California High-Speed Rail Authority

Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section 

Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact 

Report/Environmental 

Impact Statement 

Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section 

(May 2014 Project) 

November 2017
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank 
Table of Contents

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-i 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

APPENDIX 8-A: ANALYSIS OF THE COMPARATIVE SECTION (MAY 2014 PROJECT)..... 8-A-1

8-A-1 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 8-A-1

8-A-2 F-B LGA COMPARISON WITH THE MAY 2014 PROJECT................................. 8-A-5

Transportation ....................................................................................................... 8-A-5

Air Quality and Global Climate Change............................................................... 8-A-15

Noise and Vibration ............................................................................................. 8-A-24

Electromagnetic Field/Electromagnetic Interference........................................... 8-A-29

Public Utilities and Energy................................................................................... 8-A-33

Biological Resources and Wetlands.................................................................... 8-A-43

Hydrology and Water Resources ........................................................................ 8-A-65

Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontology ..................................................... 8-A-72

Hazardous Materials and Wastes ....................................................................... 8-A-76

Safety and Security ............................................................................................. 8-A-80

Socioeconomics and Communities ..................................................................... 8-A-86

Station Planning, Land Use, and Development .................................................. 8-A-98

Agricultural Land................................................................................................ 8-A-103

Parks, Recreation, and Open Space................................................................. 8-A-107

Aesthetics and Visual Resources...................................................................... 8-A-114

Cultural Resources ............................................................................................ 8-A-125

Regional Growth................................................................................................ 8-A-128

Cumulative Impacts ........................................................................................... 8-A-131

Section 4(f)-6(f) Evaluation................................................................................ 8-A-135

Environmental Justice ....................................................................................... 8-A-141

Project Costs and Operations ........................................................................... 8-A-148

8-A-3 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 8-A-152

8-A-4 REFERENCES.................................................................................................. 8-A-156

Tables 

Table 8-A-1 Transportation Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B 

LGA................................................................................................................................... 8-A-14

Table 8-A-2 May 2014 Project Construction Emissions for Years 2014–2023 (tons/year) .... 8-A-16

Table 8-A-3 Programmatic Construction Emissions: F-B LGA (tons/year)a ........................... 8-A-18

Table 8-A-4 Total F-B HSR Unmitigated Construction Emissions –Total (tons) .................... 8-A-20

Table 8-A-5 Air Quality Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA ... 8-A-23

Table 8-A-6 Severe and Moderate Noise Impacts from the May 2014 Project (PreMitigation) ......................................................................................................................... 8-A-25

Table 8-A-7 Noise and Vibration Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA............................................................................................................................ 8-A-28

Table 8-A-8 Summary of Electromagnetic Field Modeling Results for the May 2014 

Project............................................................................................................................... 8-A-30

Table 8-A-9 Expected Worst-Case 60-Hertz Magnetic Fields Based on Closest Distances 

to Sensitive Receptors from the Centerline of May 2014 Project..................................... 8-A-32

Table 8-A-10 Electromagnetic Interference/Electromagnetic Field Impact Comparison 

between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA................................................................... 8-A-32

Table 8-A-11 Construction Water Consumption Assumptions for the May 2014 Project....... 8-A-35
Table of Contents

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-ii | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-12 Construction Energy Consumption Assumptions for the May 2014 Project ..... 8-A-35

Table 8-A-13 Summary of Differentiating Features between the May 2014 Project and FB LGA ............................................................................................................................... 8-A-42

Table 8-A-14 Potential Acreage of Special-Status Plant Species Habitat Impacted by the 

May 2014 Project.............................................................................................................. 8-A-47

Table 8-A-15 Potential Acreage of Special-Status Wildlife Species Habitat Impacted by 

the May 2014 Project........................................................................................................ 8-A-48

Table 8-A-16 Comparison of Quantity of Impacts on Riparian Areas (acres) for the May 

2014 Project...................................................................................................................... 8-A-51

Table 8-A-17 Quantity of Impacts on Waters of the U.S. (acres) for the May 2014 Project... 8-A-54

Table 8-A-18 Quality (Relative Condition) of Impacts on Waters of the U.S. (acres) for the 

May 2014 Project.............................................................................................................. 8-A-55

Table 8-A-19 Potential Acreage of Special-Status Plant Species Habitat Impacted by the 

May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA.................................................................................. 8-A-59

Table 8-A-20 Potential Acreage of Special-Status Wildlife Species Habitat Impacted by 

the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA (acres) ............................................................... 8-A-60

Table 8-A-21 Potential Acreage of Black Willow Thicket Impacts for the May 2014 Project 

and F-B LGA (acres) ........................................................................................................ 8-A-62

Table 8-A-22 Potential Acreage of Riparian Area Impacts for the May 2014 Project and FB LGA (acres)................................................................................................................... 8-A-63

Table 8-A-23 Comparison of Quantity of Impacts on Waters of the U.S. (acres)................... 8-A-64

Table 8-A-24 Comparison of Quality (Relative Condition) of Impacts on Waters of the 

U.S. for the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA (acres)........................................................ 8-A-65

Table 8-A-25 Water Bodies Crossed by the May 2014 Project .............................................. 8-A-66

Table 8-A-26 Districts Supplying Water, Sanitation, or Flood Control That Potentially 

Have Infrastructure Crossing the May 2014 Project......................................................... 8-A-67

Table 8-A-27 Districts Supplying Water, Sanitation, or Flood Control That Potentially 

Have Infrastructure Crossing the F-B LGA....................................................................... 8-A-67

Table 8-A-28 Hydrology Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA.. 8-A-72

Table 8-A-29 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontology Impact Comparison between 

the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA.................................................................................. 8-A-75

Table 8-A-30 Potential Environmental Concerns within 150 Feet of the May 2014 Project 

Footprint............................................................................................................................ 8-A-77

Table 8-A-31 Hazardous Materials and Wastes Impact Comparison between the May 

2014 Project and F-B LGA ............................................................................................... 8-A-79

Table 8-A-32 Safety and Security Impact Comparison between the F-B LGA and May 

2014 Project...................................................................................................................... 8-A-85

Table 8-A-33 Displacements under the May 2014 Project ..................................................... 8-A-86

Table 8-A-34 Residential Displacements under the May 2014 Project .................................. 8-A-87

Table 8-A-35 Agricultural Business Impacts under the May 2014 Project ............................. 8-A-87

Table 8-A-36 May 2014 Project Residential Displacements by School Districts.................... 8-A-88

Table 8-A-37 Estimated Annual Sales Tax Losses by Jurisdiction under the May 2014 

Project (in 2015 dollars).................................................................................................... 8-A-89
Table of Contents

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-iii

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-38 Comparison of Displacements under the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA ...... 8-A-90

Table 8-A-39 Comparison of Residential Displacements under the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA............................................................................................................................ 8-A-91

Table 8-A-40 Comparison of Business Relocations under the May 2014 Project and F-B 

LGA................................................................................................................................... 8-A-91

Table 8-A-41 Comparison of Business Sector Relocations under the May 2014 Project 

and the F-B LGA............................................................................................................... 8-A-92

Table 8-A-42 Comparison of Agricultural Business Impacts under the F-B LGA, relative to 

the May 2014 Project1 ...................................................................................................... 8-A-92

Table 8-A-43 Comparison of Displaced and Affected Community Facilities under the F-B 

LGA, relative to the May 2014 Project1 ............................................................................ 8-A-93

Table 8-A-44 Comparison of Residential Displacements by School District under the F-B 

LGA, relative to the May 2014 Project1 ............................................................................ 8-A-94

Table 8-A-45 Comparison of Annual Property Tax Losses by Jurisdiction under the F-B 

LGA, relative to the May 2014 Project (in 2015 dollars)1 ................................................. 8-A-94

Table 8-A-46 Comparison of Annual Sales Tax Losses by Jurisdiction under the F-B 

LGA, relative to the May 2014 Project (in 2015 dollars)1 ................................................. 8-A-95

Table 8-A-47 Comparison of Regional Employment Creation under the F-B LGA, relative 

to the May 2014 Project (in one-year full-time job equivalents) ....................................... 8-A-96

Table 8-A-48 Socioeconomics and Communities Impact Comparison between the May 

2014 Project and F-B LGA ............................................................................................... 8-A-96

Table 8-A-49 Station Planning, Land Use, and Development Impact Comparison between 

the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA ............................................................................... 8-A-100

Table 8-A-50 Protected Farmland Permanently Affected by the May 2014 Project............. 8-A-105

Table 8-A-51 Agricultural Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B 

LGA................................................................................................................................. 8-A-106

Table 8-A-52 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Resources within 1,000 feet of the 

May 2014 Project Centerline .......................................................................................... 8-A-108

Table 8-A-53 School District Play Areas and Recreation Facilities within 1,000 feet of the 

Centerline for the May 2014 Project............................................................................... 8-A-109

Table 8-A-54 Parks and Recreation Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project 

and F-B LGA................................................................................................................... 8-A-110

Table 8-A-55 Aesthetic Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA . 8-A-119

Table 8-A-56 Archaeological Resources: May 2014 Project ................................................ 8-A-126

Table 8-A-57 Historic Architectural Resources: May 2014 Project....................................... 8-A-127

Table 8-A-58 Cultural Resources Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA.......................................................................................................................... 8-A-128

Table 8-A-59 Employment Impacts during Construction of May 2014 Project..................... 8-A-129

Table 8-A-60 Comparison of Regional Employment Creation under the F-B LGA, relative 

to the May 2014 Project (in one-year full-time job equivalents) ..................................... 8-A-130

Table 8-A-61 Summary of Cumulative Impacts for the May 2014 Project............................ 8-A-132

Table 8-A-62 Cumulative Impacts for the Comparison between the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA.......................................................................................................................... 8-A-133
Table of Contents

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-iv | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-63 Park, Recreation, and Open Space Properties Evaluated for Section 4(f) 

Use by the May 2014 Project ......................................................................................... 8-A-136

Table 8-A-64 Resources Listed in, or Determined or Recommended Eligible for, the

National Register of Historic Places under Criteria A-C within the Study Area of the 

May 2014 Project............................................................................................................ 8-A-137

Table 8-A-65 Section 4(f) Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B 

LGA................................................................................................................................. 8-A-137

Table 8-A-66 Environmental Justice Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project 

and F-B LGA................................................................................................................... 8-A-147

Table 8-A-67 Capital Cost of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section .......................................... 8-A-149

Table 8-A-68 Capital Cost of the May 2014 Project ............................................................. 8-A-150

Table 8-A-69 Annual 2035 Operating and Maintenance Costs Apportioned to the Fresno 

to Bakersfield Section (2010 $millions) .......................................................................... 8-A-150

Table 8-A-70 Annual 2035 Operating and Maintenance Costs Apportioned to the Fresno 

to Bakersfield Section (2010 $millions) .......................................................................... 8-A-151

Table 8-A-71 Cost and Operation Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA (2010 $millions) ............................................................................................... 8-A-151

Table 8-A-72 Natural Resources Impacts Comparison ........................................................ 8-A-153

Table 8-A-73 Community Resources Impacts Comparison.................................................. 8-A-154

Figures 

Figure 8-A-1 F-B LGA and May 2014 Project........................................................................... 8-A-3

Figure 8-A-2 Study Intersections at Bakersfield Station ........................................................... 8-A-7

Figure 8-A-3 Existing Plus May 2014 Project: Average Daily Traffic and Number of 

Lanes: Map A.................................................................................................................... 8-A-11

Figure 8-A-4 Existing Plus May 2014 Project: Average Daily Traffic and Number of 

Lanes: Map B.................................................................................................................... 8-A-12

Figure 8-A-5a May 2014 Project Noise Impacts After Mitigation (Shafter)............................. 8-A-26

Figure 8-A-5b May 2014 Project Noise Impacts After Mitigation (Bakersfield)....................... 8-A-27

Figure 8-A-6 Electromagnetic Field Sensitive Receptors Along the May 2014 Project.......... 8-A-31

Figure 8-A-7 Electrical Transmission Lines ............................................................................ 8-A-37

Figure 8-A-8 Natural Gas Pipelines ........................................................................................ 8-A-38

Figure 8-A-9 Petroleum and Fuel Pipelines............................................................................ 8-A-39

Figure 8-A-10 Communication Facilities and Sites................................................................. 8-A-40

Figure 8-A-11 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Lands ................................................................. 8-A-41

Figure 8-A-12 May 2014 Project Habitat Study Areas (Shafter)............................................. 8-A-45

Figure 8-A-13 May 2014 Project Habitat Study Areas (Bakersfield) ...................................... 8-A-46

Figure 8-A-14 Waters near the May 2014 Project (Shafter) ................................................... 8-A-52

Figure 8-A-15 Waters near the May 2014 Project (Bakersfield)............................................. 8-A-53

Figure 8-A-16 Conservation Areas ......................................................................................... 8-A-56
Table of Contents

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-v 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-17 Kern River Linkage .......................................................................................... 8-A-58

Figure 8-A-18 Water Districts Serving the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA Areas .......... 8-A-68

Figure 8-A-19 Flood Zones Crossing the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA ...................... 8-A-71

Figure 8-A-20 May 2014 Project and Safety-Related Facilities (Shafter)............................... 8-A-81

Figure 8-A-21 May 2014 Project and Safety-Related Facilities (Bakersfield)......................... 8-A-82

Figure 8-A-22 May 2014 Project and F-B LGA Station Locations ........................................ 8-A-101

Figure 8-A-23 Shafter Area: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Resources and School 

District Play Areas and Recreation Facilities in the Project Study Area......................... 8-A-112

Figure 8-A-24 Bakersfield Area: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Resources and 

School District Play Areas and Recreation Facilities in the Project Study Area ............ 8-A-113

Figure 8-A-25 Landscape Units for the May 2014 Project.................................................... 8-A-116

Figure 8-A-26 Landscape Units for the F-B LGA.................................................................. 8-A-117

Figure 8-A-27 Rosedale/Greenacres Landscape Unit: Representative Residential Visual 

Receptors ....................................................................................................................... 8-A-120

Figure 8-A-28 Rosedale/Greenacres Landscape Unit: Representative Residential Visual 

Receptors ....................................................................................................................... 8-A-121

Figure 8-A-29 North Bakersfield Landscape Unit: Representative Residential and 

Commercial Visual Receptors ........................................................................................ 8-A-122

Figure 8-A-30 North Bakersfield Landscape Unit: Representative Industrial Visual 

Receptors ....................................................................................................................... 8-A-123

Figure 8-A-31 Minority or Low-Income Communities by Census Block ............................... 8-A-142
Table of Contents

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-vi | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Acronyms and Abbreviations

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-vii 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

APE area of potential effect

Authority California High-Speed Rail Authority

BNSF BNSF Railway

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CH4 methane

CIA Community Impact Assessment

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

dBA A-weighted decibels

DOGGR (California) Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources

EIR Environmental Impact Report

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EMF electromagnetic field

EMI electromagnetic interference

F-B LGA Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GC General Conformity

GHG greenhouse gas

HMF heavy maintenance facility

HSR high-speed rail

Ldn day-night sound level, dBA

LOS level-of-service

mG milligauss

MOIF maintenance of infrastructure facility

N2O nitrous oxide

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NOx oxides of nitrogen

O&M operating and maintenance

PEC potential environmental concern

PM10 particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter

PM2.5 particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter

SJVAPCD San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SR State Route
Acronyms and Abbreviations

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-viii | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

TCP traditional cultural property(ies) 

U.S. United States

VdB vibration velocity decibel(s)
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-1 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

APPENDIX 8-A: ANALYSIS OF THE COMPARATIVE SECTION (MAY 2014 

PROJECT)

8-A-1 Introduction

This Technical Appendix analyzes the portion of the Preferred Alternative identified in the Fresno 

to Bakersfield Section California High-Speed Train Final Project Environmental Impact 

Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) which is comparable to the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative (F-B LGA). 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 alternative 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. 

The purpose of Appendix 8-A is to present the reader with a more detailed analysis of the impacts 

associated with the May 2014 Project (as presented for the Preferred Alternative in Chapters 3, 4, 

and 5 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS) to allow for a subsequent summary 

comparison with the impacts associated with the F-B LGA (as presented in Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 

6 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/ EIS).1 

As described in Chapter 2 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS the LGA alignment would begin 

north of Shafter, continuing southeasterly until just north of Burbank Street where it would turn 

east until reaching the Union Pacific Railroad corridor. At this point, the alignment would turn and 

continue southeasterly, adjacent to and west of, the Union Pacific Railroad corridor. The 

alignment would continue southeasterly into Bakersfield and would parallel the Union Pacific 

Railroad corridor to the F-B LGA southern terminus. Southwest of the Oil Junction community, the 

alignment would cross State Route (SR) 99 and continue southeast. South of Airport Drive, the 

alignment would cross and run parallel to the west side of SR 204. This route would continue until 

the SR 178 crossing, where the alignment would turn east and parallel to the Union Pacific 

Railroad corridor. The F-B LGA would continue generally east within the Sumner Street and 

Edison Highway corridors and would terminate at Oswell Street. The F-B LGA station would be 

located at the intersection of SR 204 and F Street. A Maintenance of Infrastructure Facility

(MOIF) would be located along the F-B LGA in the City of Shafter between Fresno Avenue and 

Poplar Avenue. 

Comparatively, the May 2014 Project included a station that would be constructed at the corner of 

Truxtun and Union Avenues/SR 204 as well as an MOIF that would be located along the 

alignment just north of the city of Bakersfield and 7th Standard Road. Figure 8-A-1 shows the F-B 

LGA and the May 2014 Project that is analyzed in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS as well as in 

this Appendix. 

The resource sections below provide a summary of the impacts associated with the May 2014 

Project followed by a comparison between the F-B LGA and the May 2014 Project. Comparative 

data between these two alternatives is presented in tables and exhibits, as appropriate. Where 

applicable, shading has been incorporated into the tables to characterize the alternative with the 

lesser quantity of impact.

1

 Chapter 5 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS evaluates the environmental justice impacts that would result from the F-B 

LGA; whereas, environmental justice impacts associated with the May 2014 Project were evaluated in Section 3.12 of the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-2 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-3 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-1 F-B LGA and May 2014 Project
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-4 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-5 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

8-A-2 F-B LGA Comparison with the May 2014 Project

Transportation

Summary of May 2014 Project Transportation Impacts

The purpose of the Transportation section in an EIR/EIS is to describe existing and future traffic 

circulation and parking patterns, and to evaluate the impact of the proposed project on these 

conditions. The evaluation also considers impacts on alternative methods of transportation, such 

as public transportation, bicycles, and pedestrians. Key issues include traffic patterns and delays, 

trip generation, transit availability, parking availability, and bicycle and pedestrian flows. 

This section describes the potential impacts of the May 2014 Project as compared to the F-B 

LGA. For more details on the transportation analysis, see Section 3.2 of this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS or the Fresno to Bakersfield Project Section Transportation Technical Report (California 

High-Speed Rail Authority [Authority] and Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] 2014c).

Methodology 

The Transportation section includes analysis of two project alternatives: the May 2014 Project

and the proposed F-B LGA. (It should be noted that the Fresno to Bakersfield Section: 

Supplemental EIR/EIS – Transportation Analysis Technical Report includes a No Project

Alternative as a baseline for the analysis; however, the analysis used below dismissed the No 

Project Alternative as the focus is on the May 2014 Project versus the F-B LGA.) The baseline 

and future (year 2035) conditions for the proposed F-B LGA have been analyzed using new 

baseline data (year 2015) and the updated Kern Council of Governments traffic model. Therefore, 

both the No Project and May 2014 Project Alternatives analyses have been updated to the same 

data assumptions thereby allowing for comparison of all three alternatives under the same 

baseline and future conditions.

The study area for the comparative analysis has been divided into two key sub-areas where 

impacts related to the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA are expected to occur. The two key 

sub-area locations are:

• Truxtun Avenue Station Alternative, included within the May 2014 Project

• F Street Station Alternative, included within the F-B LGA

Since the Truxtun Avenue Station Alternative analysis is part of the approved Fresno to 

Bakersfield Transportation Analysis Technical Report (2014c), the same study area as analyzed 

in the Fresno to Bakersfield Transportation Analysis Technical Report has been included in this 

analysis. A new study area has been identified for the proposed F Street Station Alternative (see 

Figure 8-A-2). The purpose of this analysis is to provide a comparative evaluation of the effects of 

the station construction within the study areas. The following sections discuss and analyze the 

existing conditions for the Truxtun Avenue and F Street stations. 

Detailed discussion regarding the stations and the corresponding study areas are included in 

Section 3.2 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS or the Fresno to Bakersfield Project Section 

Transportation Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2014c).
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-6 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-7 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-2 Study Intersections at Bakersfield Station
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-8 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-9 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impacts

Operation Impacts 

As discussed in Section 3.2 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, level-of-service (LOS)2 is the 

primary unit of measure for stating the operating quality of a highway or roadway. The traffic 

impact criteria used in evaluating traffic LOS for roadway segments and signalized and 

unsignalized intersections during the project operation phase are presented in Section 3.2.3.5 of 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS and is included here (Authority and FRA 2014a, 

pages 3.2-10 and 3.2-11). 

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 impacts would be less than significant under the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, effects on the local circulation would occur in the 

congested areas of Bakersfield from the extension of the duration of peak periods of congestion. 

The effect of this increased congestion would be less than significant under CEQA.

For roadway segments, a substantial change in the volume-to-capacity3 ratio between the No 

Project and project conditions would be:

• A reduction in LOS below LOS D.

For segments that currently, operate at LOS E or F:

• An increase in the volume-to-capacity ratio of 0.04 or more.

Ten of the roadway segments projected to operate at LOS D, E, or F under Existing Conditions 

are projected to continue to operate at LOS D, E, or F under Existing Plus May 2014 Project 

Conditions. No additional roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS D, E, or F with the 

addition of traffic from the Truxtun Avenue Station. 

All the roadway segments projected to operate at LOS E or F under Future No-Build Conditions 

are projected to continue to operate at LOS E or F under the Future with May 2014 Project 

Conditions. No additional roadway segments are projected to operate at LOS E or F with the 

addition of the traffic from the Truxtun Avenue Station.

As described above, following mitigation, impacts to roadway segments would be less than 

significant under CEQA.

Similarly, local jurisdictions typically consider a substantial change between No Project and 

project conditions as a 4-second to 1-second increase in average delay (frequently on a “sliding” 

scale), depending on the specific LOS at an intersection. Therefore a substantial change resulting 

from the project would be: 

• A reduction in LOS below LOS D.

For intersections that currently, operate at LOS E or F:

• An increase in average delay at an intersection by 4 seconds or more.

2

 LOS is calculated by comparing the actual number of vehicles using a roadway to its carrying capacity. In general, LOS 

is measured by the ratio of traffic volume to capacity or by the average delay experienced by vehicles on the facility. The 

Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board 2010) is a recognized source for the techniques used to 

measure transportation facility performance. Using the Highway Capacity Manual procedures, the quality of traffic 

operation is graded into one of six LOS designations: A, B, C, D, E, or F. LOS A represents the best range of operating 

conditions and LOS F represents the worst. 

3

 Volume-to-capacity ratio, or the average delay experienced by vehicles on the facility. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-10 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Eleven study intersections that are projected to operate at LOS E or F under Existing Conditions 

are projected to continue to operate at LOS E or F under Existing plus May 2014 Project 

Conditions (Figure 8-A-3 and Figure 8-A-4). The following additional intersection is projected to 

operate at LOS E or F under Existing plus May 2014 Project Conditions:

• Union Avenue/Hayden Court

Three of the study intersections are projected to be substantially affected (i.e., an increase in 

delay of four or more seconds) by the May 2014 Project. Those intersections are:

• Real Road: SR 99 Southbound Ramps/California Avenue

• F Street/SR 204

• Union Avenue/Hayden Court

Thirty-five study intersections that are projected to operate at LOS E or F under Future No-Build 

Conditions are forecast to continue to operate at LOS E or F. This is based on intersections that 

have been analyzed for the May 2014 Project. In addition, the following intersection is projected 

to operate at LOS E or F under Future plus May 2014 Project Conditions.

• P Street and 8th Street

Eleven of the study intersections are projected to be significantly affected by the May 2014 

Project. Those intersections are:

• Oak Street and Truxtun Avenue

• F Street and SR 204

• F Street and 30th Street

• F Street and 23rd Street

• M Street and SR 204 and 28th Street

• Q Street and 23rd Street

• P Street and 8th Street

• Union Avenue and Hayden Court-Sonora Street

• Union Avenue and California Avenue

• Tulare Street and Truxtun Avenue

• Beale Avenue and Jefferson Street-SR 178 Westbound Ramps

As described above, following mitigation, impacts to study intersections would be less than 

significant under CEQA.

Under the May 2014 Project, 14 local roads would be closed and traffic would be diverted to 

adjacent roads:

• Madera Avenue, Kern County

• Mettler Avenue, Kern County

• Reina Road, Kern County

• Glenn Street, Bakersfield, Kern County

• Palm Avenue, Bakersfield, Kern County

• Eye Street, Bakersfield, Kern County

• Chico Street, Bakersfield, Kern County

• Inyo Street, Bakersfield, Kern County

• Dolores Street, Bakersfield, Kern County

• Kern Street, Bakersfield, Kern County

• Eureka Street, Bakersfield, Kern County

• King Street, Bakersfield, Kern County

• E 18th Street, Bakersfield, Kern County

• E 21st Street, Bakersfield, Kern County
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-11

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-3 Existing Plus May 2014 Project: Average Daily Traffic and Number of Lanes: Map A
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-12 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-4 Existing Plus May 2014 Project: Average Daily Traffic and Number of Lanes: Map B
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-13

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

In the rural areas, the roads proposed for closure have very low traffic volumes and necessary 

traffic diversions can be accomplished without causing any significant traffic impacts under 

CEQA. Where these impacts would occur in the congested urban areas of Bakersfield, which 

could extend the duration of peak periods of congestion, these project impacts are less than 

significant under CEQA.

The May 2014 Project would add approximately 900 daily passengers to transit service in the city 

of Bakersfield, but only a nominal amount to the City of Shafter, since no station is proposed in 

Shafter. The May 2014 Project would add approximately 135 peak-hour passengers in 

Bakersfield. Approximately 17 transit routes serve the Truxtun Avenue Station area, and the 

addition of approximately 135 passengers on existing transit routes in the Truxtun Avenue Station

area averages about 8 additional passengers per route, assuming equal distribution. The existing 

transit fleet is expected to be able to accommodate the per route increases associated with the 

May 2014 Project. Impacts would be less than significant under CEQA. 

The May 2014 Project would not close any of the existing or planned bicycle routes or pedestrian 

access/routes in the immediate vicinity of the Truxtun Avenue Station. Approximately 500 

passengers would access the Truxtun Avenue Station area. Approximately 75 passengers during 

the peak hour in the city of Bakersfield would arrive or leave the station area either by walking or 

on bicycle. The station would include bicycle racks, pedestrian connections to the existing 

sidewalks, and bicycle lanes and facilities where they can be accommodated. The addition of 

these pedestrian and bike trips during the peak hour (an average of about one pedestrian or bike 

per minute) in the Truxtun Avenue Station area would not substantially affect existing pedestrian 

and bike facilities. Impacts would be less than significant under CEQA. 

The Truxtun Avenue Station would include passenger drop-off areas (“park-and-ride” locations) at 

the entrances to the station or within the parking area. The station parking areas would 

accommodate up to approximately 4,500 parking spaces at the Truxtun Avenue Station. These 

parking facilities would be designed to accommodate demand and to avoid overflow parking on 

nearby area streets. Impacts would be less than significant under CEQA. 

Construction Impacts 

Approximately 170 peak-hour trips would be added to the transportation infrastructure in the city 

of Bakersfield during construction of the May 2014 Project. One study intersection (South Union 

Avenue/Eastbound SR 58 ramps) within the city of Bakersfield is projected to be substantially 

impacted by the May 2014 Project. Because project construction traffic would be temporary, any 

associated delays would be less than significant under CEQA. 

Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

Table 8-A-1 provides a comparison of transportation-related impacts under the May 2014 Project 

and the F-B LGA. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-14 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-1 Transportation Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Roadway 

Segments

Existing Plus Project 

Conditions 

(operational)

There would be no significant 

impacts to any roadway segments.

One roadway segment will 

experience a significant impact

as a result of the Project

Future (Year 2035) 

with Project 

Conditions 

(operational)

There would be no significant 

impacts to any roadway segments.

Two roadway segments will 

experience a significant impact

as a result of the Project

Study 

Intersections

Construction Period 1 intersection would experience a 

significant impact during 

construction

9 intersections would experience 

a significant impact during 

construction

Existing Plus Project 

Conditions 

(operational)

3 intersections would experience a 

significant impact

3 intersections would experience 

a significant impact

Future (Year 2035) 

with Project 

Conditions 

(operational)

No intersections would be 

improved. Eleven intersections

would experience a significant 

impact

Twenty-one intersections would 

be improved. 

Thirteen intersections would 

experience a significant impact

Road Closures 14 road closures 10 road closures

Transit Existing transit fleet is expected to 

be able to accommodate the per 

route increases 

Existing transit fleet is expected 

to be able to accommodate the 

per route increases 

Bicycle/Pedestrians The addition of trips would not 

substantially affect existing 

facilities

The addition of trips would not 

substantially affect existing 

facilities

Parking The total parking count on the site 

is approximately 4,500 spaces

The total parking count on the 

site is approximately 5,200

spaces

At-Grade Crossings No BNSF at-grade crossings would 

be removed

7 BNSF at-grade crossings would 

be removed

Construction Impacts Approximately 170 peak-hour trips 

would be added to the 

transportation infrastructure during 

construction

Approximately 170 peak-hour 

trips would be added to the 

transportation infrastructure 

during construction

= = least-impact alternative

BNSF = BNSF Railway

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

Table 8-A-1 provides a comparison of transportation impacts between the May 2014 Project and 

the F-B LGA. As shown, the May 2014 Project would result in no roadway segments operating 

below standards during either the Existing Plus May 2014 Project Conditions or the Future (Year 

2035) with May 2014 Project conditions. The F-B LGA would have fewer impacts to study 

intersections during Future (Year 2035) with Project Conditions compared to the May 2014 

Project within the Bakersfield station area (nine versus eleven). The analysis of the May 2014 

Project evaluated only the Station Area subarea and did not evaluate the remaining study areas. 

The F-B LGA would have four additional impacts to study intersections in the rest of the study 

region under Future (Year 2035) with Project Conditions. Additionally, the F-B LGA would also 

have fewer road closures when compared to the May 2014 Project. Overall, the F-B LGA would 

have similar impacts to transportation resources when compared to the May 2014 Project. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-15

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Air Quality and Global Climate Change

Summary of May 2014 Project Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impacts

The Air Quality and Global Climate Change section analyzes the impacts of the project on 

ambient air quality. The section also addresses the exposure of people, especially sensitive 

individuals, to air pollutant concentrations that could be dangerous. The pollutants of concern 

include both criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. The criteria pollutants are those 

regulated by federal and State laws since the 1970s: ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), suspended 

particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Toxic air 

contaminants are identified by State regulation: particulate matter from diesel-fueled engines, 

asbestos, chlorinated organic compounds, metals, radon and iodine gas, and other contaminants.

Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions are also considered. State law defines GHG to include the 

following: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons, 

perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and nitrogen trifluoride (Health and Safety Code, section 

38505[g]). 

Methodology 

Air Quality

The methods for evaluating impacts are intended to satisfy the federal and state requirements, 

including National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), CEQA, and general conformity. In 

accordance with CEQA requirements, an EIR must include a description of the existing physical 

environmental conditions in the vicinity of the project. Those conditions, in turn, “will normally 

constitute the baseline physical conditions by which a lead agency determines whether an impact 

is significant” (CEQA Guidelines Section 15125[a]).

For a project such as the HSR project that would not commence operation of HSR service for 

almost 10 years and would not reach full operation for almost 25 years, use of only existing 

conditions as a baseline for air quality impacts would be misleading. It is more likely that existing 

background traffic volumes (and background roadway changes from other programmed traffic 

improvement projects) and vehicle emission factors would change between today and 2020/2035 

than it is that existing conditions would remain unchanged over the next 10 to 25 years. For 

example, Regional Transportation Plans include funded transportation projects programmed to be 

constructed by 2035. To ignore that these projects would be in place before the HSR project 

reaches maturity (i.e., the point/year at which HSR-related traffic emissions reaches its 

maximum), and to evaluate the HSR project’s air quality impacts ignoring that these Regional 

Transportation Plan improvements would change the underlying background conditions to which 

HSR project traffic would be added, would be misleading because it would represent a 

hypothetical comparison.

Therefore, the air quality analysis for operations uses a dual-baseline approach. That is, the HSR 

project’s air quality impacts are evaluated both against existing conditions and against 

background (i.e., No Project) conditions as they are expected to be in 2035. 

Construction air quality emissions are largely a function of alignment length. The Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS calculated the emissions for the 114 miles of the BNSF 

Alternative.4 The construction air quality emission values referenced in Table 8-A-2 represent 

emission calculations for the entire 114-mile-long Fresno to Bakersfield Section including the May 

2014 Project. The construction of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section would occur between 2014 

and 2023. The 2014 start date for the construction air analysis reflected in Table 8-A-2 is to 

account for the construction of the entire Fresno to Bakersfield alignment, which began in 2014. 

4

 The length of the May 2014 Project was comparable to the BNSF Alternative for the equivalent length of at-grade and 

elevated alignments. Therefore, alignment construction emissions for the BNSF Alternative were analyzed and presented 

in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. The emissions presented in the Fresno to Bakersfield Final EIR/EIS 

are representative of the construction emissions from all of the considered alternatives, including the May 2014 Project. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-16 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-3 represents emission calculations for the entire 114-mile-long Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section with the F-B LGA. Emissions presented include emissions from all construction phases of 

the HSR and the regional roadway realignment. The emission estimates presented in Table 8-A-3 

were calculated assuming a viaduct structure for the F-B LGA. The structure on retained fill would 

result in slightly different emission estimates including lower estimates for construction 

mobilization, demolition, road crossings, and demobilization. Emissions would be approximately 1 

percent higher for land clearing and earth moving. All other construction-phase emissions would 

remain the same. Therefore, construction of the structure on retained fill would result in emissions 

similar to those presented in Table 8-A-2. Table 8-A-4 shows a summary of total emissions for 

the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA.

