by minority and low-income populations, since the mitigation 

measures are applied equally throughout the project area during construction. Therefore, 

construction activities would not result in disproportionately high and adverse visual effects on 

minority and low-income populations. 

Cultural Resources 

Construction of the F-B LGA would indirectly affect four historic architectural resources from the 

introduction of visual elements that would alter the historic setting of these historic properties. In 

addition, the F-B LGA is proposed directly over or adjacent to seven historic architectural 

resources. Mitigation measures would reduce the noise and vibration and visual effects, as well 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-39 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

as require the inventory and monitoring of historic architectural resources (see Section 3.17 of 

this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS). 

Although the F-B LGA will not affect any known archaeological resources that are considered 

historic properties or resources, it could potentially affect unknown archaeological resources. The 

Memorandum of Agreement establishes mitigation measures to be implemented before, during, 

and after construction to ensure that construction activities would avoid and minimize adverse 

effects or changes to such resources. 

With implementation of these measures, construction of the F-B LGA would not result in adverse 

effects to the cultural environment. Consequently, these impacts would not result in adverse 

impacts to minority and low-income populations. 

5.6.3.2 Operation Period Impacts 

Impact EJ#2 –Effects of Project Operation on Minority or Low-Income Populations 

The F-B LGA would result in disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and lowincome populations. For most resource topics, implementation of avoidance and minimization 

measures, as well as mitigation measures would reduce identified impacts such that 

disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations would not 

occur. As described below, impacts associated with transportation; station planning, land use and 

development, and parks, recreation, and open space would be sufficiently mitigated such that the 

project would not result in disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income 

populations. However, for noise and vibration, socioeconomics and communities, and visual 

resources, the mitigation measures would not completely reduce impacts resulting from operation 

of the F-B LGA in communities with minority and low-income populations. Because the mitigation 

measures do not eliminate the adverse impacts and because the noise and vibration, 

socioeconomics and communities, land use, parks and recreation, and visual impacts would be 

greater for minority and low-income populations when compared to the reference community, 

operation of the F-B LGA would have disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and 

low-income populations. 

Operation Impacts Not Resulting in Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects 

In cases where no effects were identified or impacts were less than significant under CEQA, no 

further analysis was conducted on the potential of the F-B LGA to affect a minority or low-income 

population. The resources that were found to have no effects or less than significant impacts to 

minority or low-income populations include: air quality and global climate change; EMF/ EMI; 

public utilities and energy; biological resources and wetlands; hydrology and water resources; 

geology, soils, and seismicity; hazardous materials and wastes; safety and security; agricultural 

lands; and cultural resources. A discussion of these topics is provided below. 

Air Quality and Global Climate Change 

At the regional level, operation of the F-B LGA would result in lower pollutant emissions, reduce 

statewide greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 and would be a net benefit to regional air quality 

(see Section 3.3, Air Quality and Global Climate Change, of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS). 

This impact would benefit all communities in the region, including minority and low-income 

populations. 

As described in Section 3.3, Air Quality and Global Climate Change, of this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS, operational-related emissions at and in the vicinity of the F Street Station and MOIF site 

will not result in local exceedance of ambient air quality standards and will not increase health 

risks to any of the nearby communities. 

All communities would experience the regional air quality benefits associated with the F-B LGA, 

including minority and low-income populations. Because F-B LGA operation would result in an 

overall beneficial impact to minority and low-income populations and would not result in localized 

air quality impacts, the impacts would not be disproportionately high and adverse impacts on 

minority and low-income populations. 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-40 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

Electromagnetic Fields/Electromagnetic Interference 

There would be no adverse EMF/EMI operation impacts on communities because operation 

EMF/EMI levels to which members of the general public, schools, hospitals, businesses, colleges, 

and residences would be exposed would be below industry standard limits (see Section 3.5 of 

this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS). Because no adverse EMF/EMI impacts would occur during 

project operation, no minority or low-income populations would be adversely impacted. 

Public Utilities and Energy 

As with the May 2014 Project, the F-B LGA right-of-way would be fenced and secured after 

construction, including after the relocation or in-place protection of any utilities located within or 

through the right-of-way. F-B LGA facilities would not permanently disrupt existing utility 

infrastructure or the services that the utility providers’ customers rely on (see Section 3.6, Public 

Utilities and Energy, of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS).With implementation of standard 

engineering and utility access practices, and avoidance and minimization measures described in 

Section 3.6, Public Utilities and Energy, of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, the effects of F-B 

LGA on existing utilities during operation and maintenance would be less than significant. 

As with the May 2014 Project, based on existing capacity for water, wastewater, and waste 

disposal facilities and existing rates of use along the F-B LGA, operation and maintenance of the 

F-B LGA would not require or result in new water, wastewater treatment, solid waste disposal, or 

energy facilities or expansion of existing facilities. Because no adverse public utility and energy 

impacts would occur during operation of the F-B LGA, no minority or low-income populations 

would be adversely impacted. 

Biological Resources and Wetlands 

Operations and maintenance activities associated with the F-B LGA would affect special status 

plants, wildlife and habitats of concern, but to a lesser degree than construction activities, as 

operational activities have a smaller footprint than construction activities (see Section 3.7, 

Biological Resources and Wetlands, of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS). Impacts to biological 

resources and wetlands would not result in adverse effects on human health or environments in 

any communities, including those with minority and low-income populations While some adverse 

effects to biological resources and wetlands are likely to occur during project operation, the 

resources affected are not related to human health, specific areas or resources used by the 

general public, including minority or low-income populations. Therefore, these impacts would not 

result in adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations. 