Table 8-A-2 May 2014 Project Construction Emissions for Years 2014–2023 (tons/year)

VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 3 PM2.5

3

SJVAPCD annual 

thresholds1

CEQA significance 10 N/A 10 N/A 15 15

Annual general conformity (GC)

minimis levels applicable to the 

SJVAPCD2

de 10 N/A 10 100 100 100

Year 2014

Emissions (tons/year) 16.86 104.03 380.80 0.63 42.66 13.40

Exceeds SJVAPCD 

thresholds?

CEQA Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes No

Exceeds GC threshold? Yes N/A Yes No No No

Year 2015

Emissions (tons/year) 36.69 289.42 617.99 1.17 67.63 30.85

Exceeds SJVAPCD CEQA 

thresholds?

Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes Yes

Exceeds GC threshold? Yes N/A Yes No No No

Year 2016

Emissions (tons/year) 32.27 256.37 500.73 0.88 60.47 27.22

Exceeds SJVAPCD 

thresholds?

CEQA Yes N/A Yes N/A Yes Yes

Exceeds GC threshold? Yes N/A Yes No No No

Year 2017

Emissions (tons/year) 8.51 48.99 161.43 0.22 15.79 12.03

Exceeds SJVAPCD 

thresholds?

CEQA No N/A Yes N/A Yes No

Exceeds GC threshold? No N/A Yes No No No

Year 2018

Emissions (tons/year) 3.89 30.27 70.89 0.24 14.90 9.67

Exceeds SJVAPCD CEQA 

thresholds?

No N/A Yes N/A No No

Exceeds GC threshold? No N/A Yes No No No

Year 2019

Emissions (tons/year) 0.42 4.07 4.17 0.01 8.63 6.94
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-17

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

VOC CO NOx SO2 PM10 3 PM2.5

3

Exceeds SJVAPCD CEQA 

thresholds?

No N/A No N/A No No

Exceeds GC threshold? No N/A No No No No

Year 2020

Emissions (tons/year) 0.25 2.50 1.95 0.01 2.95 0.14

Exceeds SJVAPCD CEQA 

thresholds?

No N/A No N/A No No

Exceeds GC threshold? No N/A No No No No

Year 2021

Emissions (tons/year) 3.87 19.56 79.74 0.12 4.33 2.49

Exceeds SJVAPCD CEQA 

thresholds?

No N/A Yes N/A No No

Exceeds GC threshold? No N/A Yes No No No

Year 2022

Emissions (tons/year) 0.09 1.13 0.53 0.00 0.13 0.05

Exceeds SJVAPCD CEQA 

thresholds?

No N/A No N/A No No

Exceeds GC threshold? No N/A No No No No

Year 2023

Emissions (tons/year) 0.03 0.39 0.19 0.00 0.08 0.02

Exceeds SJVAPCD CEQA 

thresholds?

No N/A No N/A No No

Exceeds GC threshold? No N/A No No No No

1 The SJVAPCD has significance thresholds for NOx, ROG/VOC, PM10, and PM2.5. The district currently does not have thresholds for CO or SOx. 

Section 3.3.11 in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS summarizes the CEQA significance threshold for these pollutants. 2 The GC de minimis thresholds for criteria pollutants are based on the SJVAPCD federal attainment status. The SJVAPCD is considered in extreme 

nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS, is a nonattainment area for PM2.5, and is a maintenance area for the CO NAAQS (Fresno and Bakersfield 

urbanized areas only) and PM10 NAAQS. Although the SJVAPCD is in attainment for SOx, since SOx is a precursor for PM2.5, the PM2.5 GC de 

minimis threshold was used. 3 PM10 and PM2.5 emissions have incorporated the SJVAPCD Regulation VIII requirements and dust control measures the California High-Speed Rail 

Authority committed to in the Statewide Program EIR/EIS.

CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act PM10 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter 

CO = carbon monoxide PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter 

EIR = environmental impact report ROG = reactive organic gases

EIS = environmental impact statement SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

GC = general conformity SO2 = sulfur dioxide

N/A = not applicable SOx = oxides of sulfur

NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standards VOC = volatile organic compound

NOx = oxide of nitrogen 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-18 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-3 Programmatic Construction Emissions: F-B LGA (tons/year)

a 

Activities VOC CO

Total Fresnoe Bakersfielde

NOX SO2 PM10d PM2.5d

SJVAPCD annual CEQA significance thresholdsb 10 100 N/A N/A 10 27 15 15

Annual general conformity de minimis levels applicable to the SJVABc 10 N/A 100 100 10 100 100 100

Year 2014

Emissions (tons/year) 16.33 99.92 59.95 24.71 373.42 0.62 40.16 12.44

Exceeds SJVAPCD CEQA thresholds? Yes No N/A N/A Yes No Yes No

Exceeds GC threshold? Yes N/A No No Yes No No No

Year 2015

Emissions (tons/year) 36.1 284.39 91.77 60.30 610.46 1.16 66.42 29.35

Exceeds SJVAPCD CEQA thresholds? Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes No Yes Yes

Exceeds GC threshold? Yes N/A No No Yes No No No

Year 2016

Emissions (tons/year) 31.71 251.68 75.27 56.47 493.70 0.87 59.34 26.03

Exceeds SJVAPCD CEQA thresholds? Yes Yes N/A N/A Yes No Yes Yes

Exceeds GC threshold? Yes N/A No No Yes No No No

Year 2017

Emissions (tons/year) 8.49 48.86 16.56 15.27 161.23 0.22 15.76 11.8

Exceeds SJVAPCD CEQA thresholds? No No N/A N/A Yes No Yes No

Exceeds GC threshold? No N/A No No Yes No No No

Year 2018

Emissions (tons/year) 3.89 30.27 6.19 3.74 70.89 0.24 14.90 9.43

Exceeds SJVAPCD CEQA thresholds? No No N/A N/A Yes No No No

Exceeds GC threshold? No N/A No No Yes No No No

Year 2019

Emissions (tons/year) 0.42 4.07 6.33 1.70 4.17 0.01 8.63 6.93

Exceeds SJVAPCD CEQA thresholds? No No N/A N/A No No No No

Exceeds GC threshold? No N/A No No No No No No
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-19

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Activities VOC CO NOX SO2 PM10d PM2.5d

Total Fresnoe Bakersfielde

Year 2020

Emissions (tons/year) 0.25 2.50 4.18 1.21 1.95 0.01 2.95 0.14

Exceeds SJVAPCD CEQA thresholds? No No No No No No No No

Exceeds GC threshold? No N/A No No No No No No

Year 2021

Emissions (tons/year) 3.87 19.56 10.11 9.26 79.74 0.14 4.33 2.36

Exceeds SJVAPCD CEQA thresholds? No No No No Yes No No No

Exceeds GC threshold? No N/A No No Yes No No No

Year 2022

Emissions (tons/year) 0.09 1.13 0.54 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.13 0.05

Exceeds SJVAPCD CEQA thresholds? No No No No No No No No

Exceeds GC threshold? No N/A No No No No No No

Year 2023

Emissions (tons/year) 0.03 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.08 0.02

Exceeds SJVAPCD CEQA thresholds? No No No No No No No No

Exceeds GC threshold? No N/A No No No No No No

a These construction emissions were established for the F-B LGA, including the entire alignment from Fresno to Bakersfield. b The SJVAPCD has identified construction emissions significance thresholds for CO, SO2 NOx, ROG, VOC, PM10, and PM2.5 in the 2015 GAMAQI. c The GC de minimis thresholds for criteria pollutants are based on the SJVAB federal attainment status. The SJVAB is considered in extreme nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS, is a nonattainment area for PM2.5, and is a 

maintenance area for the CO NAAQS (Fresno and Bakersfield urbanized areas only) and PM10 NAAQS. Although the SJVAB is in attainment for SOx, since SOx is a precursor for PM2.5, the PM2.5 GC de minimis threshold 

was used. d PM10 and PM2.5 emissions have incorporated the SJVAPCD Regulation VIII requirements and dust control measures. e The Fresno urbanized area and the Bakersfield metropolitan area are separate CO maintenance areas. CO emissions presented for these areas represent the Fresno and Bakersfield urbanized maintenance areas only.

CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act PM10 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter

CO = carbon monoxide PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative ROG = reactive organic gas

GAMAQI = Guide for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts SJVAB = San Joaquin Valley Air Basin

GC = general conformity SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

N/A = not applicable SO2 = sulfur dioxide

NOX = nitrogen oxides VOC = volatile organic compound
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-20 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-4 Total F-B HSR Unmitigated Construction Emissions –Total (tons) 

Alternative Emissionsa

VOC CO NOX SO2 PM10b PM2.5b

F-B Section including F-B LGA 101 743 1,796 3 212 99

F-B Section including May 2014

Project

103 757 1,818 3 218 103

a Emissions include HSR project construction as well as roadway projects that are not included in Regional Transportation Plans that would occur 

over a period of years.

b The PM10 and PM2.5 emissions consist of the exhaust and fugitive dust emissions.

CO = carbon monoxide

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

HSR = high-speed rail

NOX = nitrogen oxides

PM10 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 10 microns in diameter

PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter

SO2 = sulfur dioxide

VOC = volatile organic compound

Operational air quality emissions calculations considered the indirect emissions from regional 

vehicle travel, aircraft, and power plants, and direct project operational emissions including 

emissions from high-speed rail (HSR) stations, maintenance facilities, and train movements. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

The methodology for estimating GHG emissions associated with construction is included in 

Section 3.3.4.10 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. Construction GHG emissions 

were quantitatively estimated for the earthwork and major civil construction activity during 

construction, as described in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final Air Quality Technical Report

(Authority and FRA 2014a).

Operational emissions calculations for GHG emissions considered on-road vehicle emissions, 

airport emissions, and power plants. Vehicle emissions were generated by multiplying estimated 

vehicle miles traveled by appropriate GHG emission factors, which are based on speed, vehicle 

mix, and analysis year. The number of air travel trips removed due to the HSR was estimated as 

part of the travel demand modeling analysis conducted for the May 2014 Project. GHG emissions 

from power generation were predicted on a statewide level since no specific source facilities were 

identified. 

Impacts

Construction 

Construction of the May 2014 Project has the potential to cause temporary and significant 

localized air quality impacts.

Table 8-A-2 identifies the years in which the May 2014 Project mass emissions would exceed 

either the GC or the SJVAPCD CEQA thresholds. The May 2014 Project would exceed the 

SJVAPCD and GC standards for NOx in Years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2021.5

 

As documented in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, the construction emissions 

associated with HSR station construction were modeled for the Bakersfield Station using local 

meteorological data sets (Bakersfield Airport). These emissions were modeled using United 

States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency’s AERMOD atmospheric dispersion model to 

predict pollutant concentrations at locations near the construction of the station. The modeled 

work area for each station was based on the approximate station footprint. The analysis used 

station footprints for the station alternatives associated with the BNSF Alternative (Bakersfield 

5

 Data from Table 8-A-2 is from Table 3.3-7 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. At the time of preparation 

of the table, the initial construction year was assumed to be 2014. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-21

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Station-North Alternative). These footprints were assumed to be representative of the other 

station alternatives in terms of size and distance to sensitive receptors, and are also 

representative of the F Street Station under the F-B LGA. The increase in pollutant concentration 

associated with the project emissions is added to the background concentration to estimate the 

ambient air pollutant concentration for comparison to the applicable National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards and California Ambient Air Quality Standards. The modeled diesel particulate matter

concentrations were used to determine the exposure dose and associated health impact following 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment guidance for health risk assessments. 

Specific details of the air dispersion modeling and health risk assessment are found in Appendix 

H of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final Air Quality Technical Report.

Sensitive receptors (such as schools, residences, and health-care facilities) are located near the 

construction areas in Bakersfield. During construction, sensitive receptors would be exposed to 

increased concentrations of toxic air contaminants (TAC), such as diesel particulate matter, which 

may present cancer risks. The long-term (cancer risk) impacts from toxic air contaminant

emissions associated with construction would be less than significant under CEQA because the 

proposed F-B construction would not exceed the applicable threshold of 10 in a million. Exposure 

to toxic air contaminant emissions associated with station construction would not result in 

substantial short-term (acute) impacts.

Construction emissions would only occur during the construction period. However, construction of 

the project would facilitate emission reductions of VOC, CO, NOx, SO2, PM10, and PM2.5 during 

project operations throughout the lifetime of the project. Construction air quality impacts will be 

mitigated by entering into a Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement (VERA) with the SJVAPCD 

by providing funds to the SJVAPCD are used by the SJVAPCD to administer emission reduction 

projects on behalf of the project proponent. The emissions would be mitigated to negligible 

intensity and therefore the impacts are less than significant under CEQA. 

Operation 

As discussed in Impact AQ#10 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (pages 3.3-59 

through 3.3-64), motor vehicle emissions would decrease in the region as a result of the project. 

These reductions, however, would be partially offset by operational emissions associated with the 

train itself (the HSR would be powered by electricity from the regional power grid), by station 

operations, and by heavy maintenance facility (HMF) and MOIF operations. The project would 

result in a regional decrease in emissions of criteria pollutants compared to the No Project 

Alternative (see Table 3.3-11, page 3.3-60, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS or 

Table 3.3-13 in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS). Operation of the May 2014 Project would 

provide a net regional air quality benefit. Operation of the May 2014 Project would generally 

reduce regional criteria and GHG pollutants and would have a less-than-significant impact under 

CEQA on air quality. 

A CO hot-spot analysis was performed for intersections that could potentially cause a localized 

CO hot-spot and for parking structures associated with implementation of the proposed F-B LGA. 

The modeled CO concentrations were combined with CO background concentrations and 

compared with the air quality standards. CO concentrations for the May 2014 Project station are 

included in Section 3.3.6.3 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (pages 3.3-71 

through 3.3-79).

The Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS indicated that intersections in the project vicinity 

would not cause violations of CO National Ambient Air Quality Standards at affected

intersections. The report indicated that the localized CO emissions from existing plus project and 

future plus project would not be expected to cause a violation of ambient air quality standards. 

To evaluate the impacts of the F-B LGA, a CO hot-spot analysis was conducted at affected 

intersections in the vicinity of the proposed F-B LGA and parking structures. The changes were 

evaluated by modeling CO concentrations at intersections in the vicinity of the proposed F-B 

LGA. The model results, as shown in Table 3.3-14, indicate that CO levels would remain below 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-22 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

the California Ambient Air Quality Standards and National Ambient Air Quality Standards for all 

study intersections. 

Since the modeled CO concentrations would be below the California Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for the proposed F-B LGA, these impacts would be less than significant under CEQA.

As discussed in Section 3.3.5.2 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, the F-B LGA would have 

similar particulate matter impacts as those identified for the May 2014 Project. The project-related 

particulate matter hot-spot analysis is discussed in Section 3.3.6.3 of the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section Final EIR/EIS (pages 3.3-79 and 3.3-80). 

As with the May 2014 Project, the F-B LGA would not be considered a project of air quality 

concern, as defined by 40 C.F.R. 93.123(b)(1), and would not likely cause violations of 

PM10/PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality Standards during its operation. Therefore, quantitative 

PM2.5 and PM10 hot-spot evaluations are not required. The requirements of 40 C.F.R. § 93.116 

are therefore met without a quantitative hot-spot analysis. The HSR project would not likely cause 

an adverse impact on air quality for PM10/PM2.5 standards because, based on these criteria, it is 

not a project of air quality concern.

As with the May 2014 Project, as discussed in Section 3.3.6.3 of the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section Final EIR/EIS (pages 3.3-79 and 3.3-80), implementation of the F-B LGA is unlikely to 

cause any localized adverse impact on air quality for the PM10/PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. Therefore, the PM10 hot-spot impact on air quality would be less than significant under 

CEQA.

As with the May 2014 Project, implementation of the F-B LGA would result in a reduction in 

annual mobile source air toxics emissions impacts to sensitive receptors at schools around the 

station by 83 percent from 2010 to 2050 due to recent current regulatory requirements. 

Emergency generators would be located at the station and would also be screened during the 

permitting phase with the SJVAPCD to ensure that sensitive receptors, including schools, are not 

exposed to concentrations of TACs exceeding significance thresholds. Therefore, as with the May 

2014 Project, by the time exposure of sensitive receptors including schools under the proposed 

F-B LGA is operational in 2020, the project would have a less-than-significant impact under

CEQA related to mobile source air toxics for schools in the vicinity.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

As discussed under Impact AQ#11 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (pages 

3.3-64 through 3.3-69), the increase in GHG emissions generated during construction and 

operation would be offset by the net GHG reductions in operation (because automobile and plane 

trips would be removed in the Fresno to Bakersfield area) during the first 12 months of operation

(using the F-B LGA as a proxy since calculations were not completed for the May 2014 Project).

Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

Table 8-A-5 provides a comparison of air quality impacts between the May 2014 Project and F-B 

LGA. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-23

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-5 Air Quality Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Construction The May 2014 Project would exceed the 

SJVAPCD and GC standards for NOx in 

Years 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 

2021 and for VOC in 2014, 2015, and 2016.

The F-B LGA would exceed the SJVAPCD 

and GC standards for NOx in Years 2014, 

2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2021 and for 

VOC in 2014, 2015, and 2016.

The May 2014 Project would not exceed the 

applicable threshold of 10 in a million for 

exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air 

contaminant emissions.

The F-B LGA would not exceed the 

applicable threshold of 10 in a million for 

exposure of sensitive receptors to toxic air 

contaminant emissions. 

Operation The Project would provide a net regional air 

quality benefit. 

The Project would provide a net regional air 

quality benefit. 

Project operation would reduce annual 

MSAT emissions impacts to sensitive 

receptors at schools around the station.

Project operation would reduce annual 

MSAT emissions impacts to sensitive 

receptors at schools around the station.

Greenhouse gas 

emissions

The Project would emit approximately 

225,728 metric tons of carbon dioxide 

equivalent over the construction period The 

increase in GHG emissions would be offset 

in less than 12 months.

The Project would emit approximately 

224,065 metric tons of carbon dioxide 

equivalent over the construction period. 

The increase in GHG emissions would be 

offset in less than 12 months. 

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

GC = General Conformity

GHG = greenhouse gas 

MSAT = mobile source air toxics

NOx = oxides of nitrogen 

SJVAPCD = San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

VOC = volatile organic compounds

Based on emissions calculations conducted for the F-B LGA, it is estimated that construction 

emissions from the F-B LGA would be similar to those estimated for the May 2014 Project

although impacts to sensitive receptor locations would be different under each alternative. As 

presented in Section 3.3 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, the emission estimates calculated 

for the F-B LGA assumed a viaduct structure. The structure on retained fill would result in slightly 

different emission estimates, including lower estimates for construction mobilization, demolition, 

road crossings, and demobilization. Emissions would be approximately 1 percent higher for land 

clearing and earth moving. All other construction phase emissions would remain the same. 

Therefore, construction of the structure on retained fill would result in emissions similar to those 

presented in Table 8-A-2. See Appendix A of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final Air Quality 

Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2014a) and the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement: Air Quality and 

Global Climate Change Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2017b) for details. Construction 

emissions from the F-B LGA would differ from the BNSF Alternative (May 2014 Project) by less 

than 10 percent and would be offset during the first 12 months of operation.

As shown in Table 8-A-5, GHG emissions associated with construction of the F-B LGA would be 

offset by the net GHG reductions in operation in less than 12 months for the F-B LGA, which is 

similar to the May 2014 Project. Construction emissions are slightly less for construction years 

2014 through 2017 and the same for years 2018 through 2023. Construction of the F-B LGA 

would emit approximately 224,065 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent over the construction 

period, while the May 2014 Project would emit approximately 225,728 metric tons; therefore, the 

F-B LGA would emit approximately 1,663 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent less than the

May 2014 Project over the construction period.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-24 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Noise and Vibration

Summary of May 2014 Project Noise and Vibration Impacts

The purpose of the noise and vibration section is to evaluate noise sources and potential land use 

impacts related to noise. Potential ground-borne vibration is also addressed in this section. To 

determine the potential for significant noise or ground-borne vibration impacts, the existing noise

and ground-borne vibration conditions need to be documented. Then, surrounding existing 

sensitive land uses must be noted. Finally, changes in noise levels or exposure to these sensitive 

land uses caused by the proposed project must be evaluated.

Methodology 

As described in Section 3.4.2 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, the methodology applied to the 

analysis of the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA was consistent with the methodology used in 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (pages 3.4-2 through 3.4-16). The noise and 

vibration impact assessment used the methodology described in the Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA) guidance manual (FTA 2006) and FRA guidance manual (FRA 2012). The 

Authority applies uniform noise and vibration criteria for construction and operation based on FTA 

and FRA guidance.

The noise study area for both the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA includes sensitive receivers 

located up to approximately 2,500 feet from the proposed track centerline. For the May 2014 

Project and the F-B LGA, the study area for vibration includes the HSR alignment study areas, 

including existing railroads up to 275 feet from the edge of the right-of-way. 

The construction noise and vibration methodology includes the following: 

• Noise emissions from equipment expected to be used by contractors.

• Construction methods using the equipment identified above.

• Usage scenarios for how the equipment will be operated.

• Estimated site layouts of equipment along the right-of-way.

• Relationship of the construction operations to nearby noise-sensitive receivers.

HSR operation noise and vibration levels were projected using a conservative HSR System 

operation plan with a high frequency of train operations and the prediction models provided in the 

FRA guidance manual (FRA 2012).

Existing Conditions 

In Shafter, noise levels measured along the May 2014 Project alignment generally ranged from 

70 to 79 A-weighted decibels (dBA)6 day-night sound level, dBA (Ldn).7 These levels reflect the 

proximity of an active freight rail line. Between Shafter and Bakersfield, the May 2014 Project 

alignment continues through agricultural land, which includes some of the least-populated areas 

in the study area. Noise levels measured along this segment of the May 2014 Project alignment 

ranged from 54 to 61 dBA Ldn, as expected in a quiet, rural environment. For residences adjacent 

to well-traveled roadways, noise levels ranged from 67 to 71 dBA Ldn. South of Reina Road, land 

uses transition from agricultural to residential, with several single-family residential 

neighborhoods. The noise levels measured at these residences ranged from 65 to 77 dBA Ldn, 

6

 dBA: Sound is measured in terms of sound pressure level and is usually expressed in decibels. The human ear is less 

sensitive to higher and lower frequencies than it is to mid-range frequencies. All noise ordinances, and this noise analysis, 

use the A-weighting system, which measures what humans hear in a more meaningful way because it reduces the sound 

levels of higher- and lower-frequency sounds—similar to what humans hear. Measurements taken with this A-weighted 

filter are referred to as dBA readings. 

7

 Ldn: The average level of sound over a 24-hour period with 10 decibels added nighttime sound levels (between 10 p.m. 

and 7 a.m.) as a penalty to account for the greater sensitivity and lower background sound levels during this time. The 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section: Noise and Vibration Technical Report provides details regarding noise and noise 

descriptors. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-25

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

which is reflective of residences directly adjacent to an active railroad line. Beyond this point, the 

May 2014 Project alignment turns east toward the freight yard and station in the city of 

Bakersfield. The land uses along this segment of the alignment are urban; roadways, freeways, 

and rail lines dominate the noise environment. The noise measurements conducted near the May 

2014 Project alignment and the Truxtun Avenue Station in this area ranged from 59 to 70 dBA 

Ldn, which are consistent with an urban environment.

Vibration measurements ranged between 70 and 80 vibration velocity decibels (VdB)8 with the 

highest measured vibration level being 92 VdB and the lowest measurement being 59 VdB. 

Specific vibration measurements were not taken at the Truxtun Avenue Station location as 

vibration sensitive receivers were not located within the FRA screening distances (275 feet from 

edge of right-of-way). As discussed in Section 3.4.4.2 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS, the Truxtun Avenue Station is not expected to have vibration levels above residential 

standards.

Impacts

Noise Impacts

Table 8-A-6 summarizes the number of sensitive receivers within the May 2014 Project study 

area that would experience severe intensity noise impacts based on the maximum frequency of 

trains anticipated with full system operations without mitigation. These impacts are also shown in

Figure 8-A-5a and Figure 8-A-5b. It should be noted that the number of sensitive receptors under 

the May 2014 Project is much lower than the F-B LGA because the F-B LGA alignment is located 

in closer proximity (within 2,500 feet – The May 2014 Project has a total of 8,624 sensitive 

receptors while the F-B LGA has a total of 13,836 within 2,500 feet of the corresponding 

alignments) of denser residential areas compared to the May 2014 Project. Therefore, premitigation noise impacts under the May 2014 Project would be lower than the F-B LGA. Project 

noise impacts are highly dependent on the number of sensitive receptors being affected, the 

number of trains operated; therefore, the impacts presented are a conservative, worst-case 

analysis assuming the maximum frequency of trains anticipated with full system operations. The 

initial stages of system development would have considerably lower noise impacts. For sections 

of the alignment constructed on slab track, noise levels from HSR operations would be 3 decibels 

higher than for ballast and tie track, and therefore may result in additional noise impacts. 

Table 8-A-6 Severe and Moderate Noise Impacts from the May 2014 Project (Pre-Mitigation)

Level of Impact Impact Type

Number of Impacted Noise-Sensitive Receivers (Pre-Mitigation)

May 2014 Project4

Severe

Category 11 --

Category 22 3,887 (3,886 residential units)

Category 33 13

Moderate

Category 11 --

Category 22 4,696 (4,695 residential units)

Category 33 28

1 Category 1 includes recording studios.

2 Category 2 includes residential uses, hospitals, hotels, homeless shelters and prisons/correctional facilities.

3 Category 3 includes schools, churches, parks, meeting halls, mortuaries, libraries, museums, theaters, daycare facilities, cemeteries, disability 

services and clubs. 4 The numbers for the May 2014 Project were interpreted based on available information provided. 

8

 VdB: In this analysis, vibration velocity is expressed in terms of VdB as the primary measurement to evaluate the effects 

of vibration. VdB means the root-mean-square vibration velocity level. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-26 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-5a May 2014 Project Noise Impacts After Mitigation (Shafter)
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-27

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-5b May 2014 Project Noise Impacts After Mitigation (Bakersfield)
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-28 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Vibration Impacts

During construction, building damage due to vibration is only anticipated from pile-driving in close 

proximity (within 25 to 50 feet) of existing buildings. Pile driving is only expected to occur where 

there is the need for a bridge, aerial structure, or road crossing and is only one of several 

proposed construction methods. When a construction scenario has been established, 

preconstruction surveys will be conducted at locations within 50 feet of pile driving to document 

the existing condition of buildings in case damage is reported during or after construction. The 

Authority will arrange for the repair of damaged buildings or will pay compensation to the property 

owner. Although vibration impacts would occur during construction activities, these activities are 

considered temporary, as they would cease after completion. With implementation of proposed 

mitigation, construction vibration impacts would be substantially lessened or avoided, and 

reduced to a less-than-significant impact under CEQA.

Several sensitive receivers would be displaced by the May 2014 Project. None of the sensitive 

receivers to remain (i.e., that will not be displaced by the May 2014 Project) will be impacted by 

HSR operational vibration. Therefore, no operational vibration effects under NEPA, and no 

impacts under CEQA would result from the May 2014 Project. 

Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

As shown in Table 8-A-7, post-mitigation noise impacts along the project alignment would be 

greater under the May 2014 Project than the F-B LGA. However, vibration impacts would be 

greater under the F-B LGA when compared to the May 2014 Project alignment.

Noise impacts during construction would be similar for both alternatives based on the distance to 

the construction activity. These impacts would be temporary and mitigated through the 

implementation of impact avoidance and minimization measures and mitigation measures 

identified in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Mitigation and Monitoring Enforcement Plan 

(Authority 2014). 

Table 8-A-7 Noise and Vibration Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B 

LGA 

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Severe Noise Impacts Post Mitigation from Operations

Residences 299 149

Churches 3 0

Hospitals 1 0

Parks 0 1

Historic Properties 2 0

Other1 N/A 2

Total 305 152

Vibration Impacts No effect 18 properties impacted

= = least-impact alternative

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative 1 Land uses include a prison/correctional facility and a museum identified under Categories 2 and 3, respectively.

Additionally, the F-B LGA would result in elevation of the BNSF and HSR on parallel but 

separated retained fill tracks through Shafter. Existing operations associated with the BNSF line 

produce noise impacts from the traveling of the existing trains as well as the horns sounded for 

emergency purposes near at-grade crossings. As a result of elevating the tracks, horns will no 

longer be necessary. Noise impacts associated with the operation of BNSF trains are likely to be 

generally the same or lower for sensitive receivers located adjacent to the elevated BNSF due to 

shielding by the retained fill and elimination of the train horns resulting in reduced noise levels. 

For noise sensitive receptors located further away, there is a potential for some increase in noise 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-29

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

from the BNSF operations, due to the lack of shielding from intervening buildings. However, it is 

expected that elevations from HSR operations will produce a greater noise impact overall as 

compared to operations on the BNSF line and specifically freight trains. While the single pass-by 

of a freight train may potentially be louder than one pass-by of a high-speed passenger train, the 

frequency of operations on the HSR line would produce higher noise levels for the peak-hour and 

daily scenarios. 

Mitigation for operational noise includes the installation of sound barriers, vehicle noise 

specifications, special track work at crossovers and turnouts, and additional noise analysis during 

final design. As shown in Table 8-A-7, after mitigation, severe noise effects would remain for 152 

receivers under the F-B LGA compared with 305 receivers under the May 2014 Project. These 

receivers would be eligible for either sound insulation or payment of property for noise 

easements. Overall, the May 2014 Project would have greater noise impacts than the F-B LGA. 

Projected vibration levels were calculated at receivers within 275 feet from the nearest HSR rail 

line for both the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA. Several sensitive receivers would be 

displaced by the May 2014 Project. None of the sensitive receivers to remain (i.e., that will not be 

displaced by the May 2014 Project) will be impacted by HSR operational vibration. For the F-B 

LGA, a total of 80 vibration-sensitive receivers are located within 275 feet of the nearest track. Of 

the 80 vibration-sensitive receivers, 18 receivers would be impacted by the proposed F-B LGA, 

including 14 residences. Therefore, vibration effects would be noticeable to 18 receivers under 

the F-B LGA and to no receivers under the May 2014 Project.

Electromagnetic Field/Electromagnetic Interference

Summary of May 2014 Project Electromagnetic Field/Electromagnetic Interference Impacts

The electromagnetic field/electromagnetic interference (EMF/EMI) EIR/EIS section describes the 

measured levels of EMFs, as well as the potential for EMI from operation of the HSR. This 

section focuses on land uses that are particularly sensitive to EMF/EMI, such as businesses and 

institutions that use equipment that may be highly susceptible to EMI, or that engage in medical 

research activities that might be affected by HSR-operation EMFs.

Sensitive human receptors, such as hospitals, medical centers, schools, and colleges are 

concentrated in urban areas. In some cases, these locations may be associated with the use, 

assembly, calibration, or testing of sensitive and unshielded radio frequency equipment. For 

unshielded equipment that is sensitive to magnetic fields in the range of 1 to 3 milligauss (mG) 

(such as magnetic resonance imaging systems), interference is possible at distances of up to 

approximately 200 feet from the centerline of the HSR right-of-way. For the most sensitive 

electron-beam microscopes, which are sensitive to magnetic fields in the range of 0.1 to 0.3 mG, 

interference would be possible to approximately 700 feet from the centerline of the HSR right-ofway. From a practical standpoint, local 60-hertz magnetic field sources would be dominant well 

before this distance, as evidenced by the median magnetic field levels measured along the 

spatial profiles during the baseline survey (these field levels ranged from 0.12 to 4.77 mG). 

Methodology 

The study area for EMFs that has been applied to the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA is as 

follows:

• 200 feet on both sides of the proposed HSR right-of-way centerline (a 400-foot-wide strip

centered on the proposed HSR alignment). The study area includes urban and developed

areas in Shafter and Bakersfield.

• 200 feet on both sides of the transmission lines supplying traction power substation (a

400-foot-wide strip).

Computer modeling shows that the EMF level will decay to a level below 2 mG at 200 feet from 

either side of the HSR right-of-way centerline. The potential for EMI would no longer exist for 

equipment beyond 500 feet from the HSR right-of-way centerline.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-30 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

The Authority identified existing land uses that could be affected by the EMFs resulting from HSR 

operations. Baseline measurements were made to understand existing conditions. Then, a 

mathematical model of the HSR traction electrical system was used to calculate the anticipated 

maximum 60-hertz magnetic fields that a single HSR train would produce. The model 

incorporates conservative assumptions for the potential EMF impacts of the HSR. 

A significant impact on the environment would occur if the May 2014 Project exposes people to a 

documented EMF health risk, or if operations interfere with implanted biomedical devices and 

unshielded sensitive equipment.

Impacts

Construction 

EMF/EMI effects that would occur during construction would have negligible intensity under 

NEPA and would be less than significant under CEQA, because only a slight measurable 

increase of EMF/EMI levels would occur and within a very limited geographical area.

Operation 

Operation of the HSR would generate 60-hertz electric and magnetic fields on and adjacent to 

trains, including in passenger station areas. Table 8-A-8 presents the HSR project model results 

for the May 2014 Project. As shown, EMF impacts on the general public and people in nearby 

schools, hospitals, businesses, colleges, and residences would be below the Institute of Electrical 

and Electronics Engineers Standard limit of 9,040 mG9 because even within the mainline right-ofway, these levels would not be reached.

Table 8-A-8 Summary of Electromagnetic Field Modeling Results for the May 2014 Project

EMF Analysis Platform – 16 feet from 

Alignment Centerline 

Fence Line – 30 feet from 

Alignment Centerline 

Study Area – 350 feet 

from Alignment 

Centerline

Magnetic Field 

(mG) Single-Train 

720 177 Less than 1

Source: California High-Speed Rail Authority and USDOT Federal Railroad Authority 2011a

EMF = electromagnetic field

mG = milligauss

Magnetic fields of 1,000 to 12,000 mG (1 to 12 g [acceleration of gravity]) may interfere with 

implanted medical devices (Electric Power Research Institute 2004). EMF levels above the 

recommended limits for employees with implanted medical devices could exist inside traction 

power facilities and emergency power generator rooms. Traction power facilities and emergency 

power generator room sites would be unmanned, and workers would enter them only periodically 

(e.g., to perform routine maintenance). With implementation of the Electromagnetic Compatibility 

Program Plan (Authority 2010), persons with an implanted medical device would not be permitted 

near the traction power facilities. Therefore, these effects on maintenance workers would be 

avoided (i.e., no impact under NEPA and CEQA).

A review of land uses along the May 2014 Project identified two potentially sensitive receptors 

(i.e., medical imaging) within the 200-foot study area. These receptors are shown in Figure 8-A-6. 

9

 For information on the EMF exposure guidelines and standards, see the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-31

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-6 Electromagnetic Field Sensitive Receptors Along the May 2014 Project
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-32 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Both receptors, Mercy Hospital and Truxtun Radiology Medical Group, are located in Bakersfield 

and utilize medical imaging equipment. As such, the susceptibility levels, if they use unshielded 

equipment, would typically be in the 1 to 3 mG range. Table 8-A-9 summarizes the expected 

worst-case 60-hertz magnetic fields based on the closest distances from the May 2014 Project 

centerline to each facility. Operation of the May 2014 Project could result in EMI with medical 

imaging equipment exposed to magnetic fields in the range of 1 to 3 mG. In the absence of 

magnetic shielding installed in accordance with the Electromagnetic Compatibility Program Plan, 

these EMFs could have substantial impact on sensitive receptors.

Table 8-A-9 Expected Worst-Case 60-Hertz Magnetic Fields Based on Closest Distances to 

Sensitive Receptors from the Centerline of May 2014 Project

Smallest Distance from Centerline 

of HSR Right-of-Way (feet)

Calculated HSR Worst-Case 

Magnetic Fields1 (mG)

Mercy Hospital2 180 1.8

Truxtun Radiology Medical Group3 450 0.3

1 Calculated HSR worst-case magnetic field at comparable distances relative to centerline of right-of-way 2 Mercy Hospital, 2215 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California

3 Truxtun Radiology Medical Group, 1817 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, California

HSR = high-speed rail

mG = milligauss

Standard HSR avoidance and minimization measures would preclude other potential effects, 

such as nuisance shocks when touching ungrounded metal fences and ungrounded metal 

irrigation systems, and interference with the signal systems of adjoining rail lines. These 

measures would include the grounding of fences on affected adjacent properties and coordination 

with adjoining railroads to implement suitable track signal equipment on adjoining railroad tracks.

Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

Table 8-A-10 provides a comparison of EMI/EMF impacts between the May 2014 Project and the 

F-B LGA during construction and operation.

Table 8-A-10 Electromagnetic Interference/Electromagnetic Field Impact Comparison 

between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Construction Slight measureable increase in 

EMF/EMI levels within a limited 

geographical area

Slight measureable increase in 

EMF/EMI levels within a limited 

geographical area

Operation Two sensitive receptors within 200 

feet of the May 2014 centerline.

No sensitive receptors within 200 

feet of the F-B LGA centerline.

= least-impact alternative

EMF = electromagnetic field

EMI = electromagnetic interference

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

Due to the similarity of EMF/EMI-dependent land uses along the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA 

alignments, EMFs along the F-B LGA would be similar to measurements taken along the May 

2014 Project alignment between Shafter and Bakersfield; therefore, EMF/EMI impacts resulting 

from the F-B LGA would be similar to those identified for the May 2014 Project. Sensitive 

receptors identified for the F-B LGA are greater than 1,000 feet from the alignment; therefore, no 

impacts associated HSR-produced EMI would occur. This impact would be less than the May 

2014 Project.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-33

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Public Utilities and Energy

Summary of May 2014 Project Public Utilities and Energy Impacts

Construction of the May 2014 Project could result in planned temporary interruption of utility 

service, accidental disruption of services, increased water use, and an increase in waste 

generation. This section also analyzes energy use and savings as a result of the May 2014 

Project. 

Methodology 

The methodologies used to assess potential impacts associated with public utilities and energy 

under the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA are summarized below.

Existing Conditions 

The impact evaluation considers all utilities but focuses on major utilities. For the purpose of this 

analysis, major utilities include the following:

• High-voltage electrical lines (70 kilovolts or greater).

• High-pressure natural gas lines.

• Petroleum and fuel lines.

• Water, wastewater, irrigation and stormwater canals, conduits, and pipes (outside diameter of

6 inches or larger).

• Fiber optic lines and communication infrastructure (i.e., towers and antennas).

The analysis conducted for the May 2014 Project considered high-voltage, underground and 

aboveground electrical lines, underground high-pressure natural gas lines, and petroleum lines 

and facilities “high-risk” utilities as discussed in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS

(page 3.6-11). In addition, the analysis considered electrical substations to be high risk. The 

remaining utilities, such as water and wastewater lines, have a lower safety risk. The study area 

for evaluating conflicts with public utilities is the construction footprint and includes surface, 

subsurface, and overhead utilities, as well as aquifers underlying the construction footprint.

Water demand estimates for construction are based on an estimated 5-year time period during 

which earthmoving and construction activities requiring water use would occur. Annual 

operational water use estimates are based on full buildout of the project in 2035. Estimates of 

existing water use were generated by applying region-specific water use rates for the known land 

uses in the study area. Wastewater generation would be approximately 50 percent of total water 

demand during operation. For additional detail regarding water supply and demand analysis, 

please see the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, Section 3.6, Public Utilities and 

Energy (pages 3.6-20 through 3.6-23), and Section 3.8, Hydrology and Water Resources (page 

3.8-29). 

Waste generated by HSR construction and demolition activities is based on estimates using the 

existing character of the study area and the requirements of various project attributes. 

Operational waste generation is based on the anticipated ridership and number of employees, 

taking into account the estimates of waste generation and recycling in California.

The proposed HSR System would obtain electricity from the statewide grid. Any potential impacts 

on electrical production that may result from the proposed HSR System would affect statewide 

electricity reserves and, to a lesser degree, transmission capacity. Therefore, this analysis cannot

apportion to a particular regional study area the use of any particular generation facilities. To 

identify the projected energy demand of the May 2014 Project, estimated energy demands of the 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-34 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

entire HSR System were prorated based on the length of HSR elevated viaduct within the May 

2014 Project study area.

Since publication of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, which assessed energy 

requirements of the overall HSR system including the portion of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

comprised by the May 2014 Project, further engineering and design has determined that 

upgrades to the existing PG&E network would be required to meet the projected power demands 

of the HSR system; this determination was made for the F-B LGA, but it is reasonably anticipated 

that comparable upgrades would also be required for the May 2014 Project, as it connects the 

same geographic areas as the F-B LGA. These improvements would include: minor movement of 

traction power supply stations, switching stations, and electrical tie line; expansion of the existing 

PG&E substation north of SR 178 near the intersection of 30th Street and Union Avenue; 

implementation of new utility switching stations and an HSR traction power supply station. 

Specific configurations and required actions would be determined based on coordination between 

the Authority and individual utility providers during the final engineering and design phase.

Impacts

Impacts associated with public utilities and energy could occur as a result of conflicts with existing 

utilities, water use, waste generation, and energy use, as summarized below.

Public Utilities 

Implementation of the May 2014 Project would result in a number of conflicts between the 

approved rail alignment and both high risk utilities (i.e., electrical lines, natural gas distribution 

lines, petroleum and fuel pipelines, electrical substations), and low risk utilities (i.e., 

communication facilities, irrigation canals, water lines, sewers, stormwater retention ponds). See 

Figures 8-A-7 through 8-A-10 and Table 8-A-25 for some of the utilities and waterbodies that 

would be crossed by the May 2014 Project. May 2014 Project-related demand on existing utility 

facilities is not expected to require expansion of those facilities or the construction of new facilities 

or entitlements. Avoidance and minimization measures would help reduce, avoid, or minimize 

adverse impacts resulting from the May 2014 Project. Construction of the May 2014 Project 

would result in scheduled utility service interruptions. With advance notice, local utility customers 

would experience minimal changes to service, and the intensity of the impact in the local context 

would be considered negligible. Any potential conflicts with utility lines or facilities would be 

mitigated to a less-than-significant impact under CEQA. 

Water Supply 

Construction of the May 2014 Project would require the use of water to prepare concrete, 

increase the water content of soil to optimize compaction for dust control, rinse the tires of 

vehicles and equipment, re-seed disturbed areas, and install landscaping, as determined during 

the final engineering and design phase. Table 8-A-11 shows the estimated water use for the May 

2014 Project. The average annual water use over the construction period would not be greater 

than existing demand as water used for existing agricultural purposes within the HSR 

construction footprint would be eliminated. Water used during construction of the May 2014 

Project would be supplied from various sources. Demand for water supply within the study area

would decrease post-construction, and the context of impacts would be local, resulting in a lessthan-significant impact under CEQA.

Operation and maintenance of the May 2014 Project would introduce a water demand of 

approximately 116 acre-feet per year, accounting for the 180-employee MOIF and the 

9,200-passenger Bakersfield station. Existing land uses along the May 2014 Project alignment 

and facilities consume an estimated 4,999.27 acre-feet per year of water (see Table 8-A-13, 

below); therefore, water uses associated with operating and maintenance (O&M) of the May 2014 

Project would be less than those associated with existing land uses.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-35

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-11 Construction Water Consumption Assumptions for the May 2014 Project

Facility Item Total 

Volume 

(MG)

Total 

Volume 

(acre-feet)

Annualized 

Water Use1

(AFY) 

May 2014 Project (Alignment) Concrete Work 57.9 176.9 35.6

Earthwork 4.0 12.4 2.4

Dust Control (tracks) 146.2 448.7 89.9

Irrigation (tracks) 33.5 101.8 20.2

Total 240.6 739.7 147.5

MOIF Concrete Work 14.7 44.0 9.8

Dust Control 132.0 405.8 80.7

Irrigation 14.7 41.6 7.3

Total 161.4 491.4 97.8

Truxtun Avenue Station (24 Acres) Concrete Work2 6.0 18.0 4.4

Dust Control 27.0 82.0 16.0

Irrigation 0.4 2.0 0.2

Total 33.0 102.0 20.0

Total 434.9 1,333.1 265.3

1 Annualized water use is for a five-year construction period (for consistency with the approach used in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS). 2 Construction water use for the May 2014 Project was estimated by extrapolating water use quantities on a per-mile or per-acre basis, as identified 

in Appendix 3.6-B of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS.

AFY = acre-feet per year

MG = million gallons

MOIF = maintenance of infrastructure facility

Table 8-A-12 Construction Energy Consumption Assumptions for the May 2014 Project

At-Grade 

Design2

Elevated/BelowGrade Design2Passenger 

Stations

MOIF Total Btu 

(billion) 

Energy Consumption 

Factor 1

19.11 billion 

Btu/one-way 

guideway mile

55.63 million 

Btu/one-way 

guideway mile

78 billion 

Btu/station 

38.22 billion 

Btu/MOIF3

--

May 2014 Project 

(between Poplar 

Avenue and Fresno 

Avenue to Oswell 

Street)

11.57 one-way 

guideway 

miles

12.59 one-way 

guideway miles

1 Station 1 MOIF --

Energy Consumption 

(billion Btu)

221.10 700.38 78 38.22 1,037.7

1 Factors for energy consumption for BART system construction (as surrogate for HSR construction through urban areas) and a freight terminal (as a 

surrogate for a passenger train station), as identified in Table 3.5-2 of the Final Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train Program 

Environmental Impact Report/ Environmental Impact Statement (California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 2012). 2 Data for number of elevated viaduct miles and stations based on estimates by URS Corporation. The values for “elevated viaduct miles” for the 

May 2014 Project accounts for a “one-way” elevated viaduct. 3 Energy Consumption factor for MOIF is based on energy consumption factor for two guideway miles.

Btu = British thermal unit

HSR = high-speed rail 

MOIF = maintenance of infrastructure facility
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-36 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Water supply providers along the study area are listed in Table 3.6-1, Study Area Utility and 

Energy Providers in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. The May 2014 Project would decrease 

water supply requirements in the study area and existing water supply would be sufficient to meet 

the needs for construction of May 2014 Project.

Waste Generation 

During construction of the May 2014 Project, waste would be generated as a result of vegetation 

clearing, removal of existing asphalt and gravel, and demolition of existing structures; it is 

estimated that approximately 484,068 cubic yards of solid waste10 would be generated during 

construction of the May 2014 Project. This waste would be diverted for recycling to the maximum 

extent practicable, and would otherwise be diverted to regional landfills with sufficient disposal 

capacity.

Energy 

The length of the May 2014 Project alignment is approximately 3 percent of the total length of the 

entire HSR System. Table 8-A-12 shows the estimated construction energy consumption in 

billions of British thermal units for the May 2014 Project based on the length of the anticipated atgrade or elevated/below-grade construction elements.

The May 2014 Project would complete one portion of the proposed HSR System, and energy 

savings associated with the May 2014 Project are accounted for in energy savings calculated for 

the overall HSR System, as discussed in Appendix 3.6-A of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Final EIR/EIS (page 3.6-A-3). The analysis estimated the energy changes from reduced on-road 

vehicle miles traveled, reduced intrastate airplane travel, and increased electrical demand. 

Although the HSR System would result in an increase in electricity demand, it would reduce the 

energy demands from automobile and airplane travel, resulting in an overall beneficial effect on 

statewide energy use. As discussed in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (page 3.6-

72), it is anticipated that energy use associated with construction of the project would be 

mitigated in less than 4 years by the projected energy savings associated with use of the HSR 

rather than other forms of travel. 

Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

The F-B LGA would result in similar impacts associated with public utilities and energy as those

described above for the May 2014 Project. Site-specific differences in the location of potential 

impacts would occur due to routing variations included under the F-B LGA; however, the nature 

and intensity of potential impacts would be comparable. Table 8-A-13 provides a direct 

comparison of differences between the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA, with regards to public 

utilities and energy. In addition, Figures 8-A-7 through 8-A-11 show the utilities that would be 

crossed by the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA.

10 This estimate is based on a per mile waste generation amount extrapolated from the total waste generation amount for 

the entire alignment in Fresno to Bakersfield Section. The variations in waste generation between the alternatives in the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS are only based on length and do not incorporate any project features or 

geographic variations. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-37

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-7 Electrical Transmission Lines
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-38 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-8 Natural Gas Pipelines 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-39

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-9 Petroleum and Fuel Pipelines
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-40 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-10 Communication Facilities and Sites
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-41

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-11 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Lands
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-42 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-13 Summary of Differentiating Features between the May 2014 Project and F-B 

LGA 

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Construction Water Requirements (AFY) 265.3

(1,333.1 total acre-feet)

244.05 

(1,201.25 total acre-feet)

Operation Water Requirements (AFY) 65 65

Existing Water Uses Along Proposed 

Alignment (AFY)

4,999.27

(24.16 miles)

1,892.3

(23.37 miles)

Construction Waste Generation (cubic yards)1 484,068 468,000

Construction Energy Requirements (billion 

Btu)

998.48 (no MOIF)

1,037.7 (with MOIF)

980.53 (no MOIF)

1,018.75 (with MOIF)

= least-impact alternative 1 Estimated as a quantity of waste generated per elevated viaduct mile, based on an estimated 2.6 million cubic yards of waste generated by the 

entire Fresno to Bakersfield Section analyzed in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact 

Statement.

AFY = acre-feet per year MOIF = maintenance of infrastructure facility

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

Table 8-A-13 indicates that the F-B LGA would result in lesser impacts to public utilities and 

services in the areas of construction water requirements, construction waste generation, and 

construction energy requirements; it is important to note that these features were all calculated as 

a function of length, and the F-B LGA is slightly shorter than the May 2014 Project, which 

accounts for slightly smaller numbers for these features.

Also as shown in Table 8-A-13, the intensity of existing water uses along the May 2014 Project 

alignment is greater than along the F-B LGA; this difference is due to the different land uses 

traversed by each alignment. Water use factors from the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS (Appendix 3.6-B, page 3.6-B-40) were used for this analysis (a water use factor is 

measured in acre-feet per acre per year, and applied to the number of acres of each land use 

affected, in order to estimate total acre-feet per year of water associated with land uses along the 

proposed alignments). The F-B LGA would affect more acres of Industrial, Institutional, and 

Commercial lands, which have a low water factor (1.9 acre-feet per acre per year), whereas the 

May 2014 Project would affect more acres of Agriculture lands, which have a higher water use 

factor (2.91 acre-feet per acre per year). The F-B LGA would affect approximately twice as many 

acres designated as Multi-Family, which has a high water use factor (6.20 acre-feet per acre per 

year), but substantially fewer acres designated as Single-Family, which also has a high water use 

factor (3.50 acre-feet per acre per year). Under both the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA, 

implementation of the proposed rail and associated facilities would decrease rates of water use 

along the alignment because operation and maintenance of the project would require a 

substantially smaller water supply compared to existing conditions.

As shown on Figures 8-A-7 through 8-A-11, both the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA would 

traverse and be in proximity to multiple existing utility facilities. Transmission line crossings are 

more concentrated on the May 2014 Project alignment (approaching Bakersfield) than on the F-B 

LGA alignment. The extent of natural gas pipeline crossings would be comparable between the 

May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA: to the northwest of Bakersfield for the May 2014 Project and 

to the north of Bakersfield / west of Oildale for the F-B LGA. Regarding communication facilities, 

there is one AM Radio Broadcast Facility adjacent to the F-B LGA and no similar sites adjacent to 

the May 2014 Project; however, there is also one FM Radio Broadcast Facility and one Television 

Broadcast Facility adjacent to the May 2014 Project and no similar sites adjacent to the F-B LGA. 

Crossings of petroleum and fuel pipelines are comparable for both the May 2014 Project and the 

F-B LGA, although crossings by the F-B LGA are more concentrated near Oildale, while

crossings by the May 2014 Project are more distributed between the area just south of Shafter

and just north of Bakersfield.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-43

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Overall, as shown on Figures 8-A-7 through 8-A-11, the extent and intensity of utility crossings 

would be comparable under the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA, with the exception of 

location-specific differences associated with the specific alignments. Under each alignment, 

utilities traversed by the rail alignment and other project features would either be protected inplace or would be relocated as needed to maintain utility service. Specific configurations and 

required actions would be determined based on coordination between the Authority and individual 

utility providers during the final engineering and design phase.

In summary, the differences between the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA relevant to public 

utilities and services are not substantial, and there are no significant differentiating features for 

this issue area.

Biological Resources and Wetlands

Summary of May 2014 Project Biological Resources and Wetlands Impacts

This section describes the potential impacts on biological resources that would result from 

implementing the May 2014 Project. The term “biological resources” includes special-status plant 

and wildlife species, habitats of concern (including special-status plant communities, jurisdictional 

waters, critical habitat, conservation areas [i.e., Recovery Plan areas for federally listed species, 

conservation easements, public lands, conservation banks, and Habitat Conservation Plans], and 

protected trees), and wildlife movement corridors. This section summarizes detailed information 

contained in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section: Biological Resources and Wetlands Technical 

Report (Authority and FRA 2012c).

Methodology 

The study areas for jurisdictional waters, plants, wildlife, and habitats considered those resources 

that occur or have the potential to occur in the study area. Literature review and aerial and ground 

surveys were completed within the study area to determine direct and indirect impacts. 

• The Wetland Study Area is the project footprint plus a 250-foot buffer to evaluate direct and

indirect impacts on wetlands and special-status wildlife using vernal pools. Direct impacts on

wetlands are within the project footprint and indirect impacts are within the 250-foot buffer.

• The Special-Status Plant Study Area is the project footprint plus a 100-foot buffer to evaluate

direct and indirect impacts on sensitive plant resources (including special-status plants,

special-status plant communities, protected trees, and elderberry shrubs). Direct impacts are

within the project footprint and indirect impacts are within the 100-foot buffer.

• The Habitat Study Area is the project footprint plus a 1,000-foot buffer to evaluate direct and

indirect impacts on habitats and the special-status wildlife species that use them. The Habitat

Study Area was divided into two areas: a core Habitat Study Area and an auxiliary Habitat

Study Area, both shown on Figure 8-A-12 and Figure 8-A-13. A third, or supplemental Habitat

Study Area was identified for select species that required further analysis based on agencyor protocol-recommended species-specific buffers:

- The core Habitat Study Area includes the May 2014 Project footprint and a 250-foot

buffer. The core Habitat Study Area was the area that was physically surveyed.

- The auxiliary Habitat Study Area, which extends from the edge of the core area laterally

750 feet for a total of 1,000 feet, was surveyed through extrapolation of observations

made in the core Habitat Study Area, from aerial photograph interpretation, and in

windshield surveys.

- The supplemental Habitat Study Area extends laterally from the May 2014 Project

footprint up to 1.24 miles, depending on the target species, and identifies species-specific

habitats based on aerial photograph interpretation and documented occurrences of the

species, and on observations of special-status species and their habitats made in the

field.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-44 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Alternatives Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-45

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-12 May 2014 Project Habitat Study Areas (Shafter)
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-46 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-13 May 2014 Project Habitat Study Areas (Bakersfield) 
of Alternatives Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-47

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impacts

Special-Status Plant Species

Several special-status plant species are known to occur within the construction footprint and 

could be adversely affected by the May 2014 Project: California jewelflower, Kern mallow, San 

Joaquin woolly threads, Bakersfield smallscale, Bakersfield cactus, Horn’s milk- vetch, 

brittlescale, earlimart orache, lesser saltscale, subtle orache, round-leaved filaree, alkali mariposa 

lily, slough thistle, Hoover’s woolly-star, California satintail, Munz’s tidy-tips, and king’s gold. 

Surveys for the five federally listed species, Bakersfield cactus (Opuntia basilaris var. treleasei), 

California jewelflower (Caulanthus californicus), Hoover’s woolly-star (Eriastrum hooveri), Kern 

mallow (Eremalche kernensis), and San Joaquin woolly-threads (Monopolies congdonii) complied 

with the supplemental guidance provided in General Rare Plant Survey Guidelines and in the 

Supplemental Survey Methods (ESRP 2002). Additional supplemental surveys for botanical 

resources were conducted in 2010 and 2011. No special-status plants were identified in the 

surveys completed in the May 2014 Project Special-Status Plant Study Area, totaling 24.34 acres; 

however, there is potential for special-status plant species to occur in areas of unsurveyed 

suitable habitat identified via visual surveys (i.e., from adjacent public roads or parcels) and aerial 

interpretation, totaling 112.26 acres. Unsurveyed suitable habitat included: annual grassland, 

valley foothill riparian, and alkali desert scrub. Direct impacts on the unsurveyed suitable habitat 

are shown in Table 8-A-14. 

Table 8-A-14 Potential Acreage of Special-Status Plant Species Habitat Impacted by the 

May 2014 Project

Direct Impacts (acres)

Special-status plant species (Unsurveyed potential suitable habitat that could 

support special-status plant species) 

112.26

Direct and indirect project impacts are anticipated to occur as a result of the May 2014 Project, 

resulting in the permanent loss or damage of special-status plant species. Construction period 

impacts of the May 2014 Project would result in a significant impact under CEQA on specialstatus plant species and their habitats prior to implementation of mitigation measures.

Special-status plant species have a moderate potential of being present in unsurveyed suitable 

habitats in areas where suitable habitat is limited to small isolated areas. Therefore, the May 

2014 Project would result in a less-than-significant impact under CEQA on special-status plant 

species prior to implementation of mitigation measures.

Special-Status Wildlife Species

Several special-status wildlife species are known to occur within the footprint and could be 

adversely affected by the May 2014 Project. Direct impacts on the special-status wildlife species 

are shown in Table 8-A-15. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-48 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-15 Potential Acreage of Special-Status Wildlife Species Habitat Impacted by the 

May 2014 Project

CWHR Vegetation 

Community or Wildlife 

Association

Permanent 

(acres)

Impacts Temporary Impacts 

(acres)

Tipton kangaroo rat ASC, 

VOW

AGS, BAR, PAS, 68.83 194.51

Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew AGS,

LAC, 

CRP, IRF, IRH, 

RIV (Kern River)

2.56 0.71

San Joaquin kit fox (Bakersfield) 413.84 265.04

Urban 322.65 68.92

Agricultural CRP, 

IGR, I

DGR, DOR, EOR, 

RF, IRH, VIN)

29.13 194.11

Natural ASC, AGS, 

VOW)

BAR, PAS, 61.86 2.01

Vernal pool fairy shrimp 0.51 N/A 

Vernal pool tadpole shrimp 0.51 N/A 

Golden eagle ASC, AGS, 

FEW, IRH, 

VFR, VOW

BAR, CRP, 

PAS, URB, 

626.49 371.65

Swainson’s hawk AGS, BAR, 

PAS, URB, 

CRP, IRH, 

VFR, VOW

634.08 371.23

Western snowy plover LAC 7.59 1.89

White tailed kite ASC, AGS, CRP, BAR, 

DOR, DGR, EOR, FEW, 

IRH, IRF, IGR, URB, VFR, 

VIN, VOW

957.32 675.48

American peregrine falcon AGS, BAR, CRP, FEW, 

IGR, IRH, LAC, RIV, URB, 

VFR, VOW

632.47 373.62

Greater sandhill crane AGS, DGR, CRP, FEW, 

IGR, IRH, IRF, LAC, VFR 

143.99 43.15

Bald eagle AGS, BAR, FEW, 

RIV, VFR, VOW 

LAC, 74.16 195.75

Nelson’s 

squirrel 

(San Joaquin) antelope ASC, AGS, BAR, PAS 68.83 194.51

Ringtail AGS, RIV, VFR 49.07 37.88

Kern brook

Canal) 

 lamprey (Friant Kern Friant-Kern Canal 0.40 0.07

Western spadefoot toad ASC, 

VOW

AGS, FEW, RIV, 60.58 39.98

Western pond turtle AGS, 

RIV, 

FEW, LAC, PAS, 

VFR, VOW

58.30 39.86

Silvery legless lizard RIV (Kern 

VOW

River), VFR, 0.70 0.30
of Alternatives Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-49

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

CWHR Vegetation Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts 

Community or Wildlife (acres) (acres)

Association

San Joaquin whipsnake ASC, AGS, PAS, VFR, 52.05 38.84

VOW

Coast (California) horned lizard ASC, AGS, VFR, VOW 50.41 38.75

Western burrowing owl ASC, AGS, PAS, BAR, 560.27 368.02

URB, VOW

Special-Status Raptor Species ASC, AGS, CRP, PAS, 150.24 43.74

VFR, DGR, IGR, IRH, 

IRF, VOW 

Special-Status Passerine Species ASC, AGS, CRP, PAS, 168.71 47.15

VFR, FEW, LAC, RIV, 

DGR, IGR, IRH, IRF, 

VOW

Special-Status Wading Birds, ASC, AGS, CRP, PAS, 168.00 46.85

Shorebirds, And Duck Species DGR, IGR, IRH, IRF, RIV, 

FEW, LAC

Pallid bat ASC, AGS, BAR, CRP, 685.22 374.76

DGR, IGR, IRH, IRF, 

PAS, RIV, URB, VFR, 

VIN, VOW

Dulzura pocket mouse AGS, VOW 37.50 36.10

Townsend’s big-eared bat ASC, AGS, BAR, CRP, 661.46 374.55

IGR, IRH, IRF, PAS, VFR, 

URB, VIN, RIV, VOW 

Western mastiff bat ASC, AGS, BAR, CRP, 650.60 373.03

FEW, IGR, IRH, IRF, 

PAS, URB, VFR, VIN, 

VOW

Western red bat AGS, FEW, IRH, LAC, 572.71 213.53

PAS, RIV, URB, VOW, 

VFR

Tulare grasshopper mouse ASC, AGS, VFR 50.41 38.75

American badger ASC, AGS, BAR, PAS, 69.54 194.81

VFR, VOW

ASC = Alkali Desert Scrub IRF = Irrigated Row and Field Crops

AGS = Annual Grassland LAC = Lacustrine

BAR = Barren N/A = not applicable

CRP = Cropland PAS = Pasture

CWHR = California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System RIV = Riverine

DGR = Dryland Grain Crops VIN = Vineyard

DOR = Deciduous Orchard VFR, VRI = Valley Foothill Riparian

EOR = Evergreen Orchard VOW = Valley Oak Woodland

FEW = Fresh Emergent Wetland URB = Urban

IGR = Irrigated Grain Crops

IRH = Irrigated Hayfield

Construction and operation impacts are discussed below. 

• Special-status Invertebrates. Due to the presence of suitable habitat, including sensitive

wetland habitat, construction of the May 2014 Project may result in the loss of special-status
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-50 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

invertebrate species and their habitat. Construction impacts of the May 2014 Project would 

result in a significant impact under CEQA on special-status invertebrate species and their 

habitat prior to implementation of mitigation measures. 

• Special-status Fish Species. Due to the limited amount of suitable habitat present for

special-status fish species, such as the Kern brook lamprey, construction of the May 2014

Project would result in a slight change from existing environmental conditions and little or no

regional effects. Therefore, construction period impacts of the May 2014 Project would result

in a less-than-significant impact under CEQA on special-status fish species prior to

implementation of mitigation measures.

• Special-status Amphibians. Because suitable habitats in the May 2014 Project are small

and fragmented, the potential for special-status amphibians to occur may be limited.

Therefore, construction period impacts of the May 2014 Project would result in a significant

impact under CEQA on the western spadefoot toad prior to implementation of mitigation

measures.

• Special-status Reptiles. The May 2014 Project contains suitable habitat for special-status

reptiles, including coast horned lizard. Special-status reptiles would be temporarily affected,

both directly and indirectly, by construction of the May 2014 Project. Due to the considerable

amount of natural habitat present, construction of the May 2014 Project would result in a

relatively high-intensity loss of habitat that has limited potential to support special-status

reptiles. Therefore, construction period impacts of the May 2014 Project would result in a

significant impact under CEQA on special-status reptile species prior to implementation of

mitigation measures.

• Special-status Birds. The May 2014 Project contains suitable habitat (including both natural

habitats and agricultural land uses) for a variety of special-status birds. The natural areas

provide suitable habitat for breeding, foraging, and migration stopover habitat. Special-status

bird species and their habitat would be temporarily affected, both directly and indirectly, by

construction of the May 2014 Project. Due to the considerable amount of natural habitat

present, construction of the May 2014 Project would result in a relatively high-intensity loss of

habitat that may support special-status birds. Therefore, construction period impacts of the

May 2014 Project would result in a significant impact under CEQA on special-status bird

species prior to implementation of mitigation measures.

• Special-status Mammals. Special-status mammals including the American badger, San

Joaquin kit fox, ringtail, five rodent species, and four bat species would be temporarily

affected, both directly and indirectly, by construction of the May 2014 Project. Due to the

considerable amount of natural habitat present, construction of the May 2014 Project would

result in a relatively high-intensity loss to special-status mammals. Therefore, construction

period impacts of the May 2014 Project would result in a significant impact under CEQA on

special-status mammal species prior to implementation of mitigation measures.

• Native Fauna. Native fauna would be permanently affected, both directly and indirectly, by

construction impacts associated with the May 2014 Project. Due to the large area of habitat

that would be affected, approximately 59 percent (991 acres) of the total May 2014 Project,

the May 2014 Project would have influential regional effects on native fauna and would result

in relatively high-intensity loss of this resource. Therefore, construction period impacts of the

May 2014 Project would result in a significant impact under CEQA on native fauna prior to

implementation of mitigation measures.

Special-Status Plant Communities

During the field surveys, black willow thickets (riparian areas) were identified along the Kern River

portion of the May 2014 Project (Table 8-A-16). 
of Alternatives Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-51

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-16 Comparison of Quantity of Impacts on Riparian Areas (acres) for the May 

2014 Project

Impact Type1 May 2014 Project

Riparian Areas1 Direct permanent 0.70

Direct temporary 0.30

GRAND TOTAL 1.00

1 Calculations are based on raw, unrounded geographic information system source data. As a result, the subtotals and totals may not match the 

rounded feature values because of the number of aquatic features. These minor discrepancies may result in small differences in the presentation 

of the acreage.

Impacts for the May 2014 Project were calculated based on the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 15% 

engineering design Project Footprint. 

As noted above, black willow thickets were identified along the Kern River corridor within the May 

2014 Project. With the exception of the Kern River, the May 2014 Project is located in an urban 

setting and the remaining natural areas are small and fragmented; therefore, other special-status 

plant communities are not expected to be present. However, because the project design across 

the Kern River includes a viaduct, 45 feet above the banks of the river, indirect impacts (e.g., due 

to shading from the viaduct) would be less likely to result in degradation of the adjacent black 

willow thickets (e.g., changes in hydrology, habitat fragmentation, or the introduction of nonnative, invasive species). Construction period impacts of the May 2014 Project would result in a 

significant impact under CEQA on special-status plant communities and their habitats prior to 

implementation of mitigation measures.

Black willow thickets would be directly affected by actions associated with operation and 

maintenance. Operations may also result in indirect effects to the Kern River linkage wildlife 

migration corridor during maintenance activities along the viaduct structure over the Kern River 

which includes areas with black willow thickets. Thus, the May 2014 Project would result in only a 

slight change from existing biological conditions, with few if any regional effects. Therefore, the 

project impacts of the May 2014 Project would result in a less-than-significant impact under 

CEQA on special-status plant communities prior to implementation of mitigation measures.

Jurisdictional Waters

Wetlands and other waters, including seasonal wetlands, canals/ditches, lacustrine, and riverine 

features are present throughout the May 2014 Project Wetland Study Area as shown in Figure 8-

A-14 and Figure 8-A-15.

Direct impacts would occur during construction of the May 2014 Project, resulting in the 

temporary disturbance of jurisdictional waters as shown in Table 8-A-17. Impacts on jurisdictional 

waters, including natural features in good condition such as seasonal riverine (e.g., Kern River) 

would result in influential regional effects and high-intensity loss to jurisdictional waters. 

Therefore, the construction period impacts of the May 2014 Project would result in a significant 

impact under CEQA prior to implementation of mitigation measures.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-52 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-14 Waters near the May 2014 Project (Shafter)
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-53

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-15 Waters near the May 2014 Project (Bakersfield)
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-54 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-17 Quantity of Impacts on Waters of the U.S. (acres) for the May 2014 Project

Wetlands and Other Waters 

(TYPE/HSR Water Type) Impact Type May 2014 Project

Total Impacts on Wetlandsa Direct permanent 0.51

Direct temporary —

Seasonal Wetland Direct permanent 0.51

Direct temporary —

Total Impacts on Other Waters of the U.S.a Direct permanent 16.52

Direct temporary 3.11

Canals/Ditches Direct permanent 8.31

Direct temporary 1.10

Artificial lacustrine Direct permanent 6.35

Direct temporary 1.61

Seasonal riverine Direct permanent 1.86

Direct temporary 0.40

Total Impacts on Waters of the U.S.a

Direct permanent 17.03

Direct temporary 3.11

Total direct 20.14

— = no impact or not applicable a Calculations are based on raw, unrounded Geographic Information System (GIS) source data. As a result, the subtotals and totals may not match 

the rounded feature values because of the number of aquatic features. These minor discrepancies may result in small differences in the presentation 

of the acreage.