Hydrology and Water Resources 

The F-B LGA alignment, station, MOIF, and other associated improvements would consist of 

impervious surfaces, thereby resulting in a permanent increase in impervious surface in the study 

area. Water quality impacts could result from runoff associated with increases in new impervious 

surface area. However, site design, source control, and treatment BMPs, including biofiltration 

swales, biofiltration strips, infiltration devices, and detention devices, would be implemented to 

remove pollutants that have entered storm water runoff; therefore, no adverse water quality 

impacts would result from operation of the F-B LGA on any communities (see Section 3.8 of this 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS), including those with minority and low-income populations. 

Design of floodplain crossings would include measures (e.g., columns would be placed and 

designed to minimize backwater effects and local scouring) to minimize the effects of placing 

concrete columns in the floodplains. In addition, a 250-foot span bridge would be used across the 

Kern River to reduce impacts to the Kern River floodplain, as described in Section 3.8, Hydrology 

and Water Resources, of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. Because no adverse water quality 

impacts would occur in any communities during construction and operation of the F-B LGA, no 

minority or low-income populations would be adversely affected. 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-41 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources 

Operation of the F-B LGA could be affected by creep- or groundwater-related soil failures 

associated with the presence of unstable soils, soil settlement due to regional subsidence, shrinkswell impacts resulting from expansive soils, corrosion, and slope failure. Standard engineering 

and design features would be implemented to avoid these long-term impacts and meet building 

code requirements. The exposure of people to the potential effects from seismically induced 

surface fault rupture and ground shaking would be avoided by repairs that would occur with 

routine maintenance of the F-B LGA. Because no adverse geology, soils, and seismicity impacts 

would occur in any communities during F-B LGA operation, no minority or low-income populations 

would be adversely impacted. 

Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

Operation of the F-B LGA would require minimal temporary transport, use, and disposal of 

hazardous materials associated with preparation and installation of the rail facilities. No acutely 

hazardous materials would be required to operate the passenger rail service, except potentially at 

the MOIF. Similar to the May 2014 Project, long-term use and storage of hazardous materials 

(such as those from the routine use and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes for HSR 

System operation and maintenance at an MOIF) would be governed by regulations that prescribe 

the proper use and disposal of such materials (see Section 3.10 of this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS). 

Although the transport and use of hazardous materials are governed by numerous regulations, 

there is a chance that a spill or accidental release could occur. All populations in the study area 

could be exposed to the potential for adverse impacts if there was an accidental spill or release of 

hazardous materials and wastes, including minority and low-income populations. However, the 

extent of this impact would be determined by the location of the spill or release. The risk of such a 

spill or release and the associated potential impacts are the same as experienced by the nonminority and/or non-low-income populations in the study area, and are not unique to the minority 

and low-income populations. Because adverse impacts would not be borne primarily by minority 

and low-income populations, F-B LGA construction and operation would not result in 

disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. 

Safety and Security 

Like the May 2014 Project, operation of the F-B LGA would provide a safety benefit because the 

system would use contemporary safety and signaling and be fully grade-separated to prevent 

conflicts with vehicle, pedestrians, and bicyclists. This impact would benefit all communities in the 

region, including minority and low-income populations. 

The F-B LGA would occupy parcels that have been identified by the Authority as a potential 

safety and security concern, specifically with the potential for fire and explosions that could 

impact the HSR operation. Parcels of concern are the Halliburton Facility (34722 7th Standard 

Road), the Rain-for-Rent Facility (3404 State Road), and the Golden Empire Gleaners Facility 

(1326 30th Street), all of which are in the City of Bakersfield. However, only one, the Golden 

Empire Gleaners Facility, is located in proximity to minority and low-income communities. 

Implementation of mitigation measures S&S #2, S&S #3, and S&S #4 would reduce risks to 

human health resulting from fire and explosion (see Section 3.11 of this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS). 

F-B LGA operation could result in increased response time by law enforcement, fire, and 

emergency services personnel. The Authority would coordinate with emergency responders to 

incorporate roadway modifications for the F-B LGA that maintain existing traffic patterns and fulfill 

response route needs. Implementation of ground access design features and features that allow 

for emergency passenger evacuation from portions of the HSR System that would be elevated 

would reduce the potential for delayed or hampered response to emergencies on elevated track 

portions of the F-B LGA. Implementation of impact avoidance and minimization measures in 

conjunction with the HSR Systems Operation Control Center operational control, as discussed in 

Section 3.11.6, Safety and Security, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, would 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-42 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

reduce the risks to human health associated with response times for law enforcement, fire, and 

emergency services personnel for the F-B LGA (Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.11-43 through 

3.11-45). 

Neither the adverse impacts nor benefits associated with operation of the F-B LGA are unique to 

minority and low-income populations but would be experienced by the community as a whole. In 

addition, the avoidance and minimization measures, as well as mitigation measure S&S-MM#1, 

described in Section 3.11 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS would minimize potential impacts, 

including those that would be experienced by minority and low-income populations, since the 

system safety and security measures would be applied throughout the study area. 

Agricultural Lands 

Project operation would result in the direct, permanent conversion of agricultural land, including 

461 acres of Important Farmland, to nonagricultural use, including potential conversion from 

parcel severance, permanent access severance, and conflicts with farmland protection contracts 

(e.g., Williamson Act contracts). These impacts to agricultural lands would affect rural agricultural 

communities. The rural area between Shafter and Bakersfield, however, contains few Census 

blocks identified as minority and/or low-income. 