Operations will not result in any additional direct impacts on jurisdictional waters, However, due to 

the magnitude of the impact incurred during construction and the quality of the waters, as shown 

in Table 8-A-18, the May 2014 Project would result in relatively high-intensity loss of these 

resources. Therefore, the project impacts of the May 2014 Project would result in a significant 

impact under CEQA on jurisdictional waters prior to implementation of mitigation measures. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-55

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-18 Quality (Relative Condition) of Impacts on Waters of the U.S. (acres) for the 

May 2014 Project

Impact Type Relative Condition May 2014 Project

Direct permanent Poor 15.17

Fair — 

Good 1.86

Direct temporary Poor 2.70

Fair — 

Good 0.40

TOTAL DIRECTa Poor 17.87

Fair —

Good 2.26

— = no impact or not applicable a Calculations are based on raw, unrounded geographic information system source data. As a result, the subtotals and totals may not match the 

rounded feature values because of the number of aquatic features. These minor discrepancies may result in small differences in the presentation of 

the acreage.

Impact calculations in this table include Project alternatives and station alternatives but do not include the heavy maintenance facility site 

alternatives.

Impacts for the May 2014 Project were calculated based on the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 15% 

engineering design Project Footprint

Impact types and/or existing condition types that do not appear in the table are not present in these alternatives.

U.S. = United States

Conservation Areas and Recovery Plans

The May 2014 Project crosses the recovery plan areas identified in the Recovery Plan for Upland 

Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) and the 

Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan (City of Bakersfield and Kern County 1994) 

(Figure 8-A-16).

Construction activities could result in temporary disturbance of recovery plan areas. Indirect 

construction impacts on these plan areas would include fragmentation of satellite areas and 

linkages where recovery areas are crossed by temporary construction activities (e.g., staging 

areas and access roads) and disturbance of natural lands within recovery areas that reduces 

habitat value for species recovery.

Project direct impacts on federal recovery plan areas include the creation of permanent partial or 

total movement barriers to special-status species, the loss or degradation of special-status plant 

and wildlife species, and the loss or degradation of the lands that could support or provide habitat 

for these species. Due to the large area of impact, construction of the May 2014 Project would 

result in relatively high-intensity loss to recovery plan areas. Therefore, construction period 

impacts under the May 2014 Project would result in a significant impact under CEQA on recovery 

plans prior to implementation of mitigation measures.

The May 2014 Project overlaps the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. 

Construction of the May 2014 Project would result in temporary disturbance within the plan area 

of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. The May 2014 Project does not 

conflict with the provisions of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan because 

proposed mitigation ratios are similar to the “adequate mitigation” ratios presented in the plan. 

Also, the May 2014 Project does not overlap with the Conceptual Focus Areas identified as 

potential preserve areas. Therefore, construction period impacts of the May 2014 Project would 

result in no impact under CEQA on habitat conservation plans prior to implementation of 

mitigation measures.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-56 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-16 Conservation Areas
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-57

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Operations will not result in any additional impacts to recovery plan areas. However, due to the 

large area of impact incurred during construction, 59.85 percent of the project area, the May 2014 

Project would result in relatively high intensity loss to recovery plan areas. Therefore, the project 

impacts of the May 2014 Project would result in a significant impact under CEQA on recovery 

plans prior to implementation of mitigation measures.

The May 2014 Project uses similar mitigation measures and does not overlap with the 

Conceptual Focus Areas associated with the habitat conservation plans previously mentioned, 

the project impacts would result in no impact under CEQA prior to implementation of mitigation 

measures.

Protected Trees

Protected trees are trees or tree communities that have special significance, are afforded 

protection by, and specifically identified in county and city ordinances, codes, or general plans. 

Cities and counties traversed by the proposed project alternatives include Kern county and the 

cities of Shafter and Bakersfield. The types of trees and specific physical characteristics required 

to meet the local definitions vary by city and county.

Construction of the May 2014 Project would result in the temporary removal or modification of 

protected trees within the construction footprint, which could conflict with the objectives goals, 

and/or provisions identified in approved local, regional, or state conservation plans. Where the 

alignment is located at-grade, removal, or trimming of all protected trees is anticipated. In urban 

areas where the majority of the landscaped ornamental trees are located and where the 

alignment is on an elevated structure, trimming and limited removal of protected trees would 

occur. Protected tree removal and trimming as a result of construction of the May 2014 Project 

would be considerable and would result in relatively high-intensity loss of this resource. 

Therefore, construction period impacts of the May 2014 Project would result in a significant 

impact under CEQA.

No direct or indirect effects to protected trees are expected during operations, as project 

construction activities would remove all protected trees prior to operations. Therefore, the 

operations of the May 2014 Project would result in no impact under CEQA on protected trees 

prior to implementation of mitigation measures.

Wildlife Movement Corridors

The May 2014 Project passes through the Kern River linkage and has the potential to affect 

wildlife movement within this linkage because construction activities would affect approximately 

50 acres of natural lands as shown in Figure 8-A-17. 

Construction activities occurring at or in the vicinity of wildlife movement corridors (linkages) or 

natural lands may result in indirect disruption of wildlife movement through lighting, noise, motion, 

and startle effects. However, temporary disturbance areas are generally small and non-linear; 

therefore, wildlife should be able to move around these barriers. The Kern River linkage corridor 

would be temporarily blocked by fencing during construction activities, which may result in 

adverse effects on local wildlife movement. Because construction period impacts are not 

expected to significantly impede movement, construction of the May 2014 Project would result in 

only a slight change from existing biological conditions and little to no regional effects. Therefore, 

construction period impacts of the May 2014 Project would result in a less-than-significant impact 

under CEQA on wildlife movement corridors prior to implementation of mitigation measures.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-58 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-17 Kern River Linkage
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-59

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Design elements of the May 2014 Project would facilitate wildlife movement, including elevated 

tracks, road overcrossings and undercrossings, and specific structures designed for wildlife 

crossings, which could allow for unimpeded wildlife movement; however, sections of the May 

2014 Project over the Kern River Linkage would result in direct impacts on wildlife movement, 

which could ultimately preclude the use of that corridor by wildlife. Direct impacts include the 

placement of temporary and permanent linear barriers to wildlife movement with restricted 

crossing opportunities, resulting in habitat shifts (toward nonnative and/or disturbed type 

communities) over time. These shifts in habitat use can result in increased competition for 

resources, as well as the potential for genetic isolation of populations.

In addition to HSR tracks passing through wildlife movement corridors, implementation of the May 

2014 Project would require ongoing O&M activities (e.g., routine inspection and maintenance of 

the HSR right-of-way). These operational activities occurring at or in the vicinity of wildlife 

movement corridors or natural lands may result in indirect disruption of wildlife movement through 

lighting, noise, motion, and startle effects. For a more detailed discussion of potential impacts on 

these linkages, refer to Section 5.6 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section: Biological Resources 

and Wetlands Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2012c). Due to the design elements, impacts 

of the May 2014 Project on wildlife movement would be minimal and would have little or no 

regional effects. Therefore, the project impacts of the May 2014 Project would result a less-thansignificant impact under CEQA on wildlife movement corridors prior to implementation of 

mitigation measures.

Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

Special-Status Plant Species

Similar to the May 2014 Project, no special-status plants were identified in the surveys completed 

for the F-B LGA; however, there is a potential for special-status plant species to occur in 

unsurveyed suitable habitat. Unsurveyed suitable habitat also includes areas surveyed outside 

the normal blooming period of the target species. Unsurveyed suitable habitat for the May 2014 

Project includes: annual grassland, valley foothill riparian, and alkali desert scrub. Unsurveyed 

suitable habitat for the F-B LGA consists of annual grasslands.

Direct impacts on the unsurveyed suitable habitat are shown in Table 8-A-19. 

Table 8-A-19 Potential Acreage of Special-Status Plant Species Habitat Impacted by the 

May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Direct Impacts (acres) Direct Impacts 

(acres)

Special-status plant species (Unsurveyed potential suitable 

habitat that could support special-status plant species) 

112.26 62.13

= least-impact alternative

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

The F-B LGA would have fewer potential direct impacts (in acres) to special-status plant species 

when compared to the May 2014 Project as shown above in Table 8-A-19. 

Special-Status Wildlife Species

Direct impacts on the special-status wildlife species are shown in Table 8-A-20. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-60 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-20 Potential Acreage of Special-Status Wildlife Species Habitat Impacted by the 

May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA (acres)

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts 

Federally and State-Listed Species

Tipton kangaroo rat 

(ASC, AGS, BAR, PAS)

68.83 194.51 77.59 39.74

Buena Vista Lake ornate 

shrew

2.56 0.71 2.44 0.74

San Joaquin kit fox 

(Bakersfield)

413.64 265.04 258.04 161.73

Urban 322.65 68.92 228.15 116.27

Agricultural (CRP, DGR, 

DOR, IGR, IRF, IRH, 

VIN)

29.13 194.11 15.41 6.71

Natural (ASC, 

BAR, 

AGS, 

PAS)

61.86 2.01 14.48 38.75

Nelson’s (San Joaquin) 

antelope squirrel (ASC, 

AGS, BAR, PAS)

68.83 194.51 77.59 39.74

Ringtail (AGS, RIV, VFR) 49.07 37.88 65.75 35.00

Golden eagle (ASC, 

AGS, BAR, CRP, FEW, 

IRH, PAS, URB, VFR)

626.49 371.65 525.61 157.03

Swainson’s hawk (AGS, 

BAR, CRP, IRH, PAS, 

URB, LAC, VFR)

634.08 371.23 526.69 157.44

Western snowy 

(LAC)

plover 7.59 1.89 0.00 0.00

White tailed kite (ASC, 

AGS, CRP, BAR, DOR, 

DGR, FEW, IRH, IRF, 

IGR, URB, VFR, VIN) 

957.32 675.48 795.67 169.14

American peregrine 

falcon (AGS, BAR, CRP, 

FEW, IGR, IRH, LAC, 

RIV, URB, VFR)

632.47 373.62 545.96 160.65

Greater sandhill crane 

(AGS, DGR, CRP, FEW,

IGR, IRH, IRF, LAC, 

VFR)

143.99 43.15 86.53 32.31

Bald eagle (AGS, BAR, 

FEW, LAC, RIV, VFR)

74.16 195.75 97.94 43.36

Other Special-Status Species

Kern brook lamprey 

(Friant Kern Canal) 

0.40 0.07 0.00 0.00
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project) 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-61

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts 

Western spadefoot 

(ASC, AGS, FEW, RIV)

60.58 39.98 62.75 35.00

Western pond turtle 

(AGS, FEW, LAC, PAS, 

RIV, VFR)

58.30 39.86 63.84 35.41

Silvery 

(VFR)

legless lizard 0.70 0.30 1.13 0.41

San Joaquin whipsnake 

(ASC, AGS, PAS, VFR)

52.05 38.84 43.49 31.80

Coast 

lizard 

(California) 

(ASC, AGS,

horned 

VFR)

50.41 38.75 43.49 31.80

Western burrowing owl 

(ASC, AGS, PAS, BAR, 

URB)

560.27 368.02 483.65 156.93

Special-Status Raptor 

Species (ASC, AGS, 

CRP, PAS, VFR, DGR, 

IGR, IRH, IRF) 

150.24 43.74 85.44 31.90

Special-Status Passerine 

Species (ASC, AGS, 

CRP, PAS, VRI, FEW, 

LAC, RIV, DGR, IGR, 

IRH, IRF) 

168.71 47.15 105.79 35.51

Special-Status Wading 

Birds, Shorebirds, and 

Duck Species (ASC, 

AGS, CRP, PAS, DGR, 

IGR, IRH, IRF, RIV, 

FEW, LAC, MBTA) 

168.00 46.85 105.79 35.51

Pallid bat (ASC, AGS, 

BAR, CRP, DGR, IGR, 

IRH, IRF, PAS, RIV, 

URB, VFR, VIN)

685.22 374.76 615.83 168.76

Dulzura pocket 

(AGS)

mouse 37.50 36.10 — —

Townsend’s big-eared 

bat (ASC, AGS, BAR, 

CRP, IGR, IRH, IRF, 

PAS, VFR, URB, VIN, 

RIV)

661.46 374.55 — — 

Western mastiff bat 

(ASC, AGS, BAR, CRP, 

FEW, IGR, IRH, IRF, 

PAS, URB, VFR, VIN)

650.60 373.03 596.57 165.56

Western red bat (AGS, 

FEW, IRH, LAC, PAS, 

RIV, URB, VFR)

572.71 213.53 469.90 152.60
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-62 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts Permanent Impacts Temporary Impacts 

Tulare grasshopper 

mouse (ASC, AGS, VFR)

50.41 38.75 43.49 31.80

American badger (ASC, 

AGS, BAR, PAS, VFR)

69.54 194.81 77.59 39.74

= least-impact alternative

ASC = Alkali Desert Scrub IRH = Irrigated Hayfield

AGS = Annual Grassland IRF = Irrigated Row and Field Crops

BAR = Barren LAC = Lacustrine

CRP = Cropland MBTA = Migratory Bird Treaty Act

CWHR = California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System N/A = not applicable

DGR = Dryland Grain Crops PAS = Pasture

DOR = Deciduous Orchard RIV = Riverine

EOR = Evergreen Orchard VIN = Vineyard

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative VFR, VRI = Valley Foothill Riparian

FEW = Fresh Emergent Wetland VOW = Valley Oak Woodland

IGR = Irrigated Grain Crops URB = Urban

Table 8-A-20 shows that the F-B LGA would generally have less of a direct impact (in acres) on 

special-status wildlife species when compared to the May 2014 Project. Only one of the specialstatus wildlife species (silvery legless lizard) listed above would have less permanent and 

temporary impacts with the implementation of the May 2014 Project. In comparison, 19 of the 

species would have less permanent and temporary impacts with the implementation of the F-B 

LGA. Nine others have mixed results with having either the May 2014 Project or F-B LGA having 

lower impacts in either the permanent and temporary categories. 

Special-Status Plant Communities

Black Willow Thickets associated with the Kern River Riparian Corridor is the only special-status 

plant community within the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA. Table 8-A-21 shows impacts on 

Black Willow Thickets for the May 2014 Project compared to the F-B LGA. Table 8-A-22 shows 

impacts on riparian areas for the May 2014 Project compared to the F-B LGA.

Table 8-A-21 Potential Acreage of Black Willow Thicket Impacts for the May 2014 Project 

and F-B LGA (acres)

Impact 

Type1

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Black Willow 

Thickets

Direct 

Permanent

0.70 1.13

Direct 

Temporary

0.30 0.41

GRAND TOTAL 1.00 1.54

= least-impact alternative 1 Impacts for the May 2014 Project were calculated based on the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement EIR/EIS 15% 

engineering design Project Footprint, and impacts for the F-B LGA were calculated based on the Supplemental Draft EIR/EIS Preliminary 

Engineering for Project Definition Project Footprint. 

EIR = environmental impact report

EIS = environmental impact statement

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-63

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-22 Potential Acreage of Riparian Area Impacts for the May 2014 Project and F-B 

LGA (acres)

Impact Type1 May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Riparian 

Areasa

Direct permanent 0.70 — 

Direct temporary 0.30 — 

GRAND TOTAL 1.00 —

= least-impact alternative 1 Calculations are based on raw, unrounded geographic information system source data. As a result, the subtotals and totals may not match the 

rounded feature values because of the number of aquatic features. These minor discrepancies may result in small differences in the presentation 

of the acreage.

Impacts for the May 2014 Project were calculated based on the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 15% 

engineering design Project Footprint, and impacts for the F-B LGA were calculated based on the Preliminary Engineering for Project Definition

Project Footprint. 

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

Table 8-A-21 and Table 8-A-22 indicate that the May 2014 Project would have less of a direct 

permanent and direct temporary impact on Black Willow Thickets when compared to the F-B 

LGA. The F-B LGA would have less impact on riparian areas when compared to the May 2014 

Project, as no riparian areas are located within the F-B LGA footprint. 

Jurisdictional Waters

A comparison of impacts to jurisdictional waters between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA is 

presented in Table 8-A-23. A comparison of quality of habitat impacted is also analyzed and 

presented in Table 8-A-24. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-64 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-23 Comparison of Quantity of Impacts on Waters of the U.S. (acres) 

Wetlands and Other Waters 

(TYPE/HSR water type)

Impact Type May 2014 Project F-B LGA

TOTAL IMPACTS ON WETLANDS1 Direct permanent 0.51 — 

Direct temporary — — 

Seasonal wetland Direct permanent 0.51 — 

Direct temporary — — 

TOTAL IMPACTS ON OTHER 

WATERS OF THE U.S.a

Direct permanent 16.52 15.96

Direct temporary 3.11 1.18

Canals/Ditches Direct permanent 8.31 13.45

Direct temporary 1.10 0.11

Retention/Detention Basin Direct permanent 6.35 1.38

Direct temporary 1.61 0.66

Seasonal riverine Direct permanent 1.86 1.13

Direct temporary 0.40 0.41

TOTAL IMPACTS ON WATERS OF 

THE U.S.1

Direct permanent 17.03 15.96

Direct temporary 3.11 1.18

TOTAL DIRECT 20.14 17.14

= least-impact alternative

— = no impact or not applicable a Calculations are based on raw, unrounded geographic information system source data. As a result, the subtotals and totals may not match the 

rounded feature values because of the number of aquatic features. These minor discrepancies may result in small differences in the presentation 

of the acreage.

Impact calculations in this table include Project alternatives and station alternatives but do not include the heavy maintenance facility site 

alternatives.

Impacts for the May 2014 Project were calculated based on the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 15% 

engineering design Project Footprint, and impacts for the F-B LGA were calculated based on the Preliminary Engineering for Project Definition 

Project Footprint.

Impact types and/or existing condition types that do not appear in the table are not present in these alternatives.

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

HSR = high-speed rail

U.S. = United States 

As shown in Table 8-A-23 the F-B LGA would have less of a direct impact on Waters of the 

United States (U.S.) when compared to the May 2014 Project. The quality of Waters of the U.S. 

directly impacted would be similar with implementation of the F-B LGA or the May 2014 Project 

as shown in Table 8-A-24; however, the F-B LGA would not impact any good quality Waters of 

the U.S., while the May 2014 Project would impact 2.26 acres of good quality Waters of the U.S. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-65

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-24 Comparison of Quality (Relative Condition) of Impacts on Waters of the U.S. 

for the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA (acres)

Impact Type Relative Condition May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Waters of the U.S.

Direct permanent Poor 15.17 14.83

Fair — 1.13

Good 1.86 — 

Direct temporary Poor 2.71 0.77

Fair — 0.41

Good 0.40 —

TOTAL DIRECTa Poor 17.88 15.60

Fair — 1.54

Good 2.26 —

= least-impact alternative

— = no impact or not applicable 1 Calculations are based on raw, unrounded geographic information system source data. As a result, the subtotals and totals may not match the 

rounded feature values because of the number of aquatic features. These minor discrepancies may result in small differences in the presentation 

of the acreage.

Impact calculations in this table include Project alternatives and station alternatives but do not include the heavy maintenance facility site 

alternatives.

Impacts for the May 2014 Project were calculated based on the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement 15% 

engineering design Project Footprint, and impacts for the F-B LGA were calculated based on the Preliminary Engineering for Project Definition 

Project Footprint.

Impact types and/or existing condition types that do not appear in the table are not present in these alternatives.

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative U.S. = United States

Wildlife Movement Corridors

Field surveys identified and confirmed the presence of one wildlife movement corridor (Kern River 

Riparian Corridor) intersecting both the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA. Although this major 

linkage is associated with a riparian corridor, construction of the rail would not impede movement 

of aquatic species, such as the Kern brook lamprey, which may be present in the Friant–Kern 

Canal in the city of Bakersfield. The project would have negligible impacts on the migration and 

dispersal of this and other aquatic species since the rail would be constructed on elevated 

structures or bridges spanning the canal and Kern River riparian corridor to allow wildlife 

passage.

Hydrology and Water Resources

Summary of May 2014 Project Hydrology and Water Resources Impacts

This section evaluates the impacts on hydrology and water resources that may result from the 

May 2014 Project. The analysis includes a range of topics related to water resources, including 

surface water hydrology, water quality, groundwater, and floodplains.

Methodology 

The study area for hydrology and water resources for the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA is 

within the South Valley Floor in the Tulare Lake Basin. The study area includes the following 

elements: 

• Surface Water: receiving waters of project runoff.

• Groundwater: aquifer(s) underlying the construction footprint.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-66 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

• Flooding: FEMA-designated flood-hazard areas within the physical ground disturbance of the

project footprint, as well as areas where flood frequency, extent, and duration could be

affected by the project.

The methodologies implemented were consistent between the May 2014 Project and the F-B 

LGA. Preliminary design plans for the project, federal and state statutes, available documents 

from various agencies, associated geographic information system (GIS) data, and floodplain 

maps were reviewed to describe the environmental setting considered to analyze project impacts.

The methodologies used for determining impacts for the May 2014 Project are discussed in 

further detail in Section 3.8.3 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. The 

methodologies used for determining impacts for the F-B LGA are discussed in further detail in 

Section 3.8.3 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS.

Impacts

Surface Water Hydrology 

Water bodies and canal crossings within the May 2014 Project study area are summarized in 

Table 8-A-25. The May 2014 Project would cross approximately eight water bodies. Water bodies 

are listed from north to south.

Table 8-A-25 Water Bodies Crossed by the May 2014 Project

Water Body1 Type2 Approximate Crossing Width3 Crossing Method4

Arvin Edison Canal C 100 Aerial structure

Friant-Kern Canal C 150 Aerial structure

Cross Valley Canal C 180––600 Aerial structure

Kern River5 P 540–720 Aerial structure

Carrier Canal C 120––150 Aerial structure

Stine Canal C 60 Aerial structure

Kern Island Canal C 100 Aerial structure

East Side Canal C 160–800 Aerial structure

1 Features identified from review of U.S. Geological Survey topographic maps and aerial photographs. Unnamed irrigation canals and distribution 

pipelines are also crossed by the May 2014 Project; these features are not listed on this table. 2 Type: C = irrigation canal, P = perennial.

3 Crossing widths subject to change once high-speed rail alternative alignments are finalized. 4 Based on 15% Design. Crossing method is subject to change as design progresses. Water bodies are crossed by bridge or culvert when adjacent 

track is at-grade and are crossed by aerial structure when adjacent track is elevated. 5 The May 2014 Project does not cross perpendicularly to Kern River; therefore, approximate crossing width is greater than the perpendicular width 

of Kern River.

As shown in Table 8-A-26, eight large- and small-scale special districts that provide local water 

supply, flood control, sanitation, and agricultural water supply, storage, and groundwater banking 

infrastructure cross the May 2014 Project alignment. Details on the districts, including their 

locations, are provided in Section 3.6 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. For 

comparison, the districts serving the F-B LGA area are shown in Table 8-A-27. The districts 

serving both the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA are shown in Figure 8-A-18. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-67

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-26 Districts Supplying Water, Sanitation, or Flood Control That Potentially Have 

Infrastructure Crossing the May 2014 Project

Water Districts

Arvin-Edison Water Storage District Rosedale Ranch Improvement District

California Water Service Company Rosedale-Rio Bravo Water Storage District

Kern County Water Agency Improvement District No. 4 Shafter-Wasco Irrigation District

North Kern Water Storage District Vaughn Water Company Service Area

Sources: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2009 (for federal water district boundaries). U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2003a (for private water district 

boundaries). U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 2003b (for state water district boundaries). California High-Speed Rail Authority 2013b (Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section: Hydrology, Hydraulics, and Drainage Report)

Table 8-A-27 Districts Supplying Water, Sanitation, or Flood Control That Potentially Have 

Infrastructure Crossing the F-B LGA

Water Districts

Arvin-Edison Water Storage District Cawelo Water District

California Water Service Company East Niles Community Services District

Kern County Water Agency Improvement District No. 4 Shafter-Wasco Irrigation District

North Kern Water Storage District North of the River Municipal Water District

Oildale Mutual Water Company

Sources: United States Bureau of Reclamation (2003a); United States Bureau of Reclamation (2003b); Cawelo Water District (2015); East Niles 

Community Services District (2016); North of the River Municipal Water District (2014); Oildale Mutual Water Company (2010); Arvin-Edison Water 

Storage District (2008); California Water Service Company (2011); David Beard (2014); North Kern Water Storage District (2016); Shafter-Wasco 

Irrigation District (2013)

Construction activities such as grading and establishing construction staging areas could alter 

existing drainage patterns and redirect stormwater runoff. However, the May 2014 Project’s 

design incorporated avoidance and minimization measures, such as the preparation of a 

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, to reduce impacts on drainage patterns and stormwater 

runoff during construction. 

Direct impacts on surface water from operation of the project would include changes to the 

hydrology and connectivity of natural waterbodies in the study area. Project facilities would result 

in changes to existing drainage, as well as increased runoff from project impervious surfaces. 

Placing at-grade track sections on embankments with adequately- sized and placed culverts 

would minimize drainage problems. The May 2014 Project would incorporate avoidance and 

minimization measures to maintain pre-project drainage conditions to the extent practicable (e.g., 

emphasizing onsite retention of stormwater runoff using measures such as flow dispersion, 

infiltration, and evaporation, supplemented by detention, where required).
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project) 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-68 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-18 Water Districts Serving the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA Areas
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-69

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Surface Water Quality 

Soil-disturbing activities during construction (i.e., excavation and grading) of the May 2014 Project 

could lead to erosion and sedimentation. Bare soil exposed to stormwater is more likely to erode 

than vegetated areas that provide infiltration, retention, and dispersion. The risk of polluted runoff 

and the potential for sedimentation effects on water quality would be minimized through 

implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures discussed in further detail in Section 

3.8.6 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (pages 3.8-72 through 3.8-75), which 

consist of project design features for stormwater management and treatment and preparation of a 

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan. 

Dewatering groundwater during construction could impact water quality. Water produced during 

dewatering activities could contain sediments and contaminants that could degrade water quality 

if the water were to be discharged directly to surface water or land without treatment. If 

groundwater is encountered during construction, groundwater would be disposed of according to 

the requirements of the applicable dewatering permit. Compliance with the dewatering permit 

would ensure that the water discharged to surface water or land would not degrade existing water 

quality. 

Potential pollutants of concern for the HSR are similar to those in existing and active railroads. 

Therefore, the HSR would not introduce new types of pollutants to the Tulare Lake Basin but 

would increase the amount of pollutants associated with rail operations that may already exist in 

the watershed because of the increased rail service. No water bodies in the study area are listed 

as impaired on the 303(d) List. However, implementation of the project would result in an 

increase in impervious surface area which can increase the volume of stormwater runoff, thereby 

increasing the amount of pollutants reaching downstream receiving waters. The May 2014 Project 

includes the implementation of infiltration basins and swales to target pollutants of concern in 

stormwater runoff. All stormwater runoff would be treated before draining to the existing storm 

drain system. 

Groundwater 

The May 2014 Project is located within the Kern County subbasin of the San Joaquin 

Groundwater Basin. Groundwater levels in the project area are generally deep; most of the water 

depths in the project study area are greater than 50 feet. 

Because groundwater levels in the project study area are generally deep, it is not expected that 

much dewatering would be required during construction. If groundwater is encountered during 

construction, groundwater would be disposed of according to the requirements of the applicable 

dewatering permit. However, it is anticipated that the volume of groundwater that would be 

removed would be minor due to the depth of groundwater. 

As discussed in Section 3.6 Public Utilities and Energy of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, water 

to be used during construction activities would be supplied by the eight water districts described 

above. However, existing water uses along the alignment would be reduced under construction of 

the May 2014 Project because project-related water requirements would be less intense than 

those associated with existing agricultural land uses along the alignment. 

Portions of the study area near rivers and creeks serve as groundwater recharge areas. 

However, due to the small overall footprint of the project relative to the size of the groundwater 

recharge area, the effects to groundwater basin recharge would be minimal. In addition as stated 

above, the project could result in an overall reduction in water use compared to existing use due 

primarily to the conversion of currently irrigated agricultural lands. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-70 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Floodplains

The May 2014 Project crosses three 100-year floodplains: a Zone AH and Zone AO floodplain in 

Shafter, a Zone A floodplain south of Shafter, and a Zone AE floodplain associated with the Kern 

River. Figure 8-A-19 shows the flood zones that the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA would cross. 

Construction in a floodplain could temporarily impede or redirect flood flows because of the 

presence of construction equipment and materials in the floodplain, depending on the activity 

occurring within a specific area. Construction staging would occur within the Kern River floodplain 

but would be temporary; a construction staging area may be active for 1 to 3 years. Construction 

within the Kern River floodplain, a Central Valley Flood Protection Board-designated floodplain, 

would require an encroachment permit from the Central Valley Flood Protection Board. 

In overland areas subject to shallow flooding during the 100-year event (i.e., local flooding in 

Shafter and south of Shafter), flood water would pond and drain slowly with minimal energy due 

to the flat topography and shallow land gradient. Openings in the embankment (e.g., culverts) 

would continue to allow drainage to pass in the down-gradient direction. The May 2014 Project 

would cross the Kern River floodplain on an aerial structure of sufficient length to provide 

adequate clearance and conveyance of flood flows and designed to pass the 100-year flood flows 

without increasing the water surface elevation in the floodplain by more than 1 foot, or as required 

by State or local agencies. The aerial structure would be parallel to the Kern River between 

Friant-Kern Canal and the Mohawk Street Bridge, and would cross over the Kern River at a 30-

degree angle. Piers would be placed and designed to minimize backwater effects and local 

scouring. The shape and alignment of the piers would be designed to minimize adverse flood flow 

effects.

Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

This section compares the impacts on hydrology and water resources that may result from the 

May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA. The F-B LGA would result in impacts associated with 

hydrology and water quality in similar ways to the summary provided above for the May 2014 

Project, as shown in Table 8-A-28. There may be site-specific differences in the location of 

potential impacts due to routing variations included under the F-B LGA (e.g., water body 

crossings, water districts); however, the nature and intensity of potential impacts would be largely 

comparable.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-71

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-19 Flood Zones Crossing the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-72 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-28 Hydrology Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Surface Water 8 water body crossings, all on aerial 

structures. 

10 water body crossings, 1 on 

embankment or retaining wall, the rest 

on viaduct or elevated structures. 

Water Districts 8 water districts have infrastructure 

within the study area. 

9 water districts have infrastructure 

within the study area. 

Disturbed Surface Area 570 acres (total of approximately 1,100 

acres including alignment, station, and 

MOIF). 

780 acres (total of 921 acres including 

alignment, station, and MOIF). 

Net Impervious Surface Area 72 acres (total of 161 acres including, 

alignment, station, and MOIF).

82 acres (total of 147 acres including 

alignment, station, and MOIF). 

Groundwater Kern County Subbasin in Shafter, 

groundwater depth is approximately 

250––260 feet; in Bakersfield, 

groundwater depth is approximately 

150 feet.

Kern County Subbasin; in Shafter, 

groundwater depth is approximately 

250––260 feet; in Bakersfield, 

groundwater depth is approximately 

150 feet.

Floodplains Local flooding in Shafter (Zone AH and 

Zone AO), local flooding south of 

Shafter (Zone A), flooding near Kern 

River (Zone AE). 

Local flooding in Shafter (Zone AO), 

flooding near Kern River (Zone AE). 

= least-impact alternative

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

MOIF = maintenance of infrastructure facility

The table above indicates that the F-B LGA would require two more water body crossings and 

would affect one additional water district with infrastructure in the study area than the May 2014 

Project. Impacts associated with groundwater and floodplains would be the same for the May 

2014 Project and the F-B LGA. 

Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontology

Summary of May 2014 Project Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontology Impacts

This section identifies geologic, soils, and seismic, and paleontological conditions that could 

affect or be affected by the May 2014 Project. Geologic, soils, and seismic hazards that could 

affect the design, construction, and operation of the project include unstable slopes, soil 

settlement, accelerated erosion, expansive and corrosive soil properties, and earthquake-induced 

ground liquefaction and slope destabilization. Because they do not present a risk in the May 2014 

Project, discussions that are omitted from this analysis include those related to the following: 

landslides, volcanic ash, seiches and tsunami flooding, and excavation in rock. 

The May 2014 Project could result in impacts associated with geologic, soils, and seismic 

hazards. Potential impacts would be addressed through implementation of conventional 

foundation design methods for elevated structure, retained-fill, at-grade, and retained-cut 

facilities. These methods are included in American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation, American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association, California 

Department of Transportation, and International Building Code standards and guidelines, which 

are included as Avoidance and Minimization Measures of the May 2014 Project, as described in 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Mitigation Monitoring and Enforcement Plan (pages 2-1 through 2-24). 

Methodology 

The study area for geology, soils, and seismicity for the May 2014 Project is defined as 0.5-mile 

radius for subsurface gas hazards, mineral resources, and oil and gas resources, which expands 

to 2 miles around the Truxtun Avenue Station. The regional study area encompasses the San 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-73

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Joaquin Valley for review of seismicity, faulting, and dam failure inundation. Research for 

seismicity was conducted out to 62 miles (100 kilometers) from the May 2014 Project. For 

paleontological resources, the study area is a 1-mile radius around the proposed HSR right-ofway and any potential facilities, including the potential stations. No specific guidance dictates the 

radius width used for paleontological resource studies; however, a 1-mile radius allows for the 

development of a more complete context because paleontological resources tend to be 

distributed widely across the landscape.

Impacts

Aggregate resources, consisting of sand, gravel, crushed stone, and similar materials, are the 

only mineral resources within the study area for the May 2014 Project. No mineral resources are 

known to exist within the footprint of the May 2014 Project, and no loss of availability of minerals 

of statewide significance or hazards associated with encountering such surface or sub surface 

mineral deposits would occur.

• Unstable Slopes. The study area for the May 2014 Project is dominated by competent soils

near the ground surface, although unstable soils can occur on a localized basis, particularly

near river and stream crossings. This area is susceptible to strong ground shaking generated

during earthquakes on nearby faults. However, appropriate design standards such as Section

1805.3 of the International Building Code would be implemented as part of the May 2014

Project, in addition to standard safety practices during construction.