The F-B LGA would have moderate short-term impacts on agricultural production in Kern County, 

with total estimated annual losses of $3.7 million in agricultural production value and 

17 agricultural jobs. This estimated dollar value loss represents a small percentage (0.1 percent) 

of the total annual agricultural production in Kern County. In addition, consistent with the 

Statewide Program EIR/EIS mitigation strategy, that was approved under the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Plan (Authority and FRA 2014b) found 

in Appendix C of the Record of Decision for California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield, 

the Authority would place lands that are currently not under any type of farmland conservation 

easement into a new easement that would permanently protect the farmland from future 

conversion to nonagricultural uses. The performance standards for this measure are to preserve 

Important Farmland in an amount commensurate with the quantity and quality of the converted 

farmlands, within the same agricultural regions as the impacts occur, at a replacement ratio of not 

less than 1:1 for lands that are permanently converted to nonagricultural use by the project. 

Agricultural land impacts would be distributed along rural agricultural areas in the study area. 

These areas have the lowest number of Census blocks identified as minority and/or low-income 

in the affected area and within the reference community. There are scattered, low-density 

minority and/or low-income populations in the area between Shafter and Bakersfield, but most of 

the impacted area does not contain minority and/or low-income populations. Therefore, these 

adverse impacts would not be borne primarily by minority and low-income populations, and 

consequently, F-B LGA operation would not result in disproportionately high and adverse effects 

on minority and low-income populations. 

Cultural Resources 

There would be no adverse impacts on cultural resources associated with F-B LGA operation 

because operational noise and vibration levels would not damage historic architectural resources 

(see Section 3.17, Cultural and Paleontological Resources, of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS). 

Because no adverse cultural resource impacts would occur during project operation, no minority 

or low-income populations would be adversely impacted. 

Operation Impacts Resulting in Potential Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects 

This section describes the potential for operation period effects on environmental resources in the 

environmental justice study area for the F-B LGA. Effects that were found to be substantial and 

significant before mitigation are described below. These effects were compared to the geographic 

locations of minority and low-income populations within the study area. This comparison was 

done to determine if any of these effects occurred disproportionately in minority or low-income 

communities or were of a disproportionately high magnitude within such communities, placing a 

potentially high burden of effect on minority and low-income populations. Impacts associated with 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-43 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

noise and vibration; socioeconomics and communities; and aesthetics and visual resources 

would have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. 

As described below, impacts associated with transportation; station planning, land use and 

development, and parks, recreation, and open space would be sufficiently mitigated such that the 

project would not result in disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income 

populations. All of these resource topics are described in further detail below. 

Transportation 

Operation of the F-B LGA would provide benefits to the regional transportation system by 

reducing vehicle trips on freeways by providing another mode of transportation for intercity 

passenger trips and by providing traffic safety benefits in areas where the F-B LGA would provide 

grade separation of existing at-grade rail crossings. All communities, including minority and lowincome populations, would benefit from the reduction in roadway congestion and an increase in 

transportation options. 

The F-B LGA would not generate any new trips that would contribute to the regional circulation 

network with the exception of the MOIF and the HSR station. However, due to the proposed 

alignment, modifications would be required to the existing circulation system that includes 

roadway closures, realignment, redesign of existing interchanges, addition of new traffic signals 

and roadway widening. At a local level, the F-B LGA would decrease the level of service on some 

roadway segments and at intersections in the vicinity of the F-B LGA. The adverse impacts to 

roadways, intersections, and access would impact all communities near the alignment, including 

minority and low-income populations. 

Mitigation measures for operational impacts include a wide variety of roadway improvements 

including restriping, installation of signals, modification of signal timing, and roadway widening. 

Following mitigation, the traffic effects at all intersections and roadway segments would be less 

than significant. 

Effects on the local circulation would occur in the congested areas of Bakersfield from the 

extension of the duration of peak periods of congestion. Affected intersections include: Mohawk 

Street/Rosedale Highway, Mohawk Street/ Hageman Road, Oak Street/Rosedale Highway-24th 

Street, Oak Street/Truxtun Avenue, F Street/24th Street, F Street/23rd Street, M Street/SR 

204/28th Street, Union Avenue/California Avenue, and Beale Avenue/Jefferson Street-SR 178 

Westbound Ramps. Some of these intersections are located within or in proximity to minority 

and/or low-income communities. As stated in Section 3.2, Transportation, of this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS, the effect of this increased congestion would be considered less than 

significant. 

Like the May 2014 Project, all populations in the study area would experience adverse 

transportation impacts as a result of project operation, including minority and low-income 

populations. Although some of these effects would be located within or in proximity to identified 

minority and/or low-income populations, all travelers through these areas would be affected by 

increased traffic congestion. Further, implementation of mitigation measures, TR-MM#2 through 

TR-MM#10 (see Section 3.2, Transportation of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS) would reduce 

traffic impacts throughout the affected areas. Therefore, these impacts would not be 

disproportionately high or adverse for minority and low-income populations. 

Noise and Vibration 

During operation, noise and vibration from the F-B LGA would exceed noise standards and affect 

sensitive receivers along the project corridor due to an increase in ambient noise levels and 

excessive vibration for building occupants. The increase in noise and vibration would impact all 

communities near the project, including minority and low-income populations. The implementation 

of mitigation measures (N&V-MM#3 through N&V-MM#7 as described in Section 3.4 of this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS) would reduce project noise impacts. However, the construction of noise 

barriers may not be feasible or economically reasonable, sound insulation may not be acoustical 

feasible or practical for certain structures, and special track work may not reduce all noise 

impacts. Therefore, 152 sensitive receptors would still experience substantial and significant 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-44 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

operational noise impacts even with the implementation of proposed mitigation. As discussed in 

Section 3.4 Noise and Vibration, the final location and design of noise barriers would be 

determined during the testing and certification phase of the project. Once trainsets are operable 

(at the outset of the testing and certification phase), noise measurements would be taken at 

nearby sensitive receptors to acquire baseline noise measurements. Where severe noise impacts 

would remain with the installation of noise barriers, noise measurements during the testing and 

certification phase would indicate whether sound insulation would reduce noise impacts in interior 

spaces to an acceptable level. If noise impacts would remain severe after the installation of sound 

insulation, then a noise easement would be negotiated with the property owner. 

Of the 152 sensitive receptors referenced above, most are located within urban areas in Shafter 

and Bakersfield containing minority and low-income populations. Because the mitigation 

measures do not eliminate the adverse effects, and because these areas are more likely to 

experience severe adverse noise and vibration impacts resulting from operation of the F-B LGA, 

operational noise and vibration would have disproportionately high and adverse effects on 

minority and low-income populations in these areas. 

Socioeconomics and Communities 

Implementation of the F-B LGA could result in the division/disruption of some communities 

through physical removal of homes, business, and important community facilities that would 

disrupt established patterns of interactions among community residents, as well as residents’ 

access to community facilities and services. 

The F-B LGA would primarily follow existing and long-established highway and railroad corridors 

that traverse the study area and divide existing neighborhoods. The F-B LGA primarily traverses 

areas zoned for industrial or commercial use that further divide communities located on either 

side of the highways and/or railroad tracks, reducing the effect to community division associated 

with the F-B LGA. 

The F-B LGA would displace an estimated 86 residential units throughout the study area, with 29 

of these displacements occurring in the city of Bakersfield. The other locations that could 

experience displacements are the city of Shafter (3 units), community of Oildale (23 units), and 

the remaining portions of unincorporated Kern County (31 units). The majority of these residential 

displacements would occur within areas that contain minority and low-income populations (see 

Section 3.12 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS for more information). The displacement of 

residents and businesses in these communities could lead to the isolation, exclusion, or 

separation of minority or low-income individuals within a given community or from the broader 

community. In addition, the F-B LGA would displace seven community facilities and directly affect 

an additional eight community facilities. These facilities include the Bakersfield Homeless Center, 

Golden Empire Gleaners, and the Mercado, which are used primarily by low-income and minority 

populations. The displacement of these important community facilities would disproportionately 

affect minority and low-income communities. 

Community impacts due to project operation would be distributed along the entire study area and 

avoidance and minimization measures and mitigation measures, SO-MM#1 and SO-MM#3, 

would be applied as appropriate, as described in Section 3.12 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. 

Proposed mitigation measures would ensure that displaced residents would be relocated in the 

immediate vicinity, if possible, to reduce the potential for individuals to be isolated, excluded or 

separated within a given community or from the broader community. However, mitigation 

measures would not completely reduce the impacts in locations where many residential and 

community facility displacements would occur. The displacements and the residual community 

impacts during operation of the F-B LGA would affect minority and low-income populations in the 

urban communities, especially in the community of Oildale and City of Bakersfield. 

Because the areas containing minority and low-income populations are more likely to experience 

greater displacement and community disruption and/or division impacts resulting from 

implementation of the F-B LGA, when compared to the larger reference community, 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-45 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

socioeconomic and community impacts would have disproportionately high and adverse effects in 

these locations. 

Station Planning, Land Use, and Development 

There would be no adverse station planning, land use and development impacts associated with 

project operation on any communities (see Section 3.13 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS). 

In urban areas such as Bakersfield, Shafter, and Oildale, which contain minority and low-income 

populations, implementation of the F-B LGA would convert commercial, industrial, and residential 

land uses adjacent to the F-B LGA to transportation uses, increasing the intensity of the use of 

this land. However, because the alignment would be adjacent to existing railroad corridors (e.g., 

BNSF Railway, Union Pacific Railroad), the conversion of this land would not substantially 

change the pattern and intensity of the use of the land and would be largely compatible with 

adjacent land uses and existing plans and policies. 

In rural areas, such as the unincorporated rural agricultural areas in Kern County, implementation 

of the F-B LGA would convert agricultural land uses to transportation uses. The F-B LGA would 

substantially increase the intensity of the use of this land but would not change adjacent land 

uses. Existing adjacent agricultural land would continue in agricultural use, and the alignment 

would not have an indirect effect on adjoining agricultural uses. These rural areas have few 

scattered low-density minority and/or low-income populations. 

The proposed Bakersfield F Street Station would be compatible with local zoning for higher 

density development and would be designed under the guidance of the HSR Station Area 

Development: General Principles and Guidelines (2010). The station would not cause an adverse 

effect on existing adjacent development, nor would it impair the ability to continue to use adjacent 

property. The proposed station would attract more people to the area and create opportunity for 

revitalization with new commercial and residential uses. The area affected by the potential for 

transit-oriented development near the proposed Bakersfield F Street Station and the surrounding 

region would realize beneficial effects, including increased employment, recreation, and 

community cohesion. All communities in proximity to the station would experience these benefits, 

including minority and low-income populations. 