• Land Subsidence and Settlement. There is existing land subsidence near the May 2014

Project. Specifically, the vicinity of the Kern Lake bed is affected by settlement caused by

groundwater overdrafts in the area of Arvin to the southeast of Bakersfield. Subsidence also

occurs in small areas south and west of Bakersfield, due to the presence of local oil fields

(Kern County Planning Department 2009). The project design incorporates ground

improvements and foundations that are resistant to settlement and would meet building code

requirements.

• Accelerated Erosion. Wind or water erosion of soil could occur during both construction and

operation, if ground-disturbing activities result in loose soils that are not stabilized as

standard practice. Implementation of standard design measures and best management

practices to avoid accelerated erosion would be included as part of the project.

• Expansive and Corrosive Soils. The potential for shrink-swell represents a risk of negligible

intensity to the operation of the track system and the track right-of-way for long-term

operations with the implementation of standard design measures, such as excavating

underlying expansive soils and augmenting them with an imported soil base. The May 2014

Project is located in an area of low to moderate corrosivity to concrete and moderate

corrosivity to uncoated steel. Standard design measures would include but not be limited to

excavating corrosive soils and augmenting them with an imported soil base or using treated

materials to reduce the effects of corrosive soils.

Of the known hazardous fault zones that occur in the project area, those that would pose the 

greatest hazard to the May 2014 Project are the San Andreas Fault to the west, the Kern Canyon 

Fault to the east, and the White Wolf and Garlock faults to the south. These faults and the 

available data pertaining to them indicate that they could be the source of strong ground shaking

in the project area. 

• Surface Fault Rupture. Within the study area of the May 2014 Project, there are several

faults including the Premier, New Hope, and Poso Creek-Pond (Smith 1983) that have

experienced surface rupture associated with fluid extraction. No faults that have experienced

surface rupture are traversed by the May 2014 Project alignment. Surface rupture is thus

unlikely.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-74 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

• Ground Shaking. The study area for the May 2014 Project is susceptible to strong ground

shaking generated during earthquakes on nearby faults. Peak horizontal acceleration11

ranges from 30–40 percent from Shafter to the north of Bakersfield and from 40–50 percent

in Bakersfield. Project facilities would be engineered, designed, and constructed to withstand

ground-shaking effects to the extent practicable.

Secondary hazards include liquefaction, seismically induced slides or slumps, and floods 

resulting from seismically induced dam failure.

• Liquefaction. In general, groundwater in the project area for the May 2014 Project occurs at

depths greater than 50 feet below the ground surface. Groundwater may occur at shallower

depths where the May 2014 Project crosses stream and/or river channels. At these locations,

the potential for liquefaction exists if saturated near-surface soils are loose and cohesionless.

• Seismically Induced Slides or Slumps. Ground shaking in the project area may cause

slopes to fail, even where liquefaction does not occur. Particularly susceptible areas include

natural waterway crossings.

• Dam Failure. The May 2014 Project crosses inundation areas of the Lake Isabella Dam. In

the unlikely event of seismically induced dam failure, it would take an estimated six to eight

hours for escaped water to reach a flooding depth of one foot at the Truxtun Avenue Station

(Kern County Planning Department 2009), allowing ample time to evacuate HSR facilities and

tracks.

• Areas of Difficult Excavation. Areas of difficult excavation may occur due to the presence

of hardpan soil or shallow groundwater. Best practice methods would result in less-thansignificant impacts under CEQA.

• Mineral and Energy Resources. The May 2014 Project crosses three abandoned oil and

gas fields: Fruitvale Oil Field approximately 1.5 miles to the west of Bakersfield, the Rosedale

Oil Field approximately 6 miles to the west of Bakersfield, and the Seventh Standard Oil Field

between Bakersfield and Shafter. The May 2014 Project is not located in or near a

geothermal resource area, as classified by the (California) Division of Oil, Gas, and

Geothermal Resources (DOGGR), and no known producing or abandoned geothermal wells

or geothermal springs are present along the May 2014 Project. There are 90 active, new,

idle, or plugged observation, oil and gas, water disposal, or water flood wells within the

footprint and a 1,000-foot buffer. The May 2014 Project would not include actions that would

adversely affect oil and gas fields.

Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

The F-B LGA would result in impacts associated with geology and paleontology in similar ways to 

the summary provided above for the May 2014 Project, as shown in Table 8-A-29. There may be 

site-specific differences in the location of potential impacts due to routing variations included 

under the F-B LGA; however, the nature and intensity of potential impacts would be comparable.

11 The ground motions induced by a seismic event are characterized by a horizontal peak ground acceleration value that 

is expressed as a percentage of the acceleration of gravity. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-75

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-29 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontology Impact Comparison between 

the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Ground Shaking

potential

PHA 30–40 percent in Shafter and 40–50 

percent in Bakersfield

PHA 30–40 percent in Shafter and 40–50 

percent in Bakersfield

Earthquake Faults San Andreas Fault: 37 miles to the west of 

the Truxtun Avenue Station

Kern Canyon Fault: 24 miles to the east of 

the May 2014 Project

White Wolf Fault: 15 miles to southeast of 

the May 2014 Project

Garlock Fault: 35 miles to the southeast of 

the May 2014 Project

San Andreas Fault: 34 miles to the 

southwest of F Street Station 

Kern Canyon Fault: 40 miles to the 

northeast of the F-B LGA

White Wolf Fault: 16 miles to southeast of 

the F-B LGA

Garlock Fault: 33 miles to southeast of the 

F-B LGA

Wells (active, idle, new, 

and plugged)

28 total: 

9 within permanent footprint (1 active) and 

19 within 150 feet of footprint (5 active)

11 total:

3 within permanent footprint (0 active) and 

8 within 150 feet of footprint (0 active) 

Oil and Gas Fields

crossed by alignment

North Shafter Oil Field

Rosedale Ranch Oil Field

Seventh Standard Oil Field

North Shafter Oil Field

Rosedale Oil Field

Kern Front Oil Field

Fruitvale Oil Field

Paleontological 

Resources

None identified at this time None identified at this time

= least-impact alternative

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

PHA = peak horizontal acceleration 

The table provides a comparison of differentiating features for this issue area under the May 2014 

Project and the F-B LGA.

The ground-shaking potential is the same for both alternatives, with a peak horizontal 

acceleration 30 to 40 percent in Shafter and 40 to 50 percent in Bakersfield. As with the May 

2014 Project, further site-specific, subsurface geotechnical investigations, and design evaluations 

would be conducted during the final design stages of the F-B LGA, in order to determine where 

difficult excavations and subsurface hazards may occur, and to plan for working with these sites 

during construction.

Table 8-A-29 indicates that there are 17 fewer oil and gas wells within the study area (project 

footprint and 150-foot buffer) for the F-B LGA than the study area for the May 2014 Project. Of 

these, there are six fewer active wells within the study area for the F-B LGA than the study area 

for the May 2014 Project (zero versus six). The identification of fewer wells for the F-B LGA 

indicates that although the F-B LGA would cross through an industrial area avoided by the May 

2014 Project, specific well sites are located farther away from the alignment. Under either 

alternative, all construction and grading work conducted within 100 feet of an oil well site should 

be coordinated with the DOGGR, and active wells would be capped and abandoned, or relocated.

The May 2014 Project is 16 miles closer to the Kern Canyon Fault than the F-B LGA, but this 

does not change the nature or intensity of potential impacts associated with the proximity of 

earthquake faults. There are 17 more oil and gas wells located within the study area for the May 

2014 Project than the F-B LGA; however, under either alternative any wells within the footprint 

would be capped and abandoned or relocated. The F-B LGA would be located closer to oil and 

gas fields in and near Bakersfield than would the May 2014 Project; however, under either 

alternative any construction and grading work conducted within 100 feet of an oil well site would 

be coordinated with the DOGGR. Impact Avoidance and Minimization Measures included under 

either alternative would minimize or avoid the potential to result in adverse impacts associated 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-76 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

with geology, soils, and seismicity; impacts associated with the F-B LGA and the May 2014 

Project are comparable for this issue area.

For both the F-B LGA and the May 2014 Project, no specific paleontological resources have been 

recorded within the study areas, although five geologic formations that intersect the study area 

are considered highly sensitive for potentially significant, yet unidentified, paleontological 

resources. Under both alternatives, the potential for project activities to affect paleontological 

resources would depend upon the required depth of ground disturbances during construction, and 

a Paleontological Resource Monitoring and Mitigation Plan would be implemented to address 

potential impacts. Potential impacts to paleontological resources would be comparable for the F-B 

LGA and the May 2014 Project.

Hazardous Materials and Wastes

Summary of May 2014 Project Hazardous Materials and Wastes Impacts

Construction and operation of the May 2014 Project could cause ground disturbance (including 

disturbance of groundwater or surface water) near a known contaminated site or sites, or where 

contamination could exist in the study area. Construction and operation of the May 2014 Project 

could also involve the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and wastes in the study 

area. This section summarizes the potential hazardous materials and waste impacts associated

the May 2014 Project. 

Methodology 

The study area for the May 2014 Project includes the project footprint and a 150-foot buffer to 

account for hazardous material and waste issues on adjacent properties to either side of the 

project footprint. To be consistent with ASTM database-search standard practice, database 

searches for sites of potential environmental concern (PEC) used a one-mile buffer area on either 

side of the alignment centerline. In addition, schools within 0.25 mile of the May 2014 Project 

footprint and landfills within 0.25 mile of the footprint were assessed.

Impacts

Sites with Potential Environmental Concerns

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. compiled applicable regulatory agency lists of potential 

hazardous waste sites; properties or facilities currently under investigation for potential 

environmental violations; and sites storing or using hazardous materials. As mentioned above 

and discussed in Section 3.10, Hazardous Materials and Wastes of this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS, PEC sites were mapped within one mile of the project centerline. Analysts attempted to 

identify potential large or regionally important PEC sites where the extent of the site or 

contamination could extend well beyond the mapped address, or from outside the one-mile buffer 

to extend to locations within the study area; however, the database search results did not identify 

any such sites. Therefore, in order to provide a comparison between the May 2014 Project and 

the F-B LGA, the study area of 150 feet from the project footprint was applied to the identified 

PEC sites. Table 8-A-30 shows that there are two PEC sites within 150 feet of the May 2014 

Project footprint. 

Landfills

Construction and operation of the May 2014 Project would not include activities in proximity to 

closed or operating landfill sites between Shafter and Bakersfield. Therefore, no impacts 

associated with landfill gases would occur. 

Oil and Gas Wells

The study area for the May 2014 Project consists of the project footprint plus a 150-foot-wide 

study area around the footprint. Locations of oil wells (both active and abandoned) were identified 

from the DOGGR databases (2015). Twenty-eight oil and gas wells (active and abandoned) were 

identified within the 150-foot-wide study area around the footprint of the May 2014 Project.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-77

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-30 Potential Environmental Concerns within 150 Feet of the May 2014 Project Footprint 

Name EDR ID Address Status Priority

Brown and 

Bryant - Shafter 

Facility

S100833336 135 Commercial 

Drive, Shafter, CA

93725

The May 2014 Project runs adjacent to the west side of this 

facility. Agricultural chemicals are reported to contaminate 

surface and subsurface soils and soil gas beneath the site. The 

approximately 15-acre site was used until December 1989 to 

blend and repackage liquid fertilizers, insecticides, herbicides, 

fumigants, and defoliants. Department of Toxic Substances 

Control (DTSC), the lead agency requested the Atchison, 

Topeka, and Santa Fe Railroad (Santa Fe), (the landowner of 1/3 

of the site) to extend the west site fence line farther west to 

prevent public exposure of offsite soil contamination. The USEPA 

subsequently issued a 106 Order to Santa Fe requiring the 

company to assess the site and develop plans to stabilize and 

winterize the site to prevent further potential for public exposure. 

During two phases of remedial investigations conducted in 1995 

and 1997, subsurface soil and soil gas contamination was 

discovered at depths of over 200 feet. A draft Remedial Action 

Plan for the site was published in September 2008. Reportedly, a 

baseline risk assessment is being finalized and a work plan for 

the Remedial Action Plan is being prepared. Numerous additional 

agency violations exist at the site.

High - Based on proximity to the 

alignment, upgradient position, and 

unresolved soil and groundwater issues 

and outstanding violations

Burlington 

Northern and 

Santa Fe 

Railway

S103629745 140 Commercial 

Drive, Shafter, CA

93725

The BNSF site is associated and co-joined with the Brown and 

Bryant facility discussed above. BNSF owns a portion of the 

Brown and Bryant site. No violations were noted.

High - Based on proximity to the 

alignment, upgradient position, and 

unresolved soil and groundwater issues 

and outstanding violations

BNSF = BNSF Railway

DTSC = Department of Toxic Substances Control 

EDR = Environmental Data Resources, Inc.

USEPA = U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-78 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Airports/Airstrips/Heliports 

There are no airports within two miles of the May 2014 Project, but there are heliports at three 

hospitals/medical centers in Bakersfield within two miles of the alignment. They are San Joaquin 

Community Hospital, Kern Medical Center, and Memorial Hospital. 

Educational Facilities

The California Public Resources Code requires projects that would be located within 0.25 mile of 

a school and might be reasonably expected to emit or handle hazardous materials to consult with 

the school district regarding potential hazards. There are 22 schools within 0.25 mile of the May 

2014 Project. 

• Bakersfield Adult School

• Bakersfield High School

• Bakersfield Play Center

• Bethel Christian School

• Blanton Education Center

• Country Christian School, Inc.

• Franklin Elementary School

• Free Will Christian Academy

• Fruitvale Junior High School

• Greenacres School

• International College

• Kern County Child Development Centers

• Kern High School District

• Owens Intermediate Elementary School

• Preferred College of Nursing Bakersfield

• Redwood Elementary School

• Richland Junior High

• Rosedale Middle School

• Shafter Kiddie Kollege

• Stockdale Learning Center

• Vista East Continuation School

• Warriors for Christ Academy

Wildlands

Based on statewide fire hazard severity zone maps available from the California Department of 

Forestry and Fire Protection, there are no portions of the May 2014 Project study area that are 

generally subject to impacts from wildland fire (CalFire 2007). Parcels of land that were 

historically developed but are now vacant or fallow farmland were not considered to be 

“wildlands” for the purpose of this report.

Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

Impacts associated with the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA are generally comparable for the 

issue area hazardous materials and wastes, except that substantially more PEC sites are within 

the study area for the F-B LGA. As discussed above for the May 2014 Project, PEC sites were 

identified within one mile of the project footprint and assessed for the potential of identified sites 

to extend into the project alignment; the study area of 150 feet around the project footprint was 

then applied to both the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA, with respect to PEC sites. 

Differentiating features for the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA include the number of PEC 

sites within 150 feet of the project footprint and the number of oil and gas wells within 150 feet of 

the project footprint. Landfills identified include closed solid waste disposal sites, past burn sites, 

compost operations, and active waste disposal sites. Table 8-A-31 identifies the total number of 

sites identified and the number of active waste disposal sites.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-79

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-31 Hazardous Materials and Wastes Impact Comparison between the May 2014 

Project and F-B LGA

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

PEC sites within 

150 feet of footprint

2 PEC sites within 150 feet of the footprint. 149 PEC sites within 150 feet of the 

footprint.

Landfills within 

0.25 mile of the 

footprint

There are no active or closed landfills within 

0.25 mile of the May 2014 Project footprint 

between Shafter and Bakersfield.

There are 13 (1 active) landfills within 

0.25 mile of the F-B LGA footprint 

between Shafter and Bakersfield.

Oil and Gas Wells 

within 150 feet of 

footprint

28 total: 

9 within permanent footprint (1 active) and 19 

within 150 feet of footprint (5 active, 5 new) 

11 total:

3 within permanent footprint (0 active) and 

8 within 150 feet of footprint (0 active) 

Educational 

Facilities within 0.25 

mile

There are 22 schools within 0.25 mile. There are 16 schools within 0.25 mile.

 = least-impact alternative

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

PEC = potential environmental concern

Under both the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA, additional investigation would be required 

during the final engineering and design phase in order to characterize hazards associated with 

individual PEC sites and determine how to avoid or mitigate each site prior to project construction 

to avoid adverse impacts associated with hazardous materials and wastes. There are 

substantially more PEC sites located within 150 feet of the F-B LGA than the May 2014 Project 

(149 versus 2), due to the generally more industrial nature of the alignment in Bakersfield and the 

types of previous and current land uses traversed by the proposed F-B LGA alignment. Potential 

impacts associated with PEC sites would occur in similar ways under the F-B LGA and the May 

2014 Project, although additional investigation would be required under the F-B LGA due to the 

greater number of PEC sites. With implementation of the required investigation and appropriate 

avoidance or mitigation measures (to be determined during the final engineering and design 

phase), potential impacts associated with PEC sites would be comparable between the F-B LGA 

and the May 2014 Project.

There are no active or closed landfills within 0.25 mile of the May 2014 Project, while there are 

13 landfill sites located within 0.25 mile of the F-B LGA footprint; of these, only one is identified as 

active, and that site is a low-risk inert waste site (Valley Tree & Construction Disposal) located at 

the edge of the study area. In addition to the Valley Tree & Construction Disposal site, six sites 

are located (or likely located) within the construction footprint; these sites include: West Oildale 

Burn Dump; Williams Street Waste Tire Pile; Group Tires; Ceres West Compost Operation; 

McCoy’s Tire; and Kern County Transit Co., Inc. None of these sites have a history of buried 

waste, and all are classified as having a low potential for methane gas release. For both the F-B 

LGA and the May 2014 Project, the existing regulatory framework minimizes explosion risk; 

potential impacts associated with the presence of landfills are therefore comparable between the 

May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA and would be less than significant under CEQA.

As discussed above under Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontology, there are 17 more 

oil/gas wells located within 150 feet of the May 2014 Project footprint than the F-B LGA (28 

versus 11). All construction and grading work conducted within 100 feet of an oil/gas well should 

be coordinated with the DOGGR, and active wells would be capped and abandoned, or relocated. 

More activities associated with the capping, abandonment, or relocation of oil and gas wells 

would be required under the May 2014 Project than under the F-B LGA, due to the increased 

concentration of oil and gas wells. However, due to the same application of well 

capping/abandonment/relocation activities under either project, potential impacts would occur in 

the same way under the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA, and the same types of mitigation 

actions would be required.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-80 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

In addition, potential impacts associated with the presence of airports/airstrips/heliports, 

educational facilities, and wildlands are comparable between the F-B LGA and the May 2014 

Project, because the same precautions associated with the transport, use, handling, and storage 

of hazardous materials would be implemented under each, thereby minimizing or avoiding 

impacts.

Overall, potential impacts related to hazardous wastes and materials are considered relatively 

comparable between the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA because, although there are some 

quantitative differences between the alignments (such as the number of PEC sites), the same 

pre-project coordination and mitigation efforts would occur under both projects, and ultimately 

impacts associated with hazardous materials and wastes would be comparable. 

Safety and Security

Summary of May 2014 Project Safety and Security Impacts

This section provides details on safety issues related to construction and operation of the 

May 2014 Project, including the measures and regulations currently in place, or that would be 

implemented to keep employees, passengers, pedestrians, bicyclists, and motorists safe from 

activities related to the May 2014 Project. This section also considers security issues that could 

result from criminal acts that could affect operation and the ability for emergency responders to 

respond to incidents. The May 2014 Project is the comparable portion of the Preferred Alternative 

used to compare impacts to the F-B LGA. 

Methodology 

The study area for direct safety and security effects includes the May 2014 Project right-of-way, 

areas adjacent to the construction footprint, and the area within a 0.5-mile radius of the Truxtun 

Avenue Station. The indirect effects study area is made up of parcels (within the F-B LGA 

Footprint) in the cities of Shafter and Bakersfield, as well as parcels in Kern County between 

these cities. The safety and security evaluation also includes certain services (e.g., fire 

departments, police departments, and hospitals) that are not located within the study area but 

have service boundaries or would provide service within the study area, as well as airports and 

high-risk facilities within 2 miles of the May 2014 Project footprint.

For safety, issues addressed include future rail system operations, such as:

• Train travel

• Vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian access at the station

• Emergency response by fire, law enforcement, and emergency services to fire, seismic

events, or other emergency situations

For security, the analysis evaluates impacts associated with crimes against people and property, 

including acts of terrorism.

Impacts

Fire departments, police stations, schools, heliports, and hospitals are shown on Figure 8-A-20

and Figure 8-A-21. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-81

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-20 May 2014 Project and Safety-Related Facilities (Shafter)
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-82 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-21 May 2014 Project and Safety-Related Facilities (Bakersfield)
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-83

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Fire Departments

Two fire departments serve the region and would provide support to the May 2014 Project: Kern 

County Fire Department and Bakersfield Fire Department. 

Law Enforcement

Three police departments (Shafter Police Department, Kern County Sherriff Department, and 

Bakersfield Police Department) and 10 law enforcement offices would provide services to the 

May 2014 Project study area.

Hospitals

Seven hospitals provide emergency medical services to the May 2014 Project study area: 

Bakersfield Memorial Hospital, Bakersfield Heart Hospital, Healthsouth Bakersfield Rehabilitation 

Hospital, Kern Medical Center, Mercy Hospital, Mercy Southwest Hospital, and San Joaquin 

Community Hospital. Two air ambulance services operate in the study area: the San Joaquin 

Community Hospital and the Kern Medical Center.

Airports and Heliports

No airports are located within 2 miles of the May 2014 Project. However, heliports are located at 

three hospitals/medical centers in Bakersfield within 2 miles of the May 2014 Project alignment: 

San Joaquin Community Hospital, Kern Medical Center, and Memorial Hospital.

Vehicular, Rail and Airports, and Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety

Thirty-six at-grade crossings are within the May 2014 Project footprint. Twenty-two 

accidents/incidents have occurred on these crossings since January 2004 (as of February 9, 

2016), resulting in three fatalities and 21 injuries. 

Schools 

There are 22 schools within 0.25 mile of the May 2014 Project. 

• Bakersfield Adult School

• Bakersfield High School

• Bakersfield Play Center

• Bethel Christian School

• Blanton Education Center

• Country Christian School, Inc.

• Franklin Elementary School

• Free Will Christian Academy

• Fruitvale Junior High School

• Greenacres School

• International College

• Kern County Child Development Centers

• Kern High School District

• Owens Intermediate Elementary School

• Preferred College of Nursing Bakersfield

• Redwood Elementary School

• Richland Junior High

• Rosedale Middle School

• Shafter Kiddie Kollege

• Stockdale Learning Center

• Vista East Continuation School

• Warriors for Christ Academy
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-84 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

High-Risk Facilities and Fall Hazards

The following high-risk facilities pose explosion threats along the May 2014 Project alignment: 

• Verdugo Ozone Treatment Facility,

• Flying J Refinery,

• Industrial Chemical Storage, and

• GEO Drilling Fluids, Inc.

Tall structures pose a safety hazard because of their potential to topple onto HSR facilities due to 

accidents, severe weather, or terrorist acts. Tall structures that pose a safety hazard along the 

May 2014 Project alignment includes: 

• Cell tower (Northeastern side of 7th Standard Road and Nord Avenue, Kern County).could

increase response times and require new or physically altered government facilities that

might impact the environment. As mitigation, emergency response to station and HMF

incidents would be monitored, and if determined that the May 2014 Project does result in

increased demand, a fair share impact fee to local service providers would be negotiated.

• Water tower (Near D Street and 16th Street, Bakersfield, CA)

As described above, the May 2014 Project could increase demand for local emergency 

responders around the station due to station activity and associated redevelopment and 

economic activity. Construction of the May 2014 Project would only contribute a temporary 

increase in emergency response times and, as part of the project design, the Authority would 

develop a construction transportation plan with local jurisdictions to minimize project effects on 

emergency response times.

Avoidance and minimization measures, plans, and protocols developed as part of the May 2014 

Project would avoid or minimize most adverse safety and security effects. Mitigation Measure 

S&S – MM #1 would reduce the impact to a less-than-significant level. Safety and security effects 

with implementation of the May 2014 Project would be negligible.

Comparison between the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA

Impacts associated with the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA are generally comparable for 

safety and security as shown in Table 8-A-32. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-85

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-32 Safety and Security Impact Comparison between the F-B LGA and May 2014 

Project

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Fire Departments There are two fire departments in the region 

that would provide support to the May 2014 

Project.

There are two fire departments in the region 

that would provide support to the F-B LGA. 

Law Enforcement There are three departments and 10 law 

enforcement offices that would provide 

services to the May 2014 Project. 

There are three departments and 10 law 

enforcement offices that would provide 

services to the F-B LGA. 

Hospitals Seven hospitals provide emergency medical 

services to the May 2014 Project study 

area. Two air ambulance services operate 

in the study area.

Seven hospitals provide emergency medical 

services to the F-B LGA study area. Two air 

ambulance services operate in the study 

area.

Airports and Heliports In the Bakersfield area, there are heliports 

at three hospitals/medical centers within 2 

miles of the May 2014 Project. 

In the Bakersfield area, there are heliports 

at three hospitals/medical centers within 2 

miles of the F-B LGA. The Project is also 

within 2 miles of a public-services airport

Vehicular, Rail and 

Airports, and 

Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Safety

Nineteen at-grade crossings are located 

within the Project footprint. Seventeen

accidents have occurred on these crossings 

since January 2004 (as of February 9, 

2016), resulting in two fatalities and 18

injuries

Ten at-grade crossings are located within 

the F-B LGA footprint. Eight accidents have 

occurred on these crossings since January 

2004 (as of February 9, 2016), resulting in 

two fatalities and forty-one injuries.

Schools There are 22 schools within 0.25 mile of the 

May 2014 Project. 

There are 16 schools within 0.25 mile of the

F-B LGA. Temporary and permanent

easements would be required for impacts to

Valley Oaks Charter School and Free Will

Christian Academy.

High-Risk Facilities 

and Fall Hazards

There are four high-risk facilities (Verdugo 

Ozone Treatment Facility, Flying J Refinery, 

Industrial Chemical Storage, and GEO 

Drilling Fluids, Inc.) and two tall structures 

along the May 2014 Project. 

There are three high-risk facilities

(Halliburton, Rain-for-Rent, and the 

Gleaners) and 13 tall structures along the FB LGA. 

= least-impact alternative

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

The fire and law enforcement departments and hospitals that would provide services to the F-B 

LGA are the same as those for the May 2014 Project. Three heliports are located within 2 miles of 

both the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA, and one public-service airport is located within 2 

miles of the F-B LGA, whereas no public-service airports are located within 2 miles of the May 

2014 Project. 

Ten at-grade crossings are located within the F-B LGA footprint. Eight accidents/incidents have 

occurred on these crossings since January 2004 (as of February 9, 2016), resulting in two

fatalities and forty-one injuries. The crossings within the May 2014 Project footprint have resulted 

in more accidents/incidents but have resulted in the same number of fatalities, but fewer injuries

when compared to the F-B LGA. Implementation of the F-B LGA through Shafter would result in 

the elimination of seven BNSF at-grade crossings as both the HSR and BNSF would be placed 

on retained fill. Such design would eliminate at-grade crossings resulting in the elimination of 

pedestrian and vehicle conflicts with BNSF currently experienced throughout the city of Shafter. 

Sixteen (16) schools are located within 0.25 mile of the F-B LGA construction footprint. Notably, a 

portion of the F-B LGA construction footprint would be located on two parcels occupied by Valley 

Oaks Charter School and Free Will Christian Academy. Temporary construction easements 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-86 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

would more than likely be required for these parcels occupied by these two schools and a 

permanent easement would be required to accommodate the 34th Street access for Valley Oaks 

Charter School, which would directly impact one of the school’s buildings.

Socioeconomics and Communities

Summary of May 2014 Project Socioeconomics and Communities Impacts

This section provides an examination of the environmental and economic consequences 

associated with character and cohesion in communities and neighborhoods; acquisition of 

residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural property; fiscal implications for school districts 

and county and city governments; and employment effects related to construction and operation 

of the May 2014 Project. 

Detailed demographic analysis of socioeconomics and communities, including race, ethnicity, 

income, and housing characteristics, as well as property displacements and relocation impacts for 

the May 2014 Project is provided in the F-B LGA Draft Community Impact Assessment and 

Relocation Impact (CIA) Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2017a). 

Methodology 

The study area for direct and indirect impacts on population and communities is defined as the 

0.5-mile radius from the centerline of the May 2014 Project, as well as the 0.5-mile radius around 

the Truxtun Avenue Station location or access points and around other project facilities.

In order to perform a direct comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA, 

displacement data for the segment of the May 2014 Project that spans the area from Shafter to 

Bakersfield (i.e., the segment between the northern and southern termini of the F-B LGA) was 

updated to account for any changes that have occurred since the analysis performed for the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section: CIA Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2012g). This update 

includes displacement information for residential units, commercial properties, agricultural land, 

and community facilities. 

Impacts

Potential impacts that would result from the May 2014 Project would include the disruption and 

division of communities and economic effects. Many of these impacts are related to the 

displacement and relocation of residences, businesses, agricultural operations, and community 

facilities as a result of property acquisitions for the May 2014 Project. In the segment of the May 

2014 Project that corresponds to the study area for the F-B LGA, the May 2014 Project would 

result in displacement of 384 homes, 392 businesses, and 11 community facilities as shown in

Table 8-A-33.

Table 8-A-33 Displacements under the May 2014 Project

Location Number of Displacements

Residential Units Businesses Community Facilities

City of Shafter 4 10 0 

City of Bakersfield 143 185 8 

Unincorporated Kern County 237 197 3

Total 384 392 11

Sources: Kern County 2015b, Reference USA 2015

Residential Displacements

As shown in Table 8-A-34, the May 2014 Project would result in the displacement of 

approximately 384 residential units, correlating to an estimated 1,205 residents. The majority of 

these displacements would occur in unincorporated Kern County, where 237 households and 

747 residents would be displaced. A similar number of displacements would occur in the city of 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-87

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Bakersfield, where 143 units and 443 residents would be displaced. The remaining displacements 

include 4 units and 15 residents in the city of Shafter. The May 2014 Project does not cross 

through the community of Oildale, and therefore no displacements would occur in this area.

Table 8-A-34 Residential Displacements under the May 2014 Project

Location Residential Units Displaced Estimated Residents to be Relocated

City of Shafter 4 15

City of Bakersfield 143 443

Unincorporated Kern 

County

237 747

Total 384 1,205

Sources: Kern County 2015b, U.S. Census Bureau 2010

Relocations of Sensitive Populations

The presence of sensitive populations in the vicinity of the May 2014 Project was examined in 

Section 5.1.1.2 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Draft Supplemental Community Impact Assessment 

Technical Report (F-B LGA CIA; Authority and FRA 2017a).The analysis suggests that 

displacements in these districts may affect high numbers of sensitive populations, including 

disabled, female head-of-household populations, and linguistically isolated populations in the 

Northeast District of Bakersfield. Relocation plans and resources provided would take the special 

needs of these populations into account, and therefore impacts to sensitive populations would not 

be substantial. 

Business Relocations and Displacements 

As shown in Table 8-A-35, the May 2014 Project would require the relocation of approximately 

392 commercial-industrial businesses, including the Kern County Mental Health office and the 

Bakersfield Homeless Center. Bakersfield’s Northeast District is home to the Mercado Latino 

Tianguis, which would be displaced along with all its associated businesses. Four of the 

businesses in the Northeast District use railroad spurs for access to the BNSF railroad. 

Therefore, these businesses would require special relocation consideration to ensure continued 

access to the BNSF in their new locations. 

Table 8-A-35 Agricultural Business Impacts under the May 2014 Project

Split 

Agricultural 

Parcels

Displaced 

Facilities 

(Parcels)

Percent of Annual 

County Crop Revenue 

Lost

Estimated 

Revenue Loss

Number of 

Jobs Lost

10 1 0.1% $3,846,476 16

Sources: Kern County 2015a, U.S. Department of Agriculture 2015.

Agricultural Displacements 

Table 8-A-35 shows the estimated number of split agricultural parcels, displaced facilities, and 

loss in agricultural businesses and associated jobs as a result of the May 2014 Project. 

The intensity of effects on agricultural production as a result of land acquisition would be 

moderate in the short term and negligible in the long term, as farm operations logically reallocate 

land resources and relocate agricultural facilities. 

Community Facilities 

As discussed in Section 5.2.5, Community Facilities, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section: CIA 

Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2012g) the HSR project alignments considered under all of 

the alternatives, including the alternatives that included May 2014 Project, would avoid most 

community facilities and other properties that provide public services, and would not result in 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-88 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

takings of police or fire stations, libraries, post offices, or civic centers. Overall, the May 2014 

Project would result in the displacement of eleven community facilities, including the Mercado, 

Bakersfield Homeless Center, Kern County Mental Health facility, and several businesses and 

ancillary facilities associated with the Mercy Hospital medical complex. The May 2014 Project 

would also directly affect two religious facilities in the Bakersfield area. Both of these religious 

facilities would remain on a parcel that is partially acquired. Section 5.1.1.5, Community Facilities, 

of the F-B LGA CIA (Authority and FRA 2017a) offers detailed information about specific 

properties that would be affected by the May 2014 Project. 

School District Impacts

School district funding is obtained from property taxes and state aid; however, the amount of 

funding that is available to the school system is dependent on student attendance, and the 

relocation of large populations of students outside existing school districts could, therefore, 

reduce funding for the affected school districts. 

The May 2014 Project would result in many residential displacements in the city of Bakersfield 

and the surrounding areas. The elementary school district with the largest number of 

displacements would be the Rosedale Elementary School District, with 177 residential relocations 

and 82 potentially affected students in a school district with 5,397 students enrolled (Table 8-A36). In the Kern Union High School District, which encompasses the entire study area, the 

alternative would result in 384 residential relocations and 101 potentially affected students in a 

school district with 37,318 students enrolled. Table 8-A-36 provides a list of the remaining districts 

and associated relocations that would potentially occur under the May 2014 Project.

Table 8-A-36 May 2014 Project Residential Displacements by School Districts

School District Residential Units 

Relocated

Estimated Students 

Affected

School District 

Enrolment (2014––15)

Richland Elementary 8 6 3,530

Norris Elementary 1 1 1,753

Rosedale Elementary 177 82 5,397

Fruitvale Elementary 43 22 3,259

Bakersfield City Elementary 137 70 30,076

Fairfax Elementary 18 8 2,412

Kern Union High 384 101 37,318

Sources: Kern County 2015b, Reference USA 2015, U.S. Census Bureau 2010, California Department of Education 2015, Fresno to Bakersfield 

Supplemental Community Impact Assessment Technical Report (Authority and FRA 2017a) 

As described in Section 5.1.1.1 of the F-B LGA CIA (Authority and FRA 2017a), a suitable 

amount of vacant replacement housing is available in the vicinity of all anticipated displacements 

that would occur under this alternative. Students, therefore, would likely have the opportunity to 

remain in their current school districts, and any effect on school district funding would be small.