Because operation of the F-B LGA would not substantially change the pattern and intensity of the 

use of land and would be largely compatible with adjacent land uses and existing plans and 

policies, the impacts would not be disproportionately high and adverse impacts on minority and 

low-income populations. 

Parks, Recreation, and Open Space 

Implementation of the F-B LGA would include the acquisition of parklands for placement of 

infrastructure (e.g. viaduct footings). In addition, the project would require acquisition of 

easements along the alignment, but in viaduct areas these would be accessible for use by the 

public. The F-B LGA would require the permanent acquisition of approximately 0.099 acre of 

Weill Park, along with a 0.6-acre easement (approximately 6 percent of the total park area), and 

the permanent acquisition of 0.66 acre of Kern River Parkway, along with a 2.6-acre easement for 

the area spanning the Kern River Parkway (approximately 0.058 percent of the total park area). 

Mitigation includes requirements for the Authority to work with the affected jurisdiction (City of 

Bakersfield) and will provide appropriate compensation for permanently acquired park lands (see 

Section 3.15, Parks and Recreation, of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS). In addition, the 

proposed Bakersfield F Street Station would include new park space that would at least partially 

offset the parkland that would be acquired for the project, and would be located in generally the 

same area as the parkland being acquired. The F-B LGA is not anticipated to result in a 

substantially diminished capacity to use park resources or substantially reduce the recreational 

value of that resource, and replacement acreage would be provided for the acquired parkland. 

Therefore, impacts to parks would be sufficiently mitigated such that the project would not result 

in disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations. 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-46 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

The F-B LGA has the potential to permanently impact the character of the Kern River Parkway, 

Weill Park, Metropolitan Recreation Area and Uplands of the Kern River Parkway due to 

permanent increases in noise, visual disturbance, and facility use. However, as described in 

Section 3.15, Parks and Recreation, operation and maintenance of the F-B LGA would not 

significantly change the park character due to: the existing visual character of the surrounding 

area (e.g., largely urban in nature with limited aesthetic value); restoration of the affected Kern 

River Parkway section to pre-construction conditions or better; the intermittent operation noise 

associated with the F-B LGA; the location of the affected parks within an existing rail transport 

corridor (e.g., the context of the ambient noise environment would remain substantially the same 

as existing conditions); and the lack of sensitive vibration receivers. The project would not pass 

within 100 feet of any school district play areas or recreational facilities; therefore, no lands would 

be acquired from schools and no impact would occur on school district play areas or recreational 

facilities. Visual impacts and permanent increase in noise and vibration at parks would be 

reduced through the implementation of mitigation measures and impact avoidance and 

minimization measures for these topics. Therefore, impacts to parks would be sufficiently 

mitigated such that the project would not result in disproportionately high and adverse effects on 

minority and low-income populations. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources 

Project implementation would result in permanent changes to areas adjacent to or in viewing 

range of the F-B LGA. These visual changes would occur with the introduction of new features, 

including both elevated and non-elevated HSR guideways, guideway support columns, and other 

HSR infrastructure (e.g., traction power supply stations, HSR alignment fencing), and visual 

intrusion and potential blocking of view from the use of sound barriers up to 14 feet high in some 

locations. The F-B LGA would also introduce new sources of light. The changes in visual quality 

would impact all communities in rural and urban areas near the F-B LGA, including minority and 

low-income populations. 

As described in Section 3.16, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, of this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS, significant impacts to visual quality would occur in Shafter, rural San Joaquin Valley, and 

North Bakersfield, along the Kern River (e.g., Kern River Parkway) and in East Bakersfield. The 

Shafter, Kern River and East Bakersfield areas contain predominantly minority and low-income 

populations, which would be affected by these changes in visual quality. 

Impacts on aesthetics and visual resources would be distributed along the entire study area and 

mitigation measures would be applied. However, the mitigation measures would not achieve a 

complete reduction in impacts due to introduction of elevated structures and sound barriers (see 

Section 3.16 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS) in areas containing minority and low-income 

populations. Because the mitigation measures do not eliminate the adverse impacts within areas 

containing minority and low-income populations and because these communities would bear a 

higher burden from these impacts when compared to the larger reference community, 

implementation of the F-B LGA would have disproportionately high and adverse visual effects on 

minority and low-income populations in these locations. 

5.6.4 Summary of Disproportionately High and Adverse Effects 

As shown in Figure 5-2 and described in Section 5.4, Affected Environment, minority and lowincome populations in the May 2014 Project study area are located primarily in the urban areas of 

Shafter and Bakersfield. Within Shafter, minority and low-income communities are located 

primarily to the southwest of May 2014 Project alignment. In Bakersfield, areas with minority and 

low-income populations are concentrated south of Truxtun Avenue and around the May 2014 

Project alignment at its southern terminus near Oswell Street. 

Like the May 2014 Project, minority and low-income populations in the F-B LGA study area are 

located primarily in the urban areas of Shafter and Bakersfield. Within the F-B LGA study area, 

the community of Oildale also includes minority and low-income populations, and scattered areas 

of low-density minority and low-income populations are located in the rural areas of Kern County 

between Shafter and Bakersfield. Around the F Street Station, minority and low-income 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-47 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
November 2017 

5-48 | Page

California High-Speed Rail Authority 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

populations are located primarily east/northeast of the station site (east of Chester Avenue) and 

south of SR 99. For the F-B LGA, one MOIF is proposed to be located in the city of Shafter 

between Poplar Avenue and Fresno Avenue. The communities south and east of the proposed 

MOIF site contain minority and low-income populations. 