Property Tax Effects

Tax Revenue Reductions. Along the May 2014 Project, displacement of residences, businesses, 

and agricultural lands would result in estimated annual losses of $4.2 million in property tax 

revenue to county and city budgets in the region. This estimated amount represents 

approximately 1. 2 percent of the total 2013/14 fiscal year property tax revenue of the county and 

cities in the study area. The total annual losses in Kern County would be approximately 

$3,418,000, while losses in the cities of Shafter and Bakersfield would be approximately $18,000

and $715,000, respectively. Property tax losses could be balanced over the long run by the 

increased property tax revenues associated with the intensification of land uses and ensuing 

increased property values resulting from the HSR project (F-B LGA CIA [Authority and FRA 

2017a]). A complete literature review on the impacts of related transportation projects on property 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-89

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

values is provided in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section: CIA Technical Report (Authority and FRA 

2012g).

Sales Tax Revenue Losses Associated with Business Displacements

Table 8-A-37 provides the overall estimated annual sales tax losses associated with business 

relocations by jurisdiction and the percentage of total jurisdictional sales tax revenue these losses 

represent. The May 2014 Project would result in a total loss of approximately $523,000 in annual 

sales tax revenues to the local jurisdictions impacted by this alternative, amounting to 

approximately 0.4 percent of the total sales tax collected in these jurisdictions. The largest 

percentage effect would occur in Shafter, where annual sales taxes revenue losses to the city 

would amount to approximately $237,000, or 1.6 percent of the city’s total sales tax revenue 

receipts. This effect is due to potential effects to large industrial companies, including Farm Pump 

and Irrigation Company Inc., IFCO Systems, Helena Chemical Company, and Wilbur-Ellis 

Company. Annual sales tax revenue losses in unincorporated Kern County and the city of 

Bakersfield would be approximately $108,000 and $178,000, respectively (F–B LGA CIA 

[Authority and FRA 2017a]). 

These sales tax revenue losses would generally be temporary because they would occur during 

the time when affected businesses are closed for HSR project construction or while displaced 

businesses relocate to a new location, in many cases in the same taxing jurisdiction. Once the 

businesses reopen, sales tax revenue generation would resume. Overall, these percentages 

would present a small impact, though for jurisdictions confronting revenue shortfalls and budget 

constraints, even a minor loss of annual revenue could cumulatively have a considerable effect 

(F–B LGA CIA [Authority and FRA 2017a]).

Table 8-A-37 Estimated Annual Sales Tax Losses by Jurisdiction under the May 2014 

Project (in 2015 dollars)

Area Lost Sales Tax Revenues Lost Sales Tax Revenues (%)

Unincorporated Kern County $107,925 0.24%

City of Shafter $236,958 1.60%

City of Bakersfield $178,017 0.25%

Total $522,900 0.40%

Sources: California State Board of Equalization 2015, City of Bakersfield 2015a, City of Shafter 2015, Kern County 2015a and 2015b, Reference 

USA 2015, U.S. Census Bureau 2010

Construction-Related Sales Tax Revenue Gains

An estimated increase in sales tax revenues is expected for the counties and cities of the region 

as a result of spending in the region for HSR project construction. Regional construction 

expenditures on materials and supplies across the entire Fresno to Bakersfield section of the 

HSR project are estimated to be around $773.4 million, with $343.1 million of this spending 

attributable to the May 2014 Project. The total local sales tax revenue gains generated from this 

spending would be approximately $3.79 million, amounting to average annual gains of $632,000 

per year over the six-year construction period.

The sales tax revenues lost from displaced businesses under this alternative are estimated to be 

approximately $523,000 per year. The construction-related sales tax gains would help to offset 

these losses, reducing them to approximately $109,000 per year over the construction period (FB LGA CIA [Authority and FRA 2017a]). 

Operation-Related Sales Tax Revenue Gains

Operation of the HSR project under all alternatives, including the May 2014 Project, would result 

in annual sales tax gains for local jurisdictions in Kern County of approximately $477,000. Sales 

tax losses associated with displacements that would occur as a result of the project would begin 

to decrease as displaced businesses become re-established at new locations and new 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-90 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

businesses move in to replace those that did not reopen. Project operation, therefore, is expected 

to have an overall positive impact on sales taxes collected by local governments under the May 

2014 Project (F-B LGA CIA [Authority and FRA 2017a]). 

Regional Job Creation

These long-term employment effects from the HSR project were estimated in a 2010 study 

conducted by Cambridge Systematics Inc., which found that all of the alternatives studied in the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS would result in the creation of approximately the 

same number of regional long-term jobs (Cambridge Systematics Inc. 2010). For a description of 

projected long-term job creation related to the HSR project, please see Section 5.1.2.2, Longterm Job Creation and public facilities, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section: CIA Technical Report 

(Authority and FRA 2012g). Given that these employment effects are regional, job inducement 

would be similar under the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA as well. The existing labor force is 

anticipated to fill the demand. Consequently, the potential physical impacts from the short-term 

provision of new or altered public services would have no effect.

Comparison between the F-B LGA and the May 2014 Project

Residential Displacements

As the F-B LGA would follow existing and long-established highway and railroad corridors 

through the urban areas, and would not pass through established neighborhoods, it would cause 

less disruption than the May 2014 Project, which traverses residential areas in the Northwest 

District of Bakersfield. Additionally, the F-B LGA would not pass through the community of 

Crome, where approximately one-third of the homes and the only church in this community would 

be displaced under the May 2014 Project (Fresno to Bakersfield Supplemental CIA Technical 

Report [Authority and FRA 2017a]). 

Table 8-A-38 shows the relative differences in the number of displacements under each 

alternative. The F-B LGA would result in fewer residential displacements and fewer community 

facility displacements than the May 2014 Project, decreasing by a total of 298 homes and 

4 facilities. There would also be 15 fewer business displacements under the F-B LGA. 

Table 8-A-38 Comparison of Displacements under the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

Number of Displacements May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Residential Units 384 86

Businesses 392 377

Community Facilities 11 7 

Sources: Kern County 2015b and Reference USA 2015

= least-impact alternative

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

In addition to estimating residential displacements associated with each of the alternatives, this 

analysis provides a summary of the difference in impacts between the two alternatives. Table 

8-A-38 shows the relative differences in the estimated number of residential units and associated

residents displaced under each alternative.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-91

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-39 Comparison of Residential Displacements under the May 2014 Project and FB LGA

Location May 2014 

Project

F-B LGA May 2014 

Project

F-B LGA

Residential Units Displaced Estimated Residents to be Relocated

City of Shafter 4 3 15 12

Community of Oildale -- 23 -- 62

City of Bakersfield 143 29 443 90

Unincorporated Kern County1 237 31 747 98

Total 384 86 1,205 262

Sources: Kern County 2015b and Reference USA 2015 1 This area represents unincorporated Kern County less the portion included in the community of Oildale.

= least-impact alternative

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

As seen in the table, the F-B LGA would result in 298 fewer residential unit displacements than 

the May 2014 Project, which amounts to 943 fewer residents being displaced. As discussed 

above, sufficient residential units are available to accommodate displaced residents under either 

of the alternatives, and therefore no additional housing would need to be constructed as a result 

of the HSR project (F-B LGA CIA [Authority and FRA 2017a]). 

Relocations of Sensitive Populations

Comparisons suggest that residential displacements from the community of Oildale may include a 

large percentage of disabled residents and households with a female head of household. As 

these populations are considered sensitive, relocation plans would take into consideration the 

provision of additional resources and assistance in terms of relocation services for these 

individuals. Therefore, under both the F-B LGA and the May 2014 Project, effects to sensitive 

populations would not be significant.

Business Relocations and Displacements

The relative differences in the estimated number of businesses and associated employees 

displaced under each alternative are presented in Table 8-A-40. 

Table 8-A-40 Comparison of Business Relocations under the May 2014 Project and F-B 

LGA 

Location May 2014 

Project

F-B LGA May 2014 

Project

F-B LGA

Businesses Relocated Estimated Employees Relocated

City of Shafter 10 25 222 317

Community of Oildale -- 42 -- 673

City of Bakersfield 185 118 1,590 820

Unincorporated Kern 

County1

197 192 1,044 1,322

Total 392 377 2,857 3,132

Sources: Kern County 2015b, Reference USA 2015 1 This area represents unincorporated Kern County less the portion included in the community of Oildale.

= least-impact alternative

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-92 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-40 indicates that the F-B LGA would result in the displacement of 15 fewer businesses, 

but 277 more employees when compared to the May 2014 Project. Many of the business 

relocations that would occur under the F-B LGA and not under the May 2014 Project are located 

in the community of Oildale, where the alignment would run though a heavily industrial area that 

would be avoided by the May 2014 Project. Table 8-A-41 provides a comparison of the types of 

businesses that would be relocated under the May 2014 Project versus the F-B LGA. 

Table 8-A-41 Comparison of Business Sector Relocations under the May 2014 Project and 

the F-B LGA

Description and NAICS Codes May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Agricultural: 11 2 5 

Agricultural and Industrial (Construction/ 

Manufacturing/ Utilities/ Mining): 21, 23, 31-33 47 52

Commercial / Wholesale / Retail / Offices : 42, 44-45, 

51-56 195 199

Transportation and Warehousing: 48-49 10 13

Automotive Repair and Services: 811 33 34

Accommodation, food service, other non-automotive 

services: 61-62, 71-72, other 81 codes, 99 105 74

Total 392 377

Sources: Kern County 2015b, Reference USA 2015

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

NAICS = North American Industry Classification System

As shown in Table 8-A-41, the types of businesses that would be relocated under the May 2014 

Project and the F-B LGA are similar. The May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA business 

relocations would be comparable among the various business sectors, but the biggest difference 

is in the accommodation, food service, other non-automotive category, which would experience 

31 more relocations under the May 2014 Project than the F-B LGA. As discussed, sufficient 

replacement space for these businesses is available under either of the alternatives. The overall 

impact of these relocations on business operations, however, would be significant under either 

alternative.

Agricultural Displacements

The relative differences in the estimated number of split agricultural parcels, displaced facilities, 

and loss in agricultural businesses and associated jobs under each alternative are presented in 

the bottom row of Table 8-A-42. Negative values indicate that the F-B LGA has less of an impact 

than the May 2014 Project. 

Table 8-A-42 Comparison of Agricultural Business Impacts under the F-B LGA, relative to 

the May 2014 Project1

Alternative Split 

Agricultural 

Parcels

Displaced 

Facilities 

(Parcels)

Percent of Annual 

County Crop 

Revenue Lost

Estimated 

Revenue 

Loss

Number of 

Jobs Lost

May 2014 Project 10 1 0.1% $3,846,476 16

F-B LGA 22 1 0.1% $3,709,703 17

Relative Difference 12 0 0.0% -$136,772 1

Sources: Kern County 2015a, U.S. Department of Agriculture 2015 1 Negative values indicate that the F-B LGA has less of an impact than the May 2014 Project.

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-93

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

As seen in Table 8-A-42, the F-B LGA would result in an additional 12 agricultural parcels being 

split into two or more pieces by the HSR project footprint, relative to the May 2014 Project. The 

number of displaced agricultural facilities and the numbers of jobs lost would, however, be 

consistent between the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA. Although the F-B LGA would result in 

a lower impact to agricultural revenues, by approximately $136,772, the total effect to revenue 

loss under both alternatives is relatively small, representing approximately 0.1 percent of the 

County’s total annual agricultural production. The total effect of both the May 2014 Project and FB LGA on agricultural business operations, therefore, would be moderate in the short term and 

negligible in the long term.

Community Facilities

The total number of community facilities of each type that would be displaced or directly affected 

under the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA is presented in Table 8-A-43.12 In total, the F-B LGA

would result in four fewer displaced facilities and one fewer directly affected facility when 

compared to the May 2014 Project. 

Table 8-A-43 Comparison of Displaced and Affected Community Facilities under the F-B 

LGA, relative to the May 2014 Project1

Alternative Public 

Safety

Public 

Buildings

Schools Cultural/ 

Community 

Resources

Medical 

Facilities 

Religious

Facilities 

Affordable 

Housing 

Complex

Total

Displaced Community Facilities

May 2014 

Project

0 3 0 2 3 2 1 11

F-B LGA 0 3 1 3 0 0 0 7 

Relative 

Difference

0 0 1 1 -3 -2 -1 -4

Directly Affected Community Facilities

May 2014 

Project

0 4 0 2 1 2 0 9

F-B LGA 0 5 0 1 1 1 0 8

Relative 

Difference

0 1 0 -1 0 -1 0 -1

Sources: Kern County 2015a and U.S. Department of Agriculture 2015. 1 Negative values indicate that the F-B LGA has less of an impact than the May 2014 Project.

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

Although both alternatives would result in impacts to community facilities, the specific facilities 

impacted would vary. Common effects between the alternatives are that neither of the 

alternatives would displace nor directly affect any facilities related to public safety. Both 

alternatives, however, would result in displacement of the Bakersfield Homeless Center. While 

the May 2014 Project would result in displacement of the Mercado, the F-B LGA would only affect 

the north end of the property and would encroach into approximately 45 feet of the building. The 

F-B LGA would displace two and directly affect an additional three public buildings housing

government agencies and would displace one building of a charter school, while the May 2014

Project would not displace or directly affect any schools. The F-B LGA would not result in the

displacement of any medical facilities, while the May 2014 Project would displace three. The F-B

12 Note that the list of affected and displaced community facilities includes only facilities that are partially or fully in the 

project footprint, (no longer including those that are adjacent or within 100 feet), consistent with the methodology used in 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Section: Community Impact Assessment Technical Report [[Authority and FRA 2012g]). 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-94 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

LGA would result in direct effects to one fewer cultural/community resource than the May 2014 

Project (F-B LGA CIA [Authority and FRA 2017a]).

School District Impacts

Table 8-A-44 shows the relative differences in the estimated number of residential units and 

associated students displaced in each school district under each alternative. 

Table 8-A-44 Comparison of Residential Displacements by School District under the F-B 

LGA, relative to the May 2014 Project1

School District Residential Units 

Relocated

Estimated Students 

Affected

School District 

Enrolment (2014––15)

Richland Elementary -5 -4 3,530

Rosedale Elementary -177 -82 5,397

Norris Elementary -1 -1 4,073

Fruitvale Elementary -43 -22 3,259

Beardsley Elementary 223 11 1,753

Bakersfield City Elementary -91 -48 30,076

Fairfax Elementary -4 -1 2,412

Kern Union High -298 -79 37,318

Sources: County of Kern 2015b, Reference USA 2015, U.S. Census Bureau 2010, California Department of Education 2015

1Negative values indicate that the F-B LGA has less of an impact than the May 2014 Project. 

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

As seen in the table, the F-B LGA would result in fewer residential unit displacements and 

associated affected students in six elementary school districts and in the Kern Union High School 

District. The Beardsley Elementary School District would experience more displacements under 

the F-B LGA. The total effect of the F-B LGA relative to the May 2014 Project would be a 

reduction in the number of residential displacements, amounting to 298 units and an associated 

147 elementary school students and 79 high school students. Although the F-B LGA would result 

in fewer displacements and associated affected students, sufficient relocation properties are 

available under either alternative and the effect on school district funding would be small under 

both the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA.

Property Tax Effects

The relative differences in the estimated losses in annual property tax revenues under each 

alternative are presented in Table 8-A-45. Positive values indicate that the F-B LGA would have

more of an impact than the May 2014 Project, while negative values indicate that the F-B LGA

would have less of an impact than the May 2014 Project. 

Table 8-A-45 Comparison of Annual Property Tax Losses by Jurisdiction under the F-B 

LGA, relative to the May 2014 Project (in 2015 dollars)1

Area Lost Property Tax Revenues Lost Property Tax Revenues (%)

Kern County -$471,944 -0.18%

City of Shafter -$2,538 -0.24%

City of Bakersfield -$98,780 -0.15%

Total -$573,261 -0.17%

Sources: California State Board of Equalization 2016, City of Bakersfield 2015a, City of Shafter 2015, County of Kern 2015a, 2015b

1Negative values indicate that the F-B LGA has less of an impact than the May 2014 Project. 

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-95

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

As seen in Table 8-A-45, property tax revenues to local jurisdictions would be more heavily 

impacted by the May 2014 Project than the F-B LGA, with additional losses of approximately 

$1,573,000 per year, or 0.2 percent of total property tax receipts by these jurisdictions.

Sales Tax Revenue Losses Associated with Business Developments

The relative differences in the estimated losses in annual sales tax revenues under each 

alternative are presented in Table 8-A-46. Positive values indicate that the F-B LGA would have 

more of an impact than the May 2014 Project, while negative values indicate that the F-B LGA

would have less of an impact than the May 2014 Project. 

Table 8-A-46 Comparison of Annual Sales Tax Losses by Jurisdiction under the F-B LGA, 

relative to the May 2014 Project (in 2015 dollars)1

Area Lost Sales Tax Revenues Lost Sales Tax Revenues (%)

Unincorporated Kern County $216,738 0.49%

City of Shafter $8,787 0.06%

City of Bakersfield -$95,177 -0.13%

Total $130,349 0.10%

Sources: California State Board of Equalization 2015, City of Bakersfield 2015a, City of Shafter 2015, County of Kern 2015a and 2015b, Reference 

USA 2015, U.S. Census Bureau 2010 1 Negative values indicate that the F-B LGA has less of an impact than the May 2014 Project. 

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

The F-B LGA would result in higher losses of sales tax revenues than the May 2014 Project, 

amounting to a total of approximately $130,000 (0.1 percent of the total sales tax revenues 

collected in these jurisdictions) more in losses than the May 2014 Project. Most of these losses 

are attributed to displacement of businesses in unincorporated Kern County, primarily in the 

metropolitan area of Bakersfield. The F-B LGA would result in reduced losses of sales tax 

revenue in the incorporated boundary of Bakersfield, relative to the May 2014 Project. 

Construction-Related Sales Tax Revenue Gains

The local construction expenditures on materials and supplies under the May 2014 Project are 

estimated to be $343.1 million, while the associated local sales tax revenues generated are 

estimated to be around $3.79 million, amounting to an average of $632,000 annually over the sixyear construction period. The sales tax revenues lost from displaced businesses under this 

alternative are estimated to be approximately $523,000 per year. The construction-related sales 

tax gains would help to offset these losses, reducing them to approximately $109,000 per year 

over the construction period.

The local construction expenditures on materials and supplies under the F-B LGA are estimated 

to be $318.7 million, while the associated local sales tax revenues generated are estimated to be 

around $3.54 million, amounting to an average of $589,000 annually over the six-year

construction period. The sales tax revenues lost from displaced businesses under this alternative 

are estimated to be approximately $653,000 per year. The sales tax losses from displaced 

businesses would outweigh sales tax gains from construction activities by $64,000 per year 

during the construction period. Construction of the F-B LGA portion of the Fresno to Bakersfield 

section of HSR project would therefore have an overall negative impact on sales tax revenues 

collected by local governments during the construction period. However, this net loss in sales tax 

equates to a 0.05 percent reduction in sales tax collected in the region, which would result in a 

negligible impact when compared to the total sales tax collected in the region.

Operation-Related Sales Tax Revenue Gains

Operation of the HSR project under all alternatives, including the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA, 

would result in annual sales tax gains for local jurisdictions in Kern County of approximately 

$477,000. Sales tax losses associated with displacements that would occur as a result of the 

project would begin to decrease as displaced businesses become re-established at new locations 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-96 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

and new businesses move in to replace those that did not reopen. Project operation, therefore, is 

expected to have an overall positive impact on sales taxes collected by local governments under 

both the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA. 

Regional Job Creation

The relative difference in regional job creation between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA is 

shown in Table 8-A-47. Positive values indicate that the May 2014 Project would create more 

employment opportunities than the F-B LGA. 

Table 8-A-47 Comparison of Regional Employment Creation under the F-B LGA, relative to 

the May 2014 Project (in one-year full-time job equivalents) 

Employment 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Total

Direct 34 110 157 110 34 445

Indirect and Induced 30 99 142 99 30 400

Total 64 209 299 209 64 845

Sources: Results from Bureau of Economic Analysis RIMS II multiplier analysis using data from the following sources: construction spending 

estimates for the F-B LGA, U.S. Department of Commerce 2014, U.S. Department of Labor 2016a, 2016b, 2016c, and 2016d

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

Both the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA would result in an increase in construction jobs in Kern 

County as a result of HSR project construction spending. In total, the May 2014 Project would 

result in 845 more one-year full-time job equivalents, with 445 of them being direct and 400 being 

indirect or induced (Table 8-A-47). These jobs are expected to be filled predominantly by local 

residents, and would not result in an increase in the demand for public services and associated 

requirements for new or altered government and public facilities.

Impacts associated with the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA are generally comparable for 

socioeconomics and communities as shown in Table 8-A-48. 

Table 8-A-48 Socioeconomics and Communities Impact Comparison between the May 

2014 Project and F-B LGA

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Residential 

Displacements

The May 2014 Project would result in 

displacement of 384 homes.

The F-B LGA

86 homes. 

would result in displacement of 

Relocations of 

Sensitive 

Populations

The analysis suggests that displacements in 

these districts may affect high numbers of 

sensitive populations, including disabled, 

female head-of-household populations, and 

linguistically isolated populations in the 

Northeast District.

Comparisons suggest that residential 

displacements from Oildale may include a 

large percentage of disabled residents and 

households with a female head of household.

Business 

Relocations and 

Displacements

The May 2014 Project would require 

relocation of 392 commercial-industrial 

businesses.

The F-B LGA would result 

of 377 businesses.

in the displacement 

Agricultural 

Displacements

The May 2014 Project would result in the split 

of 10 agricultural parcels into two or more 

pieces.

The F-B LGA would result in the split of 

22 agricultural parcels into two or more 

pieces. 

Community 

Facilities

The May 2014 Project would displace or 

directly affect 20 community facilities.

The F-B LGA would displace or 

15 community facilities.

directly affect 

School District 

Impacts 

The May 2014 Project would result in the 

relocation of 384 residential units and would 

therefore displace 101 students. 

The F-B LGA would displace 86 residential 

units and would therefore displace 

22 students.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-97

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Property Tax 

Effects 

Displacement of residences, businesses, and 

agricultural lands would result in estimated 

annual losses of $4.2 million in property tax 

revenue to county and city budgets in the 

region.

Displacement of residences, businesses, and 

agricultural lands would result in estimated 

annual losses of $3.6 million in property tax 

revenue to county and city budgets in the 

region.

Sales Tax 

Revenue Losses 

Associated with 

Business 

Developments

The May 2014 Project would result in a total 

loss of approximately $522,900 in annual 

sales tax revenues to the local jurisdictions 

impacted by this alternative.

The F-B LGA would result in a total loss of 

approximately $653,249 in annual sales tax 

revenues to the local jurisdictions impacted by 

this alternative.

ConstructionRelated Sales 

Tax Revenue 

Gains

The May 2014 Project has been estimated to 

generate $11.2 million in sales tax revenues 

for the region over the construction period. 

Increases in tax revenues for Kern County is 

estimated to be $2.8 million. 

The local construction expenditures on 

materials and supplies under the F-B LGA are 

estimated to be $318.7 million, while the 

associated local sales tax revenues generated 

are estimated to be around $3.53 million, 

amounting to an average of $589,000 annually 

over the six-year construction period. The 

sales tax revenues lost from displaced 

businesses under this alternative are 

estimated to be approximately $653,000 per 

year. The sales tax losses from displaced 

businesses would outweigh sales tax gains 

from construction activities by $64,000 per 

year during the construction period.

OperationRelated Sales 

Tax Revenue 

Gains

Operation of the HSR project under all 

alternatives, including the May 2014 Project, 

would result in annual sales tax gains for local 

jurisdictions in Kern County of approximately 

$477,000.

Operation of the HSR project under all 

alternatives, including the F-B LGA, would 

result in annual sales tax gains for local 

jurisdictions in Kern County of approximately 

$477,000.

Regional Job 

Creation

Given that these employment effects are 

regional, job inducement would be similar 

under the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA. 

The existing labor force is anticipated to fill the 

demand.

Given that these employment effects are 

regional, job inducement would be similar 

under the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA. 

The existing labor force is anticipated to fill the 

demand.

Cumulative Construction and operation of the HSR Project 

and other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects would result in a 

significant cumulative impact under CEQA due 

to division and/or disruption of communities in 

the cities of Shafter, and Bakersfield.

Construction and operation of the HSR Project 

and other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects would result in a 

significant cumulative impact under CEQA due 

to division and/or disruption of communities in 

the cities of Shafter and Bakersfield, as well 

as unincorporated community of Oildale.

= least-impact alternative

CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

HSR = high-speed rail

Overall, Table 8-A-48 indicates that the F-B LGA would have similar impacts associated to 

socioeconomics and communities when compared to the May 2014 Project. The F-B LGA would 

result in fewer impacts to residential displacements, business relocations, community facilities, 

school districts, and property tax effects whereas the May 2014 Project would result in fewer

impacts to agricultural displacements and sales tax revenue losses associated with business 

developments. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-98 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Station Planning, Land Use, and Development

Summary of May 2014 Project Station Planning, Land Use, and Development Impacts

This section identifies the potential effects of the project, both beneficial and adverse, on land 

use. This analysis focuses on how the project construction and operation would affect adjacent 

land uses, and the effects on downtown Bakersfield that would result from the construction and 

operation of the proposed station under the May 2014 Project. 

Methodology 

This analysis based the compatibility of the HSR alternatives on the potential sensitivity of various 

land uses to the changes that likely would result from project implementation. It also assesses the 

potential impact of these changes on the pattern and intensity of existing and planned land uses.

Impacts

Land Conversion

The May 2014 Project would result in permanent conversion of approximately 976 acres of land 

currently in other uses. The Truxtun Avenue Station would convert commercial, industrial, and 

community facility uses to transportation uses. The station would not substantially change the 

pattern and intensity of the use of the land, but it would be incompatible with many adjacent land 

uses. Overall, the effect of the permanent conversion of land for the May 2014 Project would be 

significant under CEQA. 

For the May 2014 Project, approximately 41 percent of the land that would be used permanently

for the HSR tracks and supporting facilities (e.g., traction power and communication systems) is 

currently in similar uses (i.e., rights-of-way and transportation) or is vacant land; 44 percent is in 

agricultural uses; and about five percent is in residential, commercial, and industrial uses.

In Shafter, the May 2014 Project would convert commercial and industrial uses adjacent to the 

BNSF to transportation uses in the project footprint. This conversion 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. The presence of the HSR would not change 

existing adjacent land uses, because the project would not induce development adjacent to the 

alignment. Development would be focused around the HSR stations. 

In metropolitan Bakersfield, the May 2014 Project follows the BNSF through a densely developed 

residential area from Hageman Road to Coffee Road, where there is already an incompatibility 

between the existing freight rail line and residential uses. This incompatibility would be enhanced 

by the HSR because the May 2014 Project would increase the intensity of land use, and it would 

be incompatible with adjacent residential land uses. From Coffee Road to SR 99 east of the Kern 

River, the May 2014 Project would convert industrial and commercial uses to transportation uses. 

In this area, the project would increase the intensity of land use, but it would be compatible with 

adjacent land uses and with existing land use plans and policies. East of SR 99 to the project 

terminus at the Truxtun Avenue Station, the May 2014 Project remains close to the BNSF; but the 

existing freight rail is incompatible with many adjacent land uses in this area, including the 

Bakersfield Homeless Center, community facilities flanking Truxtun Avenue, and the partially 

redeveloped Mill Creek area. The May 2014 Project would enhance this incompatibility by 

converting residential, commercial, and community facility uses and intensifying the transportation 

use for the area. East of the Truxtun Avenue Station to Oswell Street, the May 2014 Project 

would convert residential, commercial, and industrial uses to transportation uses. Conversion of 

this land would substantially change the pattern and intensity of land use and would be 

incompatible with adjacent land uses and existing plans and policies. Therefore, the land use 

effects of the May 2014 Project would be significant under CEQA.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-99

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Parking

Bakersfield ridership and parking demand would result in changes in demand for parking during 

the transition to the full HSR System. The downtown Truxtun Avenue Station would provide up to 

4,500 parking spaces after the station is completed, but the full 2035 parking demand is 

estimated to be 8,100 spaces (Authority and FRA 2014b). It is unknown at this time how the 

additional parking spaces would be secured. The initial 4,500 spaces would be provided in three 

or four parking structures. Even though four parking lots are currently located within 0.5 mile from 

the proposed station location, some parking spaces in these lots are used on a daily basis and 

are not available for HSR parking. Construction of any new parking garages in most commercial 

zones would result in land use changes but would not be incompatible because current zoning 

allows for the development of parking structures. In addition, dispersed parking options at the 

Truxtun Avenue Station would better encourage transit-oriented development because 

complementary land uses, rather than large parking structures could be located close to the 

station. The indirect land use effects of the May 2014 Project would not change the pattern or 

intensity of adjacent land uses.

Development

The Truxtun Avenue Station area is currently developed with a mix of commercial, community 

facility, and single family residential uses. The area around the station is developed with viable 

revenue-generating uses and public amenities including the Rabobank Arena, Theater, and 

Convention Center, large scale hotels, and the Beale Memorial Library, Bakersfield City Hall and 

other civic buildings. Approximately 2 percent of the Truxtun Avenue Station study area is 

currently vacant. Therefore, while the Truxtun Avenue Station would encourage higher-intensity 

development in the surrounding areas, opportunities for revitalization are limited. 

The Truxtun Avenue Station would convert commercial, industrial, and community facility uses to 

transportation uses. The station would not substantially change the pattern and intensity of the 

use of the land, but it would be incompatible with the adjacent land uses as stated in Section 

3.13.5.3 (page 3.13-46) of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 

2014b). These land uses consist of a mix of light industrial, institutional, commercial, and 

residential. The determination of incompatibility in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS 

was based on input from the City of Bakersfield, which noted that the Preferred Alternative 

alignment identified in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS would severely impact the 

City's facilities, freeway projects, and businesses, including its Municipal Services Corporation 

Yard, and Rabobank Arena parking, in addition to private residences, businesses, schools, 

churches, and medical facilities. 

The Truxtun Avenue Station would encourage higher-intensity development in the surrounding 

areas, but this indirect effect would be consistent with existing urban development and 

expectations for the types of uses that can be supported in an urban environment. This indirect

effect would also be consistent with the Kern Council of Governments and the City of 

Bakersfield’s plans and policies encouraging downtown revitalization (City of Bakersfield 2005).

The Truxtun Avenue Station would be co-located with the existing Amtrak station and downtown 

transit center, which would expand the use of the existing multi-modal transportation hub, 

increase efficiency and accessibility regionally and locally, and could potentially increase land use 

densities in downtown Bakersfield because of its urban location. Increased development density 

in and around the Truxtun Avenue Station would provide public benefits, including increased 

employment, increased real estate forces, and the potential for increased retail, dining, and 

entertainment business opportunities, beyond the access benefits of the system itself. 

For a complete discussion of environmental consequences as a result of the May 2014 Project, 

please refer to Section 3.13.5.3 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS.

Comparison between the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA

Table 8-A-49 provides a comparison of the F-B LGA and the May 2014 Project with impacts 

associated with land conversion, parking and development. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-100 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-49 Station Planning, Land Use, and Development Impact Comparison between 

the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Land Conversion – 

existing uses

The May 2014 Project would result in the 

permanent conversion of more acres of 

residential, agricultural, commercial, multifamily and single-family residential, and 

other uses when compared to the F-B 

LGA. 

Single-Family 53 acres

Multi-family 4 acres

Commercial 25 acres

Industrial 54 acres

Community Facilities1 17 acres

Agriculture2 429 acres

Other3 394 acres

The F-B LGA would result in the permanent 

conversion of more acres of industrial, and 

community facility uses, when compared to 

the May 2014 Project.

Single-Family 1 acre

Multi-family 2 acres

Commercial 20 acres

Industrial 115 acres

Community Facilities1 76 acres

Agriculture2 323 acres

Other3 281 acres

Land Conversion – 

General Plan 

Designations

The May 2014 Project would result in the 

permanent conversion of more acres of 

land designated for residential, 

commercial, multi-family and single-family 

residential and other uses when compared 

to the F-B LGA.

Single-Family 112 acres

Multi-family 39 acres

Commercial 132 acres

Industrial 142 acres

Community Facilities1 6 acres

Agriculture2 303 acres

Other3 242 acres

Specific Plan 0 acres

The F-B LGA would result in the permanent 

conversion of more acres of land designated 

for industrial, community facility uses and 

Specific Plan areas when compared to the 

May 2014 Project. 

Single-Family 6 acres

Multi-family 0 acres

Commercial 65 acres

Industrial 197 acres

Community Facilities1 34 acres

Agriculture2 239 acres

Other3 218 acres

Specific Plan 60 acres

Parking The total parking count proposed on the 

site is approximately 4,500 spaces.

The total parking count proposed on the site 

is approximately 5,200 spaces.

Development The Truxtun Avenue Station would 

encourage higher-intensity development in 

the surrounding areas, and this indirect 

effect would be incompatible with existing 

adjacent land uses according to the City of 

Bakersfield’s determination.

The F Street Station would encourage 

higher-intensity development in the 

surrounding areas, but this indirect effect 

would be consistent with existing urban 

development and expectations for the types 

of uses that can be supported in an urban 

environment. 

=least-impact alternative

Sources: Kern County 2009, City of Shafter 2005, City of Bakersfield and Kern County 2007

Includes all project components. Numbers may vary slightly due to rounding up.

*Community Facilities includes government and other public and quasi-public agency uses, public parks, and schools 2 Agriculture includes mineral and petroleum, resource management areas, and floodplains

3 Other includes right-of-way, transportation, and vacant lands.

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

Figure 8-A-22 shows the locations of both the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA alignments and 

their associated stations. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-101

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-22 May 2014 Project and F-B LGA Station Locations
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-102 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Land Conversion

The F-B LGA would result in permanent conversion of an estimated 819 acres of land currently in 

other uses to transportation-related uses compared to the 976 acres that would be converted by 

the May 2014 Project. Approximately, 35 percent of the land that would be permanently used for 

the HSR tracks and supporting facilities (e.g., traction power and communication systems) is 

currently in similar uses (i.e., rights-of-way and transportation) or is vacant land. Approximately 

39 percent is currently in agricultural uses, nine percent is used for community facilities, and 

about 16 percent is in residential, commercial, and industrial uses. 

Parking

Parking demand and required parking spaces for the F-B LGA would be the same as for the May 

2014 Project. The total parking capacity (surface parking lots and parking structures) for the F 

Street Station site would accommodate parking for 5,200 vehicles. Additional parking areas are 

being identified in the downtown Bakersfield area to accommodate both passengers and visitors 

to the station area, and to encourage land uses that would support other development types. The 

May 2014 Project would provide 4,500 parking spaces at the Truxtun Avenue Station site, or 

700 fewer parking spaces than the F Street Station site.

Similar to the May 2014 Project, parking development to meet demand at the Bakersfield F Street 

Station would be consistent with applicable plans. It would also be compatible with adjacent land 

uses because current zoning supports parking development as a common use in urban centers. 

Development

The HSR tracks and supporting facilities would not inhibit continuation of existing uses on 

adjacent lands, nor would they induce growth. The station could stimulate residential and 

commercial development on adjacent land consistent with current uses and land use plans and 

policies. Similar to the May 2014 Project, the Bakersfield F Street Station would encourage 

higher-intensity development in the surrounding areas, but this indirect effect would be consistent 

with existing urban development and expectations for the types of uses that can be supported in 

an urban environment. Unlike the May 2014 Project, this effect would be consistent with the Kern 

Council of Governments’ and the City of Bakersfield’s plans and policies encouraging downtown 

revitalization (City of Bakersfield 2005, see also discussion in Section 3.13.4.1 of this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS).

Approximately 3 percent of the F Street Station study area is underutilized or vacant, and 

surrounding development is characterized as aging, single-story industrial warehouses with large 

parking areas. Therefore, compared to the Truxtun Avenue Station, the F Street Station presents 

more opportunities for infill development, revitalization of existing large buildings, new job 

creation, and transit-oriented housing. As with the May 2014 Project, transit-oriented 

development associated with the F Street Station would be consistent with the Kern Council of 

Governments’ and City of Bakersfield’s plans and policies encouraging downtown revitalization 

(City of Bakersfield 2005).

While the Truxtun Avenue Station would be located at an existing public transportation center and 

would be more convenient for Amtrak and bus riders, the HSR Station at F Street would be 

located near a network of regional highways in an area with no existing train service as well as in 

proximity to the Kern River Parkway and would provide a direct connection to that facility. While 

the Truxtun Avenue Station may better promote transit ridership compared to the F Street Station, 

the opportunities for revitalization at 34th Street and Chester Avenue near the F Street Station 

would result in overall greater community benefit.

As shown in Table 8-A-49, the F-B LGA would substantially reduce the number of acres of land 

that would be permanently converted to transportation-related uses compared with the May 2014 

Project. The F-B LGA would also reduce impacts associated with meeting parking demand at the 

station site. Temporary land use impacts during construction would be similar. Overall, land use 

impacts associated with the F-B LGA would be reduced compared to the May 2014 Project. The 

F-B LGA would result in the permanent conversion of more acres of commercial, industrial, and
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-103

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

community facility uses, compared with the May 2014 Project; however, the F-B LGA would be 

considered preferable based on reduced impacts to residential, agricultural and total acres of 

permanent conversion of land.

Agricultural Land

Summary of May 2014 Project Agricultural Land Impacts

The May 2014 Project would result in impacts associated with temporary use of agricultural lands 

and permanent conversion of agricultural land to nonagricultural use – including from parcel 

severance, and effects on land under Williamson Act contracts. The section also assesses 

indirect impacts to confined animal agriculture and grazing animals from noise and wind, and 

impacts to irrigation distribution canals. 

Methodology 

The same methodology was used to evaluate impacts for both the May 2014 Project and F-B 

LGA. The study area for direct effects on agricultural lands encompasses the entire potential area 

of disturbance associated with the project construction footprint and noneconomic remnants. 

Indirect effects include the acreage of Important Farmland within 25 feet of direct permanent 

conversions, including the project footprint and noneconomic remnants. Indirect effects also 

include the area 100 feet from the track centerline, based on federal standards for evaluating 

livestock noise impacts (100 dBA sound exposure level; FRA 2012). 

Important Farmland

To calculate the direct permanent conversion of Important Farmlands to nonagricultural use, the 

acreage for the project footprint was quantified and identified as being permanently converted to 

transportation use. In addition, impacts on farmland adjacent to, but not in the project footprint

were assessed to determine the potential for converting that land to nonagricultural use as a 

result of project impacts on adjacent farmland. Farmland severance was analyzed in a two-step 

process and on a parcel-by-parcel basis to identify where severance of a parcel would result in 

remnants that would be constrained for economical farming (e.g., due to impacts on access, size 

and shape, location, or overall hardship). Severed parcels determined necessary to convert to 

nonagricultural use or “noneconomic remnant parcels” were calculated as indirect impacts to 

Important Farmland. The remnant parcels determined likely to remain in agricultural use were not 

included in either the indirect or direct Important Farmland totals. 

Farmland Conversion Impact Rating

A farmland conversion impact rating was calculated using Natural Resources Conservation 

Service Form NRCS-CPA-106 in accordance with Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act criteria. 

The maximum possible score is 260 points. If the score is less than 160 points, no further 

evaluation is necessary under the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act. If the score is greater 

than 160, the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act requires consideration of alternatives that 

avoid or minimize farmland impacts. 

Williamson Act

Project effects on Williamson Act and Farmland Security Zone contract lands were evaluated on 

a parcel-by-parcel analysis and using corresponding parcel boundaries. Divided and remnant 

parcels were evaluated on the basis of whether they met the minimum acreage requirements 

established by the County of Kern13. 

13 County of Kern’s minimum requirement for entering into a new Williamson Act contract is 20 acres of Prime Farmland 

(Thompson 2015).
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-104 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impacts

Temporary Agricultural Land Impacts

Construction of the May 2014 Project would require the temporary use of agricultural land outside 

the permanent right-of-way, and would result in the disruption of some utilities and infrastructure, 

the impacts of which are described in the following sections.

Temporary Use of Agricultural Land

The May 2014 Project would temporarily use 337 acres of Important Farmland for construction. 

This land would be restored and returned to agricultural use after project construction is 

completed, and would not permanently convert Important Farmland to nonagricultural uses. 

Temporary Utility and Infrastructure Interruption

Construction of the May 2014 Project would affect farmland utilities and infrastructure, which 

could jeopardize farm productivity (Authority 2012a). Utility disruptions would be avoided or 

resolved, or the land owner would be compensated for losses during the right-of-way acquisition 

process.

Temporary Noise and Vibration Effects on Adjacent Farm Animals

Construction of the May 2014 Project would generate noise and vibration from construction 

equipment and vehicles. Vibration impacts on adjacent farm animals would be temporary and 

would not disrupt the current use. Therefore, noise and vibration would not lead to the permanent 

conversion of Important Farmland to a nonagricultural use. 

Permanent Agricultural Land Impacts

The May 2014 Project would result in the direct, permanent conversion 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). As 

discussed below, the May 2014 Project would not result in additional response times for canal 

maintenance; would not result in wind induced effects to pollination, additional pesticide drift, or 

application restrictions; and would not change spraying patterns that would cause conversion of 

Important Farmland to a nonagricultural use. Noise from operation of the May 2014 Project would 

not preclude agricultural use and would not result in additional conversion of Important Farmland.

Permanent Conversion of Agricultural Land to Nonagricultural Use

The May 2014 Project would convert Important Farmland to nonagricultural uses. The farmland 

conversion ratings for the May 2014 Project in Kern County were below the 160-point threshold 

set by the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Appendix 3.14-A of this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS provides further detail on these findings. 

Effects of Agricultural Land from Parcel Severance

The May 2014 Project alignment would follow existing transportation corridors to the extent 

possible, but in some cases the alignment would deviate from those corridors and bisect 

agricultural parcels, creating noneconomic remainder parcels. Although severed parcels under

20 acres determined through a two-step analysis to be converted from agricultural use to 

nonagricultural use, are included in the permanent conversion data, the Authority has committed 

to implement a Farmland Consolidation Program as part of the HSR project that will transfer 

noneconomic remainder parcels to neighboring landowners, whenever possible, to consolidate 

with adjacent parcels (Authority 2012d). Appendix 3.14-B of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

provides the analysis and results of the Remnant Parcel Analysis. In addition, the right-of-way 

acquisition process provides additional opportunities to reduce hardships caused by parcel 

severance. 

Effects of Land under Williamson Act or Farmland Security Zone Contracts, Local Zoning

The May 2014 Project would require full or partial acquisition of parcels under Williamson Act 

contract, as discussed in Section 3.14.4.1 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. Table 8-A-50 lists 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-105

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

the acreage of Williamson Act lands permanently affected by the May 2014 Project, which 

includes a total of 47 acres of farmland under active Williamson Act contract (i.e., not currently in 

nonrenewal).

Table 8-A-50 Protected Farmland Permanently Affected by the May 2014 Project

Protected Farmland Classification Acres1,2

Williamson Act Land, Prime, Renewal, Less than 20 acres2 8 

Williamson Act Land, Prime, Renewal, 20 acres or greater in size3 39

Williamson Act Land, Prime, Non-renewal, Less than 20 acres2 0 

Williamson Act Land, Prime, Non-renewal, 20 acres or greater in size3 0 

Williamson Act Land, Non-Prime, 40 acres or greater3 0 

Farmland Security Zone 0 

Total 47

1 Acreages are rounded to the nearest whole number.

2 Williamson Act parcel less than 20 acres prior to May 2014 Project, and continues to be less than 20 acres after the May 2014 Project.

3 In Kern County, Prime Farmland under Williamson Act contract is allowed to be on a smaller parcel (20 acres) than non-Prime farmland (40 acres).

Effects on Confined Animal Agriculture

The May 2014 Project’s effects on confined animal facilities would not result in Important 

Farmland conversion, other than as discussed above. In addition, noise levels from HSR 

operation would not exceed FRA’s established threshold for high-speed train noise effects on 

livestock of 100 dBA sound exposure level (FRA 2012) and, therefore, would not result in noise 

effects on livestock. Confined animal facilities may be affected by vibration levels, but this impact 

would not preclude agricultural use and would not result in farmland conversion.

Effects on Irrigation Distribution Canals

According to Section 3.14.5.3 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, effects on 

response times for canal maintenance would not result in the conversion of Important Farmland.

Noise Effects to Grazing Animals

Operation of the May 2014 Project would result in noise effects to grazing lands. The impact 

would not convert either Important Farmland or Grazing Lands to nonagricultural use. 

Wind-Induced Effects

The May 2014 Project would not cause adverse wind effects on adjacent farmland (Authority

2012b) and indirect effects (e.g., interference with insect pollination, additional pesticide drift, or 

application restrictions) (Authority 2012c) would not result in additional farmland conversions. 

Effects on Aerial Spraying

The height of vertical HSR structures, such as poles, radio communication towers, and elevated 

viaducts, could interfere with aerial spraying of agricultural lands adjacent to the alignment. 

Construction of these facilities would follow federal, state, and local safety guidelines, and would 

thus ensure that any tall structures are properly visible to aircraft conducting aerial spraying. 

Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

Temporary Agricultural Land Impacts

The F-B LGA would result in impacts associated with temporary agricultural land impacts in 

similar ways to the summary provided above for the May 2014 Project. The F-B LGA would 

convert 13 acres of Important Farmland for project construction, compared to 337 acres for the 

May 2014 Project. Impacts related to temporary utility and infrastructure interruption and 

temporary noise and vibration effects on adjacent farm animals would be similar for both the May 

2014 Project and F-B LGA. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-106 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Permanent Agricultural Land Impacts

The F-B LGA would result in reduced impacts associated with permanent agricultural land 

impacts when compared to the May 2014 Project. Table 8-A-51 provides a direct comparison of 

differences between the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA, with regards to permanent 

agricultural land impacts.

Table 8-A-51 Agricultural Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Important Farmland

Important Farmland Permanently 

Affected

The May 2014 Project would convert 

485 acres of Important Farmland.

The F-B LGA would convert 

approximately 372 acres of Important 

Farmland. 

Important Farmland Temporarily 

Affected

The May 2014 Project would 

temporarily use 337 acres of 

Important Farmland for construction. 

The F-B LGA would temporarily use 13 

acres of Important Farmland for 

construction.

LESA Scores The farmland conversion impact 

rating for the May 2014 Project is 

144.

The farmland conversion impact rating 

for the F-B LGA is 140. 

Indirect Impacts to Important 

Farmland1

The May 2014 Project would 

indirectly impact 36 acres of 

Important Farmland. 

The F-B LGA would indirectly impact 

89 acres of Important Farmland.

Construction Noise and Vibration The Project would have a temporary 

noise and vibration impact on 

adjacent farm animals. However, this 

impact would be less than significant 

under CEQA.

The Project would have a temporary 

noise and vibration impact on adjacent 

farm animals. However, this impact 

would be less than significant under 

CEQA.

Williamson Act Land Permanently 

Affect 

The May 2014 Project would result in 

permanent impacts to 47 acres of 

Williamson Act lands.

The F-B LGA would result in 

permanent impacts to 114 acres of 

Williamson Act lands. 

Protected Farmland Reduced to 

Less Than Williamson Act 

Minimum Size2

With the May 2014 Project, three 

active Williamson Act parcels (8 

acres) may be forced into nonrenewal 

because the project would reduce the 

size of these parcels below the 

minimum 20 acres prescribed by the 

County for the Williamson Act.

With the F-B LGA, three active 

Williamson Act parcels (17 acres) may 

be forced into nonrenewal because the 

project would reduce the size of these 

parcels below the minimum 20 acres 

prescribed by the County for the 

Williamson Act.

= least-impact alternative 1 Indirect impacts include noneconomic remnant parcels that meet Step 2 of the remnant parcel analysis (i.e., Important Farmland converted from 

agricultural to nonagricultural use) and Important Farmland in the 25-foot area. Refer to Section 3.14.2, Methods for Evaluating Impacts, in this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS for a complete description of the methods used to reach these conclusions.

2 These totals reflect only active Williamson Act parcels potentially no longer eligible for Williamson Act contracts because they do not meet the 20-

acre minimum.

CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

HSR = high-speed rail

LESA = Land Evaluation and Site Assessment

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act

Table 8-A-51 indicates that the F-B LGA would result in lesser permanent agricultural land 

impacts as it would permanently convert fewer acres of Important Farmland to nonagricultural 

use, and receives an overall lower Land Evaluation and Site Assessment farmland conversion 

rating. The F-B LGA would also temporarily use fewer acres of protected farmland for 

construction. The F-B LGA, however, would result in a greater number of indirect impacts to 

Important Farmland, including non-economic remnant parcels and the 25-foot Important 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-107

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Farmland buffer adjacent to HSR permanently fenced infrastructure, and would result in greater 

permanent impacts to protect farmland (i.e., Williamson Act) than the May 2014 project. 

The F-B LGA would result in similar impacts to the May 2014 Project for the following issues: 

effects on confined animal agriculture, effects on irrigation distribution canals, noise effects on 

grazing animals, wind-induced effects, and effects on aerial spraying. There would be sitespecific differences in the location of potential impacts due to routing variations included under 

the F-B LGA; however, the nature and intensity of potential impacts would be comparable for 

these issues, and impacts would not be substantially different between the May 2014 Project and 

the F-B LGA.

In summary, the differences between the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA relevant to 

agricultural lands are considerable in regards to permanent conversion of agricultural land to 

nonagricultural use, temporary agricultural land impacts, and indirect impacts to agricultural 

lands, with the F-B LGA being preferable to the May 2014 Project. However, the May 2014 

Project would result in lesser effects on land under Williamson Act contracts. 

Parks, Recreation, and Open Space

Summary of May 2014 Project Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Impacts

This section describes the environmental consequences that would likely result from the project 

on parks, recreation, and open space all of which vary in size, type, and function.

Methodology 

The study area for parks, recreation, and open space is defined as a 1,000-foot-wide buffer on 

either side of the centerline, and a 0.5-mile-wide buffer around the station area and MOIF. Within 

this area, the distances to existing parks, recreation, and open space facilities were measured 

from the centerline, as shown in Table 8-A-52. Construction within 300 feet of a park, recreation, 

or open space resource or a school district play area and recreation facility would have the 

greatest impact, depending on the construction type and activity. Parks located more than 300 

feet from the centerline are generally considered sufficiently distant to remain unaffected by most 

project activities. Parks located within 100 feet of the May 2014 Project would experience the 

most effects.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-108 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-52 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Resources within 1,000 feet of the May 

2014 Project Centerline

Resource Name Owner Amenities Size Distance from 

Project Centerline

Town Square City of Shafter Grass areas, water fountain and 

special events stage. 

0.4 acre 575 feet 

Stringham Park City of Shafter Grass areas, playground, picnic 

tables, and benches.

1 acre 910 feet 

Kirchenmann Park City of Shafter Grass areas and baseball field. 5.5 acres 490 feet 

Austin Creek Park North Bakersfield 

Parks & 

Recreation District

Grass area. 9.3 acres 440 feet

Kern River Parkway City of Bakersfield 32-mile linear community park with

bike path, pedestrian and

equestrian facilities, fishing pond,

fitness par course, horseshoe pit,

skate park, and picnic tables.

1,033 acres 0 feet 

Yokuts Park City of Bakersfield Grassy field and shaded picnic 

area. Large playground area with 

equipment. 

16.4 acres 840 feet

Jastro Park City of Bakersfield Barbeque pits, picnic tables and 

shelter, amphitheater, 7 tennis 

courts, horseshoe pits, sandlot 

playgrounds, restrooms, and spray 

park.

8.7 acres 585 feet 

McMurtrey Aquatic 

Center 

City of Bakersfield Recreational and competition 

swimming pools, spray park, water 

slide.

3.2 acres 130 feet 

Bakersfield Amtrak 

Station Playground

City of Bakersfield Tot lot with playground equipment. 0.5 acre 240 feet 

Mill Creek Linear 

Park 

City of Bakersfield 1.5-mile linear community park with 

pedestrian path and benches. 

8.0 acres 0 feet 

Total within 1,000 feet of project centerline 10

Total within 300 feet of project centerline 4

Total within 100 feet of project centerline 2

Impacts

Table 8-A-52 shows the parks, recreation, and open space resources in the study area of the 

May 2014 Project, including within 1,000 feet of the project centerline. 

As shown, there are 10 parks, recreation, and open space resources located within 1,000 feet of 

the May 2014 Project centerline. Of these, four are located within 300 feet of the centerline and 

two of those are within 100 feet of the centerline. As noted, resources within 100 feet would 

experience the most intense effects, largely associated with noise and visual impacts. In addition, 

three resources are located within 0.5 mile of the Truxtun Avenue Station: Central Park (1,278 

feet), Martin Luther King Park (1,700 feet), and Potomac Park (970 feet); none of these resources 

are located within 300 feet of the station.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-109

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-53 shows the school district play areas and recreational facilities within 1,000 feet of 

the centerline. As noted above, existing resources located within 100 feet of the centerline would 

be most affected by project activities.

Table 8-A-53 School District Play Areas and Recreation Facilities within 1,000 feet of the 

Centerline for the May 2014 Project

Resource Name School District Amenities Distance from 

Project 

Centerline

Redwood Elementary 

School / Richland Junior 

High1

Richland School 

District

Grass fields, basketball courts, 

playground equipment, swimming 

pool

770 feet

Free Will Christian 

Academy

Free Will Baptist 

Church

Grass field 650 feet

Franklin Elementary School Bakersfield City 

Schools 

Blacktop area with basketball courts, 

grass field area, and sandlot 

playground equipment 

570 feet 

Bakersfield High School Kern High School Football field, youth football and 

soccer fields, gym, tennis courts, 

outdoor basketball courts 

460 feet

Kelly F. Blanton Education 

Center 

Kern County 

Superintendent of 

Schools 

Grass areas, benches, tables, 

running track, and outdoor basketball 

courts 

320 feet

Owens Intermediate School Bakersfield City 

Schools 

Track, football/baseball fields, 

basketball courts, and tot lot 

360 feet 

Ramon Garza Elementary 

School 

Bakersfield City 

Schools 

Grass areas, benches, tables, 

football/soccer field, running track, 

outdoor basketball courts, and tot lot 

845 feet 

Total within 1,000 feet of project centerline 7

Total within 300 feet of project centerline 0

Total within 100 feet of project centerline 0

1 These are two separate schools but share the same campus and considered one recreational resource. 

Seven school district play areas and recreation facilities are within 1,000 feet of the May 2014 

Project, including two in Shafter (Redwood Elementary School / Richland Junior High, and Free 

Will Christian Academy), and five in Bakersfield (Franklin Elementary, Bakersfield High School, 

Kelly F. Blanton Education Center, Owens Intermediate School, and Ramon Garza Elementary 

School). In addition, one school district play area/recreation facility is located within 0.5 mile of the 

Truxtun Avenue Station (Rafer Johnson Elementary School). No school district play areas are 

located within 300 feet of the May 2014 Project centerline or the Shafter MOIF or Bakersfield 

passenger station footprints.

While the May 2014 Project would not result in the permanent acquisition of any parkland or 

school recreation area, it would pass over the Kern River Parkway and Mill Creek Linear Park on 

an elevated viaduct and would pass within 100 feet of the McMurtrey Aquatic Center. The May 

2014 Project would pass above areas of the Kern River Parkway and Mill Creek Linear Park used 

by pedestrians and recreational users. The elevated viaducts would cross perpendicularly on an 

elevated structure above the Kern River Parkway bike path and the portion of the Mill Creek 

Linear Park that straddles Kern Island Canal south of the existing BNSF right-of-way. The areas 

under the structures would remain open for use, but the operation of the project would result in a 

periodic noise exposure when trains pass by in addition to changes in visual character of the area. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-110 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Adverse effects from construction of the May 2014 Project would include noise and dust 

exposure. Construction of the May 2014 Project would also necessitate closures for portions of 

these facilities. However, access to/through the parks would be maintained or alternative access 

routes or temporary trail rerouting would be provided during construction and the construction 

activities would not disrupt the functions for which these recreational resources were designed. 

Noise from construction activities would be temporary, with a duration of up to six months within 

the vicinity of the recreation areas. Impacts would also be reduced to a less-than-significant 

impact with the implementation of noise mitigation measures. 

Although the parks are already subject to visual impacts consistent with the urbanized area and 

existing freight and passenger rail service, the May 2014 Project would change the visual 

character of the parks in close proximity to the alignment and this impact could not be reduced 

through implementation of mitigation.

Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

The F-B LGA would result in impacts associated with parks, recreation, and open space in similar 

ways to the summary provided above for the May 2014 Project. Figure 8-A-23 and Figure 8-A-24 

show the parks, recreation, and open space resources in proximity to the May 2014 Project and 

the F-B LGA, while Table 8-A-54 provides a comparison of differentiating features for this issue 

area.

Table 8-A-54 Parks and Recreation Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Parks in proximity to the project 

centerline

10 parks within 1,000 feet

4 parks within 300 feet

2 parks within 100 feet

10 parks within 1,000 feet

2 parks within 300 feet

2 parks within 100 feet

School District Play Areas and 

Recreation Facilities in proximity to the 

project centerline

8 schools within 1,000 feet

0 school within 300 feet

0 school within 100 feet

2 schools within 1,000 feet

0 schools within 300 feet

0 schools within 100 feet

Parks and District Play Areas and 

Recreation Facilities in proximity to the 

MOIF and passenger station

2 parks and 2 schools within 

0.5 mile of the Shafter MOIF

3 parks and 3 schools within 

0.5 mile of Truxtun Avenue 

Station

2 parks and 2 schools within 0.5 

mile of the Shafter MOIF

6 parks and 1 school within 0.5 

mile of the Bakersfield F Street 

Station

= least-impact alternative

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

MOIF = maintenance of infrastructure facility

As shown in Table 8-A-54, there would be two fewer parks located within 300 feet of the 

centerline of the F-B LGA than the May 2014 Project (two versus five). In addition, more parks 

would be located within 0.5 mile of the F-B LGA passenger station than the May 2014 Project 

passenger station (six versus three), but more schools would be located within 0.5 mile of the 

May 2014 Project passenger station than the F-B LGA passenger station (three versus one). 

Additionally, six more schools would be located within 1,000 feet of the May 2014 Project 

centerline than the F-B LGA centerline (eight versus two). This indicates that quantitatively, a 

fewer number of parks and open space resources (including school recreational resources) would 

be located within close proximity to the F-B LGA than the May 2014 Project.

As shown in Table 8-A-54, six fewer school recreation facilities are within 1,000 feet of the 

centerline for the proposed F-B LGA than the May 2014 Project (two versus eight); none of these 

school recreation facilities would be located within 300 feet of either alignment centerline. Under 

both the F-B LGA and the May 2014 Project, no school recreation facilities would be located 

within 300 feet of the proposed centerlines, MOIFs, or stations. This indicates that quantitatively, 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-111

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

a greater number of school recreation facilities would be located within 1,000 feet of the May 

2014 Project when compared to the F-B LGA.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-112 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-23 Shafter Area: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Resources and School 

District Play Areas and Recreation Facilities in the Project Study Area
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-113

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-24 Bakersfield Area: Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Resources and School 

District Play Areas and Recreation Facilities in the Project Study Area 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-114 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Based on the quantitative discussion provided, the F-B LGA appears preferable to the May 2014 

Project for parks and open space resources, as well as for school recreation facilities. Overall 

(considering both parks/open space and school recreation resources), 6 more resources would 

be located within 1,000 feet of the May 2014 Project than the F-B LGA. Figure 8-A-22 and Figure 

8-A-23 show the parks and recreational facilities within Shafter and Bakersfield, respectively that

the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA cross. The following discussion provides a qualitative

comparison of resources affected under each alternative.

• Of all park and open space resources identified within the study area (1,000 feet from the

proposed centerlines), the Kern River Parkway would be affected by both the May 2014

Project and the F-B LGA, while Weill Park would only be affected by the F-B LGA, and Mill

Creek Linear Park would only be affected by the May 2014 Project.

• At the Kern River Parkway, the F-B LGA and the May 2014 Project would both result in

temporary construction closures, as well as permanent alterations to the visual character of

the park; the F-B LGA crossing would primarily affect the existing bike path, while the May

2014 Project would affect the bike path as well as a grassy area with trees that provides the

entryway to the Subpark D parking lot. The nature and extent of potential impacts at the Kern

River Parkway would be more intense under the May 2014 Project, due to the visual effects

associated with both the bike path and the entryway to the Subpark D parking lot.

• At Weill Park, the F-B LGA would introduce noise, vibration, and visual impacts that would

not occur under the May 2014 Project. Weill Park is less than two acres in size, consisting of

grassy fields, and is not adjacent to residences. Additionally, the proposed F Street Station

would include new park space, which would at least partially offset the parkland that would be

acquired for construction of the F-B LGA and would provide new parkland in generally the

same area as the parkland being acquired. Weill Park would not be affected by the May 2014

Project. Therefore, although impacts to Weill Park would be more intense under the F-B LGA,

this is a small park that is considered partially replaced by the new park space included at the

proposed F Street Station.

• At Mill Creek Linear Park, the May 2014 Project would introduce a new 90-foot-wide

maintenance easement to accommodate the placement of permanent footings for columns

that would support the guideway through the portion of the park that straddles Kern Island

Canal south of the existing BNSF right-of-way. Mill Creek Linear Park is a discontinuous

resource of approximately eight acres in total size. Mill Creek Linear Park would not be

affected by the F-B LGA. Therefore, the nature and extent of impacts at Mill Creek Linear

Park would be more intense under the May 2014 Project.

The quantitative comparison shown in Table 8-A-54 and qualitative comparison provided in the 

text indicate that the F-B LGA is preferable to the May 2014 Project. The qualitative comparison 

provided in the discussion above indicates that the F-B LGA and the May 2014 Project are 

relatively comparable; however, the F-B LGA is considered preferable due to the lower nature 

and intensity of impacts to specific resources. Under either alternative, the proposed mitigation 

requires alternate pedestrian and bicycle access for trails altered during construction and the 

payment of fees for the acquisition of park property for both alternatives. Overall, potential 

impacts to parks, recreation, and open space would be less under the F-B LGA than the May 

2014 Project due to the fewer number of parks and schools located in the study area, as well as 

the nature and intensity of anticipated impacts.

Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Summary of May 2014 Project Aesthetics and Visual Resources Impacts

This section compares the impacts of the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA on aesthetics and 

visual resources. The Fresno to Bakersfield Section: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Technical 

Report (Authority and FRA 2011e) includes photographs of existing conditions and simulated 

views at key locations for the May 2014 Project, and Section 3.16, Aesthetics and Visual 

Resources of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS provides similar information for the F-B LGA. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-115

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Methodology 

For both the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA, the assessment methodology for aesthetics and 

visual resources was conducted according to the Federal Highway Administration Visual Impact 

Assessment methodology (Federal Highway Administration 1988), particularly as applied under 

guidelines of the California Department of Transportation Standard Environmental Reference, 

Chapter 27, Visual and Aesthetics Review (California Department of Transportation 2007), with 

adaptations for this study by the Authority.

Section 3.16.2 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS explains the methodology for determining the 

visual resource study area, selecting landscape units and key viewpoints, and assessing visual 

character and quality. Figure 8-A-25 and Figure 8-A-26 show the landscape units within 

metropolitan Bakersfield for the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA, respectively. Although these 

landscape units differ geographically, the same assessment methodology was applied to evaluate 

visual impacts within them.

Impacts

Construction Impacts

Construction of the May 2014 Project would result in aesthetic impacts on scenic vistas, visual 

quality, and light and glare. The temporary decrease in visual quality of a scenic vista of the Kern 

River and Green Mountains from the Kern River Parkway would result in a less-than-significant 

impact under CEQA. Clearing, earthmoving, and construction of project facilities also would 

introduce new lines, forms, and colors that reduce the visual quality of rural landscapes. This 

reduction in visual quality would result in a potentially significant impact under CEQA. 

The May 2014 Project would produce aesthetic impacts by introducing new sources of light and 

glare. New sources of temporary night lighting during construction would adversely affect 

nighttime views, but aesthetic effects from lighting would be localized and temporary. Mitigation to 

shield and direct lighting downward would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level.

Visual Quality Impacts

In the San Joaquin Valley Rural/Agricultural landscape unit, the May 2014 Project would reduce 

visual quality near rural residents especially where the elevated viaduct would be located within 

0.25 mile of residences and where elevated segments would be located within 0.5 mile of 

residents. Impacts at residences not adjacent to agri-industrial facilities that are located within 0.5 

mile of the elevated viaduct would be significant. 

In the Rural Town landscape units, nearby residents, park users, and visitors to the central 

business districts of Shafter and other towns would experience a decline in visual quality from 

moderate to moderately low or low. In addition, at 7th Standard Road in Shafter, the at-grade 

alignment would degrade the visual quality of adjacent rural residences, resulting in a significant 

impact. 

In the Rosedale/Greenacres landscape unit, where residents were determined to have a 

moderately high viewer response, the elevated viaduct would create very strong declines in 

intactness and unity at a foreground distance from residences. The May 2014 Project would 

degrade the visual quality of suburban neighborhoods from moderate to moderately low, creating 

a significant impact under CEQA. In addition, sound barriers installed next to at-grade segments 

of the alignment would have a less-than-significant impact under CEQA.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-116 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-25 Landscape Units for the May 2014 Project
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-117

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-26 Landscape Units for the F-B LGA
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-118 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

At the Kern River Parkway, the May 2014 Project would require a prominent river crossing with 

steel railroad truss structures and large supporting concrete bends. In the context of high viewer 

responses at the Kern River Parkway, this would result in a significant impact under CEQA. In the 

Central Bakersfield landscape unit, the May 2014 Project alignment would pass within 150 feet of 

residences on 16th Street to the north and adjacent to residences to the south across 16th Street. 

For those living in these residences, the elevated viaduct, removal of existing businesses on the 

street, right-of-way-clearing, and the introduction of security fencing would decrease visual 

quality, resulting in a significant impact. Due to the May 2014 Project’s distance from Bakersfield 

High School, impacts on school viewers would be negligible. In downtown Bakersfield, the HSR 

station and associated streetscape development would improve visual quality, resulting in a 

beneficial effect for the following reasons:

• The HSR station would be designed with a distinctive and potentially iconic architectural form

to create a beneficial change in visual character when viewed from adjacent locations in the

Central Bakersfield landscape unit. By introducing a building with distinctive and attractive

architecture, the station would substantially enhance the area’s vividness as compared to

existing commercial development on-site.

• Pursuant to Mitigation Measure AVR-MM#2a, the Authority would work closely with the City

of Bakersfield to develop and refine the architecture, site design, and landscape treatments

for the station and vicinity in order to enhance the area’s character through coherent and

unified design and to include features that provide interest and integrate visually with the

context of nearby commercial and governmental uses.

• The HSR station would also be expected to have beneficial indirect effects on visual quality in

surrounding areas. As discussed on page 3.16-68 in Section 3.16 of the Fresno to

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, the HSR station would increase the potential for economic

incentives through new development and redevelopment in nearby areas. This would likely

influence development patterns near the station and could result in new project and urban

design improvements that would improve the visual character and quality of these areas over

time.

In East Bakersfield, the alignment would run adjacent to residences located to the east of Union 

Avenue near Truxtun Avenue. Adverse effects where residences adjoin the right-of-way would be 

significant under CEQA. 

School Impacts

In general, the May 2014 Project could adversely affect viewers at schools located within a 

0.25-mile near-foreground distance of the alignment. At distances greater than approximately 

0.25 mile, even major project structures would be likely to cause little change to visual quality and 

have little visual impact. Within the 0.25-mile zone, potential impacts would depend highly on sitespecific factors, such as the visibility of the guideway and the sensitivity of viewers at affected 

viewpoints. At Warriors for Christ Academy in Rosedale, the May 2014 Project would have a 

significant impact under CEQA. At Freewill Christian Academy in Shafter, and Owens Middle 

School, Bethel Christian School, and Ramon Garza Elementary School/Sierra Middle School in 

Bakersfield, the May 2014 Project would have less-than-significant impacts under CEQA.

Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

Construction Impacts

Overall aesthetic impacts during construction would be the same for both the F-B LGA and the 

May 2014 Project. Although the F-B LGA would cross the Kern River Parkway Bike Trail at a 

location farther to the east, HSR construction in this area would still temporarily obstruct scenic 

views of natural vegetation and landforms, reducing visual quality from moderately high to 

moderate. Impacts to scenic vistas would be less-than-significant under CEQA. Similarly, 

construction of both the F-B LGA and the May 2014 Project would result in a significant impact 

under CEQA on visual quality. There would be a significant impact under CEQA from light and 

glare.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-119

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Visual Quality Impacts

Table 8-A-55 compares the most adverse impacts to visual quality by landscape unit for the May 

2014 Project and the F-B LGA. 

Table 8-A-55 Aesthetic Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

Landscape Unit May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Rural San Joaquin Valley1 CEQA: Significant CEQA: Significant

Shafter Town2 CEQA: Significant CEQA: Significant

Rosedale/Greenacres CEQA: Significant N/A 

North Bakersfield N/A CEQA: Significant

Kern River CEQA: Significant CEQA: Significant

Central Bakersfield CEQA: Significant CEQA: Less than significant

East Bakersfield CEQA: Significant CEQA: Significant

1 This landscape unit is named San Joaquin Valley/Rural Agricultural in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS.

2 The Shafter Town landscape unit is part of the larger group of Rural Town landscape units in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. 

CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

EIR = environmental impact report N/A = not applicable

EIS = environmental impact statement

As shown in Table 8-A-55, overall impacts to visual quality in the Shafter Town landscape unit 

would be significant under CEQA under both alternatives. Site-specific impacts in this landscape 

unit would vary. Because the F-B LGA would shift the HSR elevated viaduct in rural Shafter 

eastward toward SR 99, it would not pass near rural residents at the intersection of 7th Standard 

Road and Santa Fe Way and therefore, the F-B LGA would avoid the May 2014 Project’s adverse 

effect to the residents. 

The eastward shift of the F-B LGA would also avoid the May 2014 Project’s impacts to singlefamily residential neighborhoods in the Rosedale/Greenacres landscape unit. At-grade and 

elevated portions of the May 2014 Project would run adjacent to more than one hundred 

residences in Rosedale/Greenacres and within 500 feet of hundreds more residences. The 

elevated viaduct would be a prominent foreground feature up to 80 feet high in this area. Figure 

8-A-27 and Figure 8-A-28 show photos of representative residential streets adjacent to the May

2014 Project’s alignment in Rosedale/Greenacres.

Instead of crossing the Rosedale/Greenacres landscape unit, the F-B LGA would cross the North 

Bakersfield landscape unit along SR 99. The elevated viaduct would pass within approximately 

300 feet of single- and multi-family residences along Norris Road, contrasting with the residential 

character of the area and reducing visual intactness and unity. Photo 1 in Figure 8-A-29 shows 

multi-family residences on Norris Road, facing eastward toward the alignment. Because visual 

quality would decline one level from moderately-low to low in an area with high viewer sensitivity, 

the F-B LGA would have a significant impact under CEQA. When effects on the 

Rosedale/Greenacres landscape unit and on the North Bakersfield landscape unit are compared, 

the number of receptors affected would be substantially less with the F-B LGA than under the 

May 2014 Project.

Whereas the May 2014 Project would cross an extensive residential area in Rosedale/

Greenacres, the F-B LGA would pass through industrial and commercial areas that lack highly 

sensitive viewers in the North Bakersfield landscape unit. The one exception is in the Norris Road 

area shown in Figure 8-A-29. Photo 2 in Figure 8-A-29 shows a representative commercial site in 

North Bakersfield, southwest of the interchange of Olive Drive and SR 99. Figure 8-A-30 shows 

typical industrial sites near the intersection of Norris and Snow Roads in North Bakersfield. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-120 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Photo 1: Single-family residences on Piedmont Avenue, looking west toward May 2014 Project alignment approximately 550 feet away.

Photo 2: Single-family residences on Light Lane at Compass Avenue, looking northwest toward May 2014 Project alignment at a distance of 

approximately 800 feet.

Figure 8-A-27 Rosedale/Greenacres Landscape Unit: Representative Residential Visual 

Receptors 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-121

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Photo 1: Mobile homes in the Lazy H Mobile Ranch community, looking east toward May 2014 Project alignment at a distance of approximately 350 

feet.

Photo 2: Single-family houses on Palm Avenue, looking northeast toward May 2014 Project alignment at a distance of approximately 300 feet.

Figure 8-A-28 Rosedale/Greenacres Landscape Unit: Representative Residential Visual 

Receptors 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-122 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Photo 1: Multi-family residences on Norris Road, looking east toward Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative at a distance of 

approximately 500 feet.

Photo 2: Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative at commercial site, looking southeast from Olive Drive overcrossing of State Route 99.

Figure 8-A-29 North Bakersfield Landscape Unit: Representative Residential and 

Commercial Visual Receptors
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-123

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Photo 1: Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative at industrial site, looking northwest from Norris and Snow Roads. 

Photo 2: Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative at industrial sites south of Norris and Snow Roads. 

Figure 8-A-30 North Bakersfield Landscape Unit: Representative Industrial Visual 

Receptors 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-124 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

As evidenced by the photographs in Figure 8-A-27 through Figure 8-A-30, the May 2014 Project 

would affect far more residents in Rosedale/Greenacres than would the F-B LGA in North 

Bakersfield. Therefore, considering these landscape units holistically, the F-B LGA would reduce 

overall impacts on visual quality from the perspective of residents.

In the Central Bakersfield landscape unit, the F-B LGA would avoid visual impacts in downtown 

Bakersfield by realigning the HSR elevated viaduct eastward between SR 99 and the Union 

Pacific Railroad tracks. Because of this realignment, the F-B LGA would not result in an adverse 

effect from the introduction of an elevated viaduct adjacent to residents on 16th Street that the 

May 2014 Project would cause. While the location of the HSR station would result in beneficial 

impacts from the station building itself, associated streetscape improvements and general 

revitalization in those areas, the existing visual character surrounding the F Street Station would 

benefit to a greater degree than at the Truxtun Avenue Station. 

While the visual character of the F Street Station area is generally industrial in nature, page 3.16-

47 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS describes the visual character of the 

Truxtun Avenue and Chester Avenue streetscapes near the proposed station site as having 

moderately high visual quality, influenced by the presence of landscaped medians and distinctive 

early 20th Century high rise buildings. At Garces Circle, the F-B LGA would introduce an elevated 

viaduct that intensifies the area’s urban character from the perspective of commuters. This visual 

change at Garces Circle would result in a less-than-significant impact under CEQA.

In the East Bakersfield landscape unit, the F-B LGA would avoid impacts to residences while 

introducing impacts to a commercial district. The May 2014 Project would have a significant 

impact under CEQA at adjacent residences east of Union Avenue near Owens Middle School. 

Instead of impacting these residences, the F-B LGA would introduce an elevated viaduct on 

straddle bents over Sumner Street near Baker Street, degrading the visual quality of this 

commercial corridor. Visual impacts would be significant under CEQA. Since the number of 

sensitive viewers in the commercial corridor would be fewer than in the residential area, the 

comparable impacts would nevertheless be less desirable under the May 2014 Project than under 

the F-B LGA.

Both the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA would have approximately the same elevated alignment 

in the vicinity of Edison Highway. Visual impacts in this area would not be substantially different 

between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA.

In the Shafter Town landscape unit, while the May 2014 Project would involve construction of the 

HSR guideway and associated roadway alterations, the F-B LGA would also elevate the existing 

at-grade BNSF railroad to a raised embankment with a retaining wall. The BNSF embankment 

would introduce an additional elevated feature in Shafter, incrementally increasing the intensity of 

the area’s urban character from the perspective of residents and visitors to the downtown center. 

Both the F-B LGA and May 2014 Project would involve construction of an MOIF in an agricultural 

area to provide equipment, materials, and replacement parts for the HSR System. The MOIF 

associated with the F-B LGA would alter the rural visual character of northern Shafter. However, 

overall visual impacts in the Shafter Town landscape unit would not be substantially different 

between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA. These impacts would be significant under CEQA for 

both the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA.

School Impacts

As with the May 2014 Project, the F-B LGA could adversely affect viewers at schools located 

within a 0.25-mile near-foreground distance of the alignment. By realigning the HSR elevated 

viaduct in metropolitan Bakersfield, the F-B LGA would avoid the May 2014 Project’s significant 

impact under CEQA on the Warriors for Christ Academy in Rosedale, as well as its impact on 

Owens Middle School in Bakersfield. The F-B LGA would be located farther from Bethel Christian 

School in Bakersfield than the May 2014 Project. However, the F-B LGA would introduce an 

elevated viaduct within 0.08 mile of Valley Oaks Charter School on Chester Avenue, causing a 

significant impact under CEQA.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-125

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Overall Impacts

The F-B LGA would avoid the May 2014 Project’s impacts on visual quality in 

Rosedale/Greenacres, introduce impacts in North Bakersfield, and reduce impacts in Central 

Bakersfield. By shifting the HSR alignment eastward to primarily commercial and industrial areas 

in North and Central Bakersfield, the F-B LGA would substantially reduce the number of 

adversely affected residential uses. Aesthetic impacts during construction and on schools would 

be similar. Overall, aesthetic impacts associated with the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA

would be comparable with regards to the impact determinations on the individual landscape units; 

however, the F-B LGA would be considered preferable based on the reduced impacts to 

residential uses.

Cultural Resources

Summary of May 2014 Project Alternative Cultural Resources Impacts

This section describes known and potential impacts on cultural resources. Cultural resources 

include prehistoric archaeological sites, historic-era archaeological sites, traditional cultural 

properties (TCP), and historic buildings, structures, objects, landscapes, districts, and linear 

features. The purpose of this section is to describe the potential impacts on cultural resources as 

a result of the May 2014 Project. 

Methodology 

Background research and field surveys were conducted to identify archaeological and built 

environment resources within the May 2014 Project’s area of potential effect (APE). The results of 

this investigation are described in Fresno to Bakersfield Project Section Historic Property Survey 

Report (Authority and FRA 2012b) and Supplemental Historic Property Survey Report (Authority 

and FRA 2013a and 2013b) and are summarized below. 

The APE is the geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly 

cause alterations in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist (Code 

of Federal Regulations Title 36, Section 800.16[[d]).] Two distinct APEs were delineated for the 

purposes of this undertaking: an Archaeological APE and a Built Environment APE, as defined in 

detail below:

• Archaeological APE: The APE for archaeological properties is the area of ground proposed

to be disturbed during construction of the undertaking, including grading, cut-and-fill,

easements, staging areas, utility relocation, and biological mitigation areas (i.e., the project

footprint).

• Built Environment APE: The Built Environment APE includes all legal parcels intersected by

the proposed HSR right-of-way for all alternatives, including construction of proposed

ancillary features (such as grade separations or maintenance facilities) and construction

staging areas.

Impacts

Identified Archaeological Resources

The original Archaeological Survey Report and supplemental Archaeological Survey Reports 

(Authority and FRA 2011, 2013a, and 2013b) identified two archaeological resources within the 

Archaeological APE south of Shafter (Table 8-A-56). Of these two resources, one (CA-KER3072) was exempt from evaluation per the Section 106 Programmatic Agreement and is not 

considered a historic property or historical resource for purposes of the HSR Project. More 

research is required to determine if the other resource (CA-KER-2507) qualifies as a historic 

property or historical resource, as defined in conditions set forth in the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section Archaeological Treatment Plan (Authority and FRA 2014d). However, per Stipulation 

VI.C.1 of the Section 106 Programmatic Agreement and for purposes of this comparison, the

resource is presumed to qualify as a historic property (and, as such, a historical resource).
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-126 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-56 Archaeological Resources: May 2014 Project

Primary Number/ID Trinomial Site Type Description

8.0-A P-15-002507 9.0-A CA-KER-2507 10.0-A Prehistoric 

archaeological site

11.0-A Ethnographic village 

site

12.0-A P-15-003072* 13.0-A CA-KER-3072 14.0-A Prehistoric 

archaeological site

15.0-A Lithic scatter

*This resource is exempt from evaluation per the Section 106 Programmatic Agreement.

Unidentified Archaeological Resources

Most of the May 2014 Project is aligned on landforms that contain very low to moderate sensitivity 

for encountering buried archaeological deposits; however, the likelihood is very high for 

encountering buried archaeological deposits along both sides of the Kern River (Authority and 

FRA 2014d). 

Traditional Cultural Properties

TCPs can be defined generally as resources that are eligible for inclusion in the National Register 

of Historic Places because of their association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living 

community. One TCP was identified within the May 2014 Project’s APE: Sociedad Juarez 

Mutualista Mexicana TCP. Mitigation measures presented in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Memorandum of Agreement and further defined in the Built Environment Treatment Plan 

(Authority and FRA 2014) would ensure that no adverse effects would occur to this TCP from the 

construction or operation of the May 2014 Project. 

Tribal Cultural Resources

Tribal Cultural Resources are defined as a site, feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, 

or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, which may include non-unique 

archaeological resources previously subject to limited review under CEQA. Assembly Bill 52 adds 

Tribal Cultural Resources to the topic of cultural resources in the CEQA checklist. It requires a 

lead agency to consult directly with Native Americans on a government-to-government level early 

in the environmental review process. During consultation, Tribal Cultural Resources will be 

identified, project impacts will be determined, and feasible mitigation measures will be developed. 

For the HSR Project, the FRA initiated government-to-government consultation to all federallyrecognized Native American tribes that could be affected by the undertakings. Tribal 

Representatives were contacted by letter and by telephone. The Authority sent letters to all nonfederally-recognized Native American groups to initiate consultation. Tribal Representatives from 

these groups were also contacted by telephone. No Tribal Cultural Resources were identified 

within the APE.

Historic Architectural Resources

The May 2014 Project would have an indirect adverse visual effect on one Section 106 historic 

property and substantial adverse changes to four CEQA historical resources south of Shafter 

(Table 8-A-57). The substantial adverse changes would include physical alteration and, to one 

resource, demolition; as well as indirect visual changes to the immediate surroundings of the 

other resources, and therefore would be significant impacts under CEQA.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-127

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-57 Historic Architectural Resources: May 2014 Project

APN Resource Name / 

Address

City/County Description Effect Finding

00643002, 

00643003

Stark/Spencer 

Residence

Bakersfield, Kern 1898 residence Adverse Effect - Indirect

00639102 1401-1409 K St. Bakersfield, Kern 1913 residences Substantial Adverse 

Change - Direct

00645002 1323 L St. Bakersfield, Kern Ca. 1912-1920 

residence

Substantial Adverse 

Change - Indirect

00644026 1330 L St. Bakersfield, Kern 1920 residence Substantial Adverse 

Change - Indirect

00644025 1326 L St. Bakersfield, Kern 1920 residence Substantial Adverse 

Change - Indirect

1 This resource is a historic property under Section 106 and historical resource under California Environmental Quality Act.

APN = Assessor’s Parcel Number

Overall Impacts

The May 2014 Project has the potential to cause impacts to historic properties and historical 

resources. Mitigation for these impacts includes implementing the conditions set forth in the Built 

Environment Treatment Plan for historic architectural resources and treatment set forth for 

archaeological site CA-KER-2507 in the Archaeological Treatment Plan. These conditions and 

measures were developed in coordination with the California State Historic Preservation Officer, 

and complied with the mitigation framework outlined in the programmatic agreement and 

memorandum of agreement for cultural resources protection that was developed for this project. 

Even with mitigation, there would be physical impacts, such as demolition or incompatible 

alteration to historic properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and historical 

resources defined under Section 15064.5 of the CEQA Guidelines. These direct impacts would 

be significant because loss of the historic property from its local context or a modification that 

affects the property‘s integrity would render the historic property incapable of conveying its 

significance. This would be a significant impact under CEQA. 

The May 2014 Project could result in damage to archaeological resources. Additionally, the 

construction-related cumulative impact of the project and other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects on cultural resources could result in significant impacts and the project 

contribution to this impact would be cumulatively considerable under CEQA. 

Operations-related impacts from the May 2014 Project and other past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects could result in indirect significant cumulative impacts to historic architectural 

resources; however, the HSR project is not anticipated to result in such impacts and, if later 

identified, would reduce any such impacts through the Built Environment Treatment Plan. The 

HSR’s contribution would not be significant and would not be cumulatively considerable under 

CEQA.

Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

Table 8-A-58 compares the adverse cultural resources impacts for the May 2014 Project and the 

F-B LGA.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-128 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-58 Cultural Resources Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Identified Archaeological 

Resources

One presumed NRHP-eligible archaeological 

resource identified within the APE.

No archaeological resources identified 

within the APE.

Unidentified 

Archaeological Resources

Most of the Project is very low to moderate 

sensitivity for archaeological deposits; 

however, the likelihood is very high along both 

sides of the Kern River.

Most of the Project is very low to 

moderate sensitivity for archaeological 

deposits; however, the likelihood is very 

high along both sides of the Kern River.

Traditional Cultural 

Properties

The May 2014 Project would result in no 

direct adverse effects or indirect adverse 

visual effect on the Sociedad Juarez 

Mutualista Mexicana TCP with implementation 

of the conditions described in the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section MOA to avoid and 

minimize potential adverse effects.

The F-B LGA would result in no direct 

adverse effects or indirect adverse 

effects on the Noriega Hotel as a TCP.

Tribal Cultural Resources No TCRs were identified within the APE. No TCRs were identified within the 

APE.

Historic Architectural 

Resources

The May 2014 Project would have an indirect 

adverse visual effect on one Section 106 

historic property and substantial adverse 

changes to four CEQA historical resources.

The F-B LGA would result in indirect 

adverse visual effects on four1 historic 

properties (also considered CEQA 

historical resources) after mitigation.

= least-impact alternative 1 Including the Noriega Hotel, which is also considered a TCP. 

APE = area of potential effect NRHP = National Register of Historic Places

CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act TCP = traditional cultural property

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative TCR = Tribal Cultural Resources

MOA = memorandum of agreement

As shown in Table 8-A-58, the F-B LGA would have no impacts to any known archaeological 

sites but would result in indirect visual effects on four historic architectural resources, while the 

May 2014 Project would potentially have a direct adverse effect to archaeological site CA-KER2507. Overall, impacts to cultural resources associated with the May 2014 Project and the F-B 

LGA would be comparable with regards to the impact determinations on unidentified 

archaeological resources and tribal cultural resources.

Regional Growth

Summary of May 2014 Project Regional Growth Impacts

The May 2014 Project could result in impacts associated with short- and long-term growth in the 

region. Construction of the May 2014 Project would result in new, near-term construction-related 

employment that may draw additional workers to the region, thereby increasing the population. 

Operation of the project also has the potential to induce growth in the region as a result of new 

direct jobs to operate and maintain the HSR project, indirect and induced jobs created to support 

new operations workers, and additional jobs created as a result of the improved connectivity of 

the region to the rest of the state, which is anticipated to increase the competitiveness of the 

region’s industries and overall growth in the regional economy.

Methodology 

The methodology for calculating construction period short-term job creation considers 

construction spending for the segment of the May 2014 Project that coincides with the study area 

for the F-B LGA to provide a basis of comparison between the two alternatives. The methodology 

used to calculate the anticipated increase in short-term jobs is described in Section 5.1.2, Project 

Job Creation – Short-Term Jobs, of the F-B CIA (Authority and FRA 2017a). 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-129

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Because long-term jobs would be generated based on operation of the HSR System as a whole, 

this analysis considers long-term jobs that would be generated in the region, rather than just 

considering those that would be associated with the study area. These long-term employment 

effects were estimated in the growth-inducement study conducted by Cambridge Systematics, 

Inc., in 2010, which informs this analysis.

This analysis discusses the potential growth-inducing effects of the short- and long-term jobs that 

would be created as a result of construction and operation of the HSR System. This evaluation is 

based on employment information available from the U.S. Census Bureau (U.S. Census Bureau 

2013).

Impacts

Short-Term Jobs Associated with Project Construction 

The approximate number of direct one-year full-time job equivalents that would be created in 

Kern County as a result of May 2014 Project construction spending over the entire construction 

period would be 6,233 (Table 8-A-59). The total number of indirect and induced one-year full-time 

job equivalents that would be created over this period would be approximately 5,647. The total 

number of one-year full-time job equivalents that would be created in the county over the entire 

construction period, including direct, indirect, and induced jobs, would be approximately 11,880. 

During the peak construction year, an additional 4,204 jobs would be created in Kern County, 

2,206 of which would be direct.

Annual average unemployment in Kern County was 13.7 percent in 2013, with approximately 

85,300 persons out of work (U.S. Census Bureau 2013). As with any large construction project, 

some influx of population is expected as workers arrive in the area seeking jobs. Given the high 

level of unemployment in the vicinity of the study area and the large number of construction 

workers currently on the job market, however, the majority of these new construction jobs would 

be filled by current residents in the county who possess the necessary construction skills. As a 

result, construction of additional community facilities would not be required to support this 

workforce.

Table 8-A-59 Employment Impacts during Construction of May 2014 Project

Year Direct Employment 

(annual job years)

Indirect and Induced 

Employment (annual job 

years)

Total New Employment 

(annual job years)

Year 1 350 317 667

Year 2 1,052 953 2,005

Year 3 1,713 1,552 3,265

Year 4 1,713 1,552 3,265

Year 5 1,052 953 2,005

Year 6 350 317 667

Total 6,230 5,644 11,874

Source: California High-Speed Rail Authority and Federal Railroad Administration 2017a

Long-Term Jobs Associated with Project Operation

Long-term job creation during the operation phase of the HSR project would be similar for all HSR 

project alternatives, including the May 2014 Project. This is because these effects are a result of 

the operation of the entire HSR System, and are, therefore, regional in nature rather than specific 

to one alternative. 

Operation of the HSR System, including the May 2014 Project, would generate a total of 

approximately 47,500 jobs in the four-county region by 2035, approximately 17,200 of which 

would be in Kern County (Cambridge Systematics Inc. 2010). These jobs include direct jobs to 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-130 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

operate and maintain the HSR project, indirect and induced jobs to support new operations 

workers, and additional jobs created as a result of the improved connectivity of the region and 

Kern County to the rest of the state. Based on the most recently available 2035 employment 

projections, which represent employment under the No Project Alternative, these jobs would 

represent a 4.0 percent increase above the 2035 projections in both the region and the county 

(Cambridge Systematics Inc. 2010; Kern Council of Governments 2015; Fresno Council of 

Governments 2012). Given that the unemployment rates in the region and the county have 

historically been higher than those of the state (refer to Table 3.18-5 in Section 3.18, Regional 

Growth), the workforce adequate to support the number of jobs created by the HSR project 

currently exists in the region and Kern County. Jobs created directly and indirectly by operation of 

the HSR project would, therefore, provide employment opportunities for residents in the area and 

would not induce substantial growth beyond that already projected for the region and Kern 

County. 

Comparison between the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA

Short-Term Jobs Associated with Project Construction

The relative difference in job creation in between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA is shown in 

Table 8-A-60. Positive values indicate that the May 2014 Project would create more employment 

opportunities than the F-B LGA.

Table 8-A-60 Comparison of Regional Employment Creation under the F-B LGA, relative to 

the May 2014 Project (in one-year full-time job equivalents)

Employment 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Total

Direct 25 75 122 122 75 25 444

Indirect and Induced 23 68 110 110 68 23 402

Total 48 143 232 232 143 48 846

Source: Authority and FRA 2017a 

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

Both the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA would result in an increase in construction jobs in Kern 

County as a result of HSR project construction spending. In total, the May 2014 Project would 

result in 846 more one-year full-time job equivalents, with 444 of them being direct and 402 being 

indirect or induced (Table 8-A-60). These jobs are expected to be filled predominantly by local 

residents, and would not result in an increase in the demand for public services and associated 

requirements for new or altered government and public facilities.

Long-Term Jobs Associated with Project Operation

The May 2014 Project and F-B LGA would both result in approximately the same length of 

railroad tracks that would require maintenance, and one train station and one maintenance of 

infrastructure facility that would require operation and maintenance. Therefore, the number of 

direct, indirect, and induced jobs generated by operation of the system would be the same for 

both of the alternatives. The population growth and associated land use consumption that would 

occur as a result of the HSR System would also be the same for both of the alternatives. As 

discussed above, due to high unemployment in the region and Kern County, jobs created directly 

and indirectly by operation of the HSR System would provide employment opportunities for 

residents in the area and would not induce substantial growth beyond that already projected for 

the region and county.

Overall Impacts

The May 2014 Project and F-B LGA would have similar impacts to regional growth. Although the 

May 2014 Project would result in the creation of approximately 844 additional one-year full-time 

job equivalents in the region and Kern County during the construction period, these jobs would 

generally be filled by local residents and would not result in a substantial increase in the 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-131

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

population. In terms of long-term jobs and associated growth, both the May 2014 Project and F-B 

LGA would result in the same level of increase.

Cumulative Impacts

Summary of May 2014 Project Cumulative Impacts

This section presents an analysis of the cumulative effects of implementing the May 2014 Project 

in combination with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects. 

Methodology 

The cumulative impacts discussion for each resource area considers the resource-specific study 

area, the existing condition of the resource, concurrent construction activities, cumulative effects 

with the project, and the contribution of the May 2014 Project to those cumulative effects.

For purposes of this analysis, reasonably foreseeable future projects are defined as those that 

are likely to occur within the 2035 planning horizon for the HSR project and that would contribute 

to a cumulative impact on a particular resource. Applicable projected growth trends (projections) 

contained in adopted local, regional, or statewide plans, including general plans and regional 

transportation plans were also used. 

Impacts

Table 8-A-61 summarizes the May 2014 Project’s contribution to potential cumulative impacts 

during construction and operation. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-132 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-61 Summary of Cumulative Impacts for the May 2014 Project

Resource Impact from Construction Impact from Operations 

Transportation Not Significant Beneficial (regional level), Not 

Significant (local level) 

Air Quality and Global Climate Change Not Significant Beneficial 

Noise and Vibration Significant (Cumulatively 

Considerable) 

Significant (Cumulatively Considerable) 

Electromagnetic Fields and 

Electromagnetic Interference 

No Impact No Impact 

Public Utilities Not Significant No Impact 

Energy Not Significant Not Significant 

Water Infrastructure and Resources No Impact No Impact 

Solid Waste/ Recycling Facilities Not Significant Not Significant 

Biological Resources Not Significant Not Significant 

Hydrology and Water Resources Not Significant Not Significant 

Geology, Soils, and Seismicity Not Significant Not Significant 

Hazardous Materials and Wastes Not Significant Not Significant 

Safety and Security Not Significant Not Significant / Beneficial (travel 

safety) 

Socioeconomics, Communities, and 

Environmental Justice 

Economic and social changes resulting from the project are not treated 

as significant effects on the environment under CEQA per Section 

15064(e) of the CEQA Guidelines; therefore, CEQA determinations are 

not provided for social and economic impacts. However, CEQA 

determinations are provided for division and/or disruption of 

communities (see below). 

Division and/or Disruption of Community Significant (Cumulatively 

Considerable) 

Significant (Cumulatively Considerable) 

Station Planning, Land Use, and 

Development 

Not Significant Significant (Cumulatively Considerable) 

Agricultural Lands Not Significant Significant (Cumulatively Considerable) 

Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Not Significant Not Significant 

Aesthetics and Visual Quality Significant (Cumulatively 

Considerable) Bakersfield 

area 

Significant (Cumulatively Considerable) 

Kern County/ Bakersfield area 

Cultural and Paleontological Resources Significant (Cumulatively 

Considerable) 

Significant (Not Cumulatively 

Considerable) Indirect impacts to 

historic architectural resources 

Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) FRA is required to conduct an analysis of potential impacts to Section 

4(f) and Section 6(f) resources and prepares this analysis as part of the 

NEPA process; however, since there are no CEQA significance criteria 

for environmental justice, no CEQA determinations are provided for 

Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) resources. 

Source: Authority and FRA 2014b 

CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act

FRA = Federal Railroad Administration
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-133

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

The resource areas that will have a significant impact from construction are: noise and vibration; 

socioeconomics and communities (division and/or disruption of community); aesthetics and visual 

quality; cultural and paleontological resources; and environmental justice. 

The resource areas that will have a significant impact from operation are: noise and vibration; 

socioeconomics and communities (division and/or disruption of community); station planning, land 

use, and development; agricultural lands; aesthetics and visual quality; and cultural and 

paleontological resources. 

Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

Table 8-A-62 compares the cumulative impacts for the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA. 

Table 8-A-62 Cumulative Impacts for the Comparison between the May 2014 Project and FB LGA

Resource May 2014 Project

Impact from 

Construction 

Impact from 

Operations 

F-B LGA

Impact from 

Construction 

Impact from 

Operations 

Transportation Not Significant Beneficial (regional 

level), Not Significant 

(local level) 

Not Significant Beneficial (regional 

level), Not Significant 

(local level)

Air Quality and 

Global Climate 

Change 

Not Significant Beneficial Not Significant Beneficial

Noise and 

Vibration 

Significant 

(Cumulatively 

Considerable) 

Significant 

(Cumulatively 

Considerable) 

Significant 

(Cumulatively 

Considerable)

Significant 

(Cumulatively 

Considerable)

Electromagnetic 

Fields and 

Electromagnetic 

Interference 

No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact

Public Utilities Not Significant No Impact Not Significant No Impact

Energy Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Water 

Infrastructure and 

Resources 

No Impact No Impact No Impact No Impact

Solid Waste/ 

Recycling Facilities 

Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Biological 

Resources 

Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Hydrology and 

Water Resources 

Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Geology, Soils, 

1 and Seismicity 

Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Hazardous 

Materials and 

Wastes 

Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Safety and 

Security 

Not Significant Not Significant / 

Beneficial (travel 

safety) 

Not Significant Not Significant / 

Beneficial (travel 

safety)
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-134 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Resource May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Impact from 

Construction 

Impact from 

Operations 

Impact from 

Construction 

Impact from 

Operations 

Socioeconomics

and Communities 

FRA is required to conduct an 

environmental justice analysis for the 

project as part of the NEPA process; 

however, since there are no CEQA 

significance criteria for environmental 

justice, no CEQA determinations are 

provided for environmental justice. 

Environmental Justice cumulative impacts 

are therefore discussed in Chapter 5 of this 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS and are not 

applicable for the impacts considered here. 

Additionally, economic and social changes 

resulting from the project are not treated as 

significant effects on the environment under 

CEQA per Section 15064(e) of the CEQA 

Guidelines; therefore, CEQA 

determinations are not provided for social 

and economic impacts. However, CEQA 

determinations are provided for division 

and/or disruption of communities (see 

below).

FRA is required to conduct an environmental 

justice analysis for the project as part of the 

NEPA process; however, since there are no 

CEQA significance criteria for environmental 

justice, no CEQA determinations are provided 

for environmental justice. Additionally, 

economic and social changes resulting from 

the project are not treated as significant 

effects on the environment under CEQA per 

Section 15064(e) of the CEQA Guidelines; 

therefore, CEQA determinations are not 

provided for social and economic impacts. 

However, CEQA determinations are provided 

for division and/or disruption of communities 

(see below).

Division and/or 

Disruption of 

Community 

Significant 

(Cumulatively 

Considerable) 

Significant 

(Cumulatively 

Considerable) 

Not Significant Significant (Not 

Cumulatively 

Considerable)

Station Planning, 

Land Use, and 

Development 

Not Significant Significant 

(Cumulatively 

Considerable) 

Not Significant Significant (Not 

Cumulatively 

Considerable)

Agricultural Lands Not Significant Significant 

(Cumulatively 

Considerable) 

Not Significant Significant 

(Cumulatively 

Considerable)

Parks, Recreation, 

and Open Space 

Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant Not Significant

Aesthetics and 

Visual Quality 

Significant 

(Cumulatively 

Considerable) 

Bakersfield area 

Significant 

(Cumulatively 

Considerable) Kern 

County/ Bakersfield 

area 

Significant 

(Cumulatively 

Considerable) 

Bakersfield area 

Significant 

(Cumulatively 

Considerable) Kern 

County/

Bakersfield area 

Cultural and 

Paleontological 

Resources 2

Significant 

(Cumulatively 

Considerable) 

Significant (Not 

Cumulatively 

Considerable) Indirect 

impacts to historic 

architectural resources 

Significant 

(Cumulatively 

Considerable)

Significant (Not 

Cumulatively 

Considerable) Indirect 

impacts to historic 

architectural 

resources

1 In this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, analysis of Paleontological Resources is in this section. In the Fresno to Bakersfield Section EIR/EIS,

Paleontological Resources were reviewed in the Cultural Resources Section. 2 In this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, Cultural Resources have been evaluated in a separate, standalone section. Analysis of Paleontological 

Resources can be found in Section 3.9. 

CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

EIR = environmental impact report EIS = environmental impact statement

FRA = Federal Railroad Administration 

November 2017

NEPA = National Environmental Policy Act
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-135

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

As shown in Table 8-A-62, when combined with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

projects, cumulative impacts under the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA would be comparable. 

Further, the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA would have a similar contribution to cumulative 

effects. In summary, the differences between the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA relevant to 

cumulative impacts are not substantial, and there are no significant differentiating features for this 

issue area.

Section 4(f)-6(f) Evaluation

Summary of May 2014 Project Section 4(f)-6(f) Evaluation Impacts

Section 4(f) protects publicly-owned lands that are parks, recreational areas, and wildlife refuges. 

Public schools may qualify as a Section 4(f) resource if they include a recreational facility (e.g., 

playgrounds, ball fields, or open space) that is made available to members of the public. Section 

4(f) also protects historic sites of national, state, or local significance that are located on public or 

private land. 

Section 6(f) properties include recreation resources created or improved with funds from the Land 

and Water Conservation Fund Act. Land purchased with these funds cannot be converted to a 

non-recreational use without coordination with the Department of the Interior and National Park 

Service and mitigation that includes replacement of the quality and quantity of land used.

Methodology 

In accordance with adopted methodologies, the study area for parks, recreational areas, wildlife 

refuges, and public schools was defined as the May 2014 Project footprint plus a 1,000-foot 

buffer on either side of the alignment, and a 0.5-mile buffer around the maintenance sites, station 

areas, and support facilities for the May 2014 Project. In the study area, only those resources 

identified as eligible for protection under the requirements of Section 4(f) and Section 6(f), and 

identified as potentially affected by the May 2014 Project (due to proximity effects and/or property 

acquisition), were further evaluated.

Impacts

Section 4(