The F-B LGA would have disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income 

populations in similar resource areas as the May 2014 Project. However, a comparison between 

the impacts of the F-B LGA and May 2014 Project reveals that the degree of effects in each 

resource area differs. The F-B LGA would primarily follow existing and long-established highway 

and railroad corridors that traverse the study area and divide existing neighborhoods. The F-B 

LGA primarily traverses areas zoned for industrial or commercial use, minimizing the impacts to 

residentially-zoned properties that include minority and low-income populations as compared to 

the May 2014 Project. As shown in Table 5-3 below, for Noise and Vibration, Socioeconomics 

and Communities, Land Use, and Parks and Recreation, the F-B LGA has lesser impacts when 

compared with the May 2014 Project. The two alternatives have comparable impacts for 

Aesthetics. 

Table 5-3 Environmental Justice Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project and the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative 

Resource May 2014 Project F-B LGA Relative Difference 

Noise and Disproportionately Disproportionately Lesser impacts would occur under the F-B 

Vibration high and adverse 

effects 

high and adverse 

effects 

LGA, as severe operational noise impacts 

would affect 152 sensitive receivers, 

compared to 305 sensitive receivers under 

the May 2014 Project. 

Socioeconomics 

and 

Communities 

Disproportionately 

high and adverse 

effects 

Disproportionately 

high and adverse 

effects 

Lesser impacts would occur under the F-B 

LGA as it would result in the displacement 

of 86 residences compared to the May 

2014 Project, which would displace 384 

residences. 

Land Use Disproportionately 

high and adverse 

effects 

No 

disproportionate 

effects 

Lesser impacts would occur under the F-B 

LGA as it would result in permanent 

conversion of an estimated 844 acres of 

land currently in other uses to 

transportation-related uses compared to 

the 977 acres that would be converted by 

the May 2014 Project. Additionally, unlike 

the May 2014 Project, the F-B LGA would 

primarily follow existing transportation 

corridors and would result largely in the 

conversion of industrial/commercial uses to 

transportation. The conversion of land 

along the alignment to transportation uses 

would, therefore, not result in incompatible 

land use effects. 

Parks, 

Recreation, and 

Open Space 

Disproportionately 

high and adverse 

effects 

No 

disproportionate 

effects 

Lesser impacts would occur under the F-B 

LGA because fewer parks and schools are 

located in close proximity to project 

activities than under the May 2014 Project 

and mitigation would provide appropriate 

compensation for permanently acquired 

parklands. 

Aesthetics and Disproportionately Disproportionately Comparable operational impacts would 

Visual high and adverse high and adverse occur under both alternatives, but the F-B 

Resources effects effects LGA would be considered preferable 

based on reduced impacts to residential 

uses; impacts during construction would be 

the same for both alternatives 

Source: Authority and FRA 2017 
California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-49 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

Mitigation measures that would minimize or avoid most of the impacts associated with F-B LGA 

construction and operation are similar to those prescribed for the May 2014 Project. 

As described further in Section 5.6.5, Project Benefits, below, the Authority and FRA along with 

the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and 

the Federal Transit Administration have entered into an Interagency Partnership and established 

a “Memorandum of Understanding for Achieving an Environmentally Sustainable High-Speed 

Train System in California,” which includes a common goal of integrating HSR station access and 

amenities into the fabric of surrounding neighborhoods (Authority et al. 2011). The principles of 

this partnership are to help improve access to affordable housing, increase transportation options, 

lower transportation costs, and protect the environment in communities nationwide. The 

implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding would be beneficial to all populations, and 

could help intensify project benefits in the urban areas most affected by project impacts, where 

many minority and low-income populations are located. For example, the Authority would 

establish a temporary relocation field office to help facilitate relocation efforts in areas with 

substantial relocation needs. In addition to providing services, the Authority would be required to 

coordinate its relocation activities with other agencies causing displacements to minimize impacts 

while ensuring that all persons displaced receive fair and consistent relocation benefits. The 

Memorandum of Understanding applies to both the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA. 

5.6.5 Project Benefits 

The Authority and FRA along with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Federal Transit Administration have 

entered into an Interagency Partnership and established a “Memorandum of Understanding for 

Achieving an Environmentally Sustainable High-Speed Train System in California,” which 

includes a common goal of integrating HSR station access and amenities into the fabric of 

surrounding neighborhoods (Authority et al. 2011). The principles of this partnership are to help 

improve access to affordable housing, increase transportation options, lower transportation costs, 

and protect the environment in communities nationwide. The implementation of the Memorandum 

of Understanding would be beneficial to all populations but could help intensify project benefits in 

the urban areas most affected by project impacts, where many minority and low-income 

populations are located. For example, the Authority will establish a temporary relocation field 

office to help facilitate relocation efforts in areas with substantial relocation needs. In addition to 

providing services, the Authority is required to coordinate its relocation activities with other 

agencies causing displacements to minimize impacts while ensuring that all persons displaced 

receive fair and consistent relocation benefits. 

As part of the outreach effort, the Authority conducted numerous stakeholder meetings in 2015 to 

discuss the F-B LGA and obtain feedback about community concerns, including three community 

open houses, one activity center, and a Stakeholder Working Group with an impacted group of 

businesses. The Authority will continue its outreach activities, such as the meetings that have 

been held in the City of Bakersfield on July 9 and 24, August 7, 14, 23, and October 23, 2015, to 

address the F-B LGA and the specific communities that would be affected by this alignment. 

Specific efforts aimed at outreach to the environmental justice communities in the study area are 

ongoing and will be performed through design, construction, and start of operation. 

According to USEO 12898, the offsetting project benefits associated with the project were 

considered in the Environmental Justice analysis described in Impact EJ#1 and EJ#2. The F-B 

LGA, like all of the HSR alternatives, would provide benefits that would accrue to all populations 

in the region, including minority and low-income populations. These benefits include improved 

mobility within the region, a reduction in traffic congestion on freeways, improvements in regional 

air quality, and the creation of new employment opportunities during project construction and 

operation. For more additional information on the Project Benefits, see Technical Appendix 1-B, 

Benefits, of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. 

Jobs created by construction and operation of the project would likely be filled by workers in the 

region. To ensure these job opportunities benefit minority and low-income populations, the 

Authority has approved the development of a Community Benefits Policy to support employment 
Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

of individuals who reside in disadvantaged areas and those designated as disadvantaged 

workers. Through the Community Benefits Policy, the Authority will also work to help remove 

potential barriers to small businesses, disadvantaged business enterprises, disabled veteran 

business enterprises, women-owned businesses, and microbusinesses that want to participate in 

building the HSR system. 

Additionally, station construction and planned station area improvements at the F Street Station in 

Bakersfield would benefit the local minority and low-income populations by providing interregional 

connectivity with other metropolitan centers, inducing residential and commercial infill 

development and increasing property values in the surrounding area. 

Although this project would result in benefits which would accrue to minority and low-income 

populations, it is not possible to determine whether these would outweigh the adverse effects of 

the project for all minority and low-income populations with certainty because project benefits 

would accrue differently for households along the project corridor, depending on factors such as 

proximity to the project, access to station areas, and frequency of use of the F-B LGA. Moreover, 

homeownership status could be a crucial determinant of whether a household near a station 

would benefit from the potential increase in property values resulting from revitalization and 

economic development. Impact avoidance and minimization measures and mitigation measures 

that will reduce the potential project impacts to minority and low-income populations are 

discussed in Section 5.7 below. However, even when applying these mitigation measures, there 

remains a disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. 

5.7 Measures to Minimize Harm 

The evaluation of impacts in this section is based largely on impacts identified in other sections of 

this Supplemental EIR/EIS, with accompanying mitigation measures to minimize or avoid some of 

the impacts on minority and low-income populations, as detailed in Section 5.6. The Authority will 

ensure that the measures outlined below are implemented to reduce disproportionately high and 

adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations resulting from implementation of the F-B 

LGA. In addition, environmental commitments in response to specific input from members of 

environmental justice communities will be incorporated into the F-B LGA as a result of ongoing 

outreach to those communities. 

5.7.1 Mitigation Measures and Avoidance and Minimization Measures 

5.7.1.1 Avoidance and Minimization Measures 

All of the avoidance and minimization measures (referred to as project design features in Chapter 

3.12 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS [Authority and FRA 2014: pages 3.12-135 

through 3.12-138]) are applicable to the F-B LGA. The applicable list is provided in Technical 

Appendix 2-G, Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Plan. Technical Appendix 2-H describes 

how implementation of these measures reduces environmental effects that may result in 

disproportionately high and adverse effects to minority and low-income populations. The following 

Avoidance and Minimization Measures would be applicable to the May 2014 Project as well as 

the F-B LGA: 

 SO-AM #1: Construction Management Plan. Development and implementation of a

detailed construction management plan to address communications, community impacts,

visual protection, air quality, safety controls, noise controls, and traffic controls to minimize

impacts on low-income households and minority populations. The plan will assure project

access is maintained and include coordination with local transit providers to minimize impacts

on local and regional bus routes in affected communities.

 SO-AM #2: Uniform Act and California Relocation and Assistance Act Compliance.

Development and implementation of a relocation mitigation plan to minimize the economic

disruption related to relocation, provide affected property owners with assistance, coordinate

relocation activities with other agencies, minimize permanent closure of displaced businesses

and non-profit agencies, and provide regulatory compliance assistance.

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-50 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
 

5.7.1.2 Mitigation Measures from May 2014 Project 

During project design and construction, the Authority and FRA would implement measures to 

reduce impacts on minority and low-income populations. The following mitigation measure was 

approved under the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Plan 

(Authority and FRA 2014: 1-50). Mitigation Measure SO-MM#6, shown in Table 5-4, is applicable 

to the F-B LGA. 

Table 5-4 Mitigation Measures Applicable to the F-B LGA 

Number Description 

SO-MM#6 Continue outreach to disproportionately and negatively impacted environmental justice populations. 

Environmental Justice outreach activities will be conducted in adversely affected neighborhoods to 

obtain resident feedback on potential impacts and suggestions for mitigation measures. Input from 

these communities will be used to refine the alternatives during ongoing design efforts. In addition, to 

offset any disproportionate effects, the Authority will develop special recruitment, training, and job setaside programs so that minority and low-income populations are able to benefit from the jobs created 

by the project. This type of outreach is common for large infrastructure projects with long construction 

periods and has been found to be effective. 

Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

Source: Authority 2014 

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative 

Authority = California High-Speed Rail Authority 

Mitigation Measure SO-MM#6 would require the Authority, prior to and during project construction 

and operation, to meet with affected residents and property owners and design appropriate 

measures to minimize impacts. The Authority would also hold workshops and create reports 

based on workshop and design findings and develop projects to ensure minority and low-income 

populations benefit from the jobs created by the project. 

5.7.1.3 Mitigation Measures Specific to the F-B LGA 

With the implementation of Mitigation Measure SO-MM#6, described above, disproportionately 

high and adverse effects to minority and low-income populations would be reduced by providing 

opportunities for these communities to provide feedback on potential impacts and suggestions for 

mitigation measures. This input will inform the design process. Further, this mitigation measure 

requires the development of programs so that minority and low-income populations are able to 

benefit from the jobs created by the project. No new project mitigation measures apply solely to 

the F-B LGA. Mitigation measures that apply to both the F-B LGA and May 2014 Project are 

discussed in Section 5.8.1.1. 

5.7.2 F-B LGA Enhancements 

No enhancements have been identified for F-B LGA, but in coordination with the community, this 

discussion will be updated as enhancements are identified. The Authority will consider any 

enhancements proposed during the public review process for this Supplemental EIR/EIS. 

5.8 Environmental Justice Determination 

The proposed F-B LGA would result in adverse impacts on minority and low-income populations 

residing or conducting business in the project corridor. Implementation of proposed impact 

avoidance and minimization measures, best management practices and mitigation measures 

would not completely eliminate impacts resulting from operation of the F-B LGA related to noise 

and vibration, socioeconomics and communities, and visual resources. Those minority or lowincome populations that would be disproportionately affected by the F-B LGA are the 

environmental justice populations for the project. These environmental justice populations are 

located in the urban areas along the project alignment, Shafter, Oildale, and Bakersfield, where 

the highest density of minority and low-income populations are located. 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 5-51 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
Chapter 5 Environmental Justice 

As described in Section 3.4, Noise and Vibration, of this Supplemental EIR/EIS, to mitigate 

operational noise impacts at sensitive receivers, noise barriers were evaluated for feasibility and 

reasonableness. Of the six noise barriers evaluated, all noise barriers were determined 

reasonable and feasible. However, even with implementation of these noise barriers, unmitigated 

severe noise impacts would remain for approximately 152 sensitive receivers. The majority of 

these unmitigated impacts would occur in minority or low-income areas along the project 

alignment. These receivers would be eligible for either sound insulation or payment of property for 

noise easements, consistent with N&V-MM#3 (see Section 3.4.4.3 of this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS), which would help to reduce potential noise impacts, but would not completely eliminate 

the disproportionately high and adverse noise impact on minority and low-income populations. No 

additional practicable mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact. 

As described in Section 3.12, Socioeconomics and Communities, of this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS, Mitigation Measures SO-MM#1 through SO-MM#5 address relocation through locating 

suitable replacement properties comparable to those currently occupied by residents, as well as 

suitable replacement facilities, if necessary. Additionally in cases where residents wish to remain 

there are measures in place to purchase vacant land or buildings in the area, and outreach to 

determine how communities may be substantially altered by construction of the F-B LGA. 

Measures also include community workshops to identify contextual design responses and use 

options that could strengthen the community and minimize disruption of relocations. 

Implementation of these measures would help to reduce potential community impacts related to 

displacement of residents, businesses, and community facilities; but would not completely 

eliminate the disproportionately high and adverse impact on minority and low-income populations. 

No additional practicable mitigation measures are available to reduce this impact. 

As described in Section 3.16, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, of this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS, with implementation of Mitigation Measures AVR-MM#1a through AVR-MM#2h adverse 

visual effects associated with construction activities and the introduction of prominent HSR 

structures would be mitigated to the extent feasible. These mitigation measures would minimize 

or avoid significant adverse aesthetic impacts to the extent feasible; however, adverse impacts to 

visual quality related to the introduction of permanent physical infrastructure, particularly HSR 

guideways with elevated structures, raised embankments, and retaining walls, and associated 

overpasses, would remain substantial. No additional practicable mitigation measures are 

available to reduce this impact. 

The minority and low-income populations in the study area would benefit from the transit 

improvements the F-B LGA would provide including improved mobility within the region, a 

reduction in traffic congestion on freeways, improvements in regional air quality, and the creation 

of new employment opportunities during project construction and operation. Moreover, these 

benefits would be equal to the benefits to the general public. 

FRA and the Authority have been conducting targeted outreach activities for minority and lowincome residents and businesses for the F-B LGA since 2015. These outreach efforts built on the 

previous efforts conducted for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section, which began in 2007 and 

continued through 2014. The F-B LGA CIA (Authority and FRA 2017) documents how minority 

and low-income populations have been engaged in project planning activities. Generally, 

members of minority and low-income populations have voiced similar concerns about the F-B 

LGA as the general public, as described in Section 5.5.2, Issues and Concerns, above. 

This project would result in benefits which would accrue to minority and low-income populations 

and impact avoidance and minimization measures and mitigation measures will reduce most of 

the potential project impacts to minority and low-income populations. However, even when 

applying these mitigation measures, there remains a disproportionately high and adverse impact 

on minority and low-income populations from project operations and in the cumulative condition. 

Therefore, FRA has preliminarily concluded that the F-B LGA would result in disproportionately 

high and adverse environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. However, as 

described in Section 5.7, the F-B LGA has lesser impacts when compared with the May 2014 

Project. 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

5-52 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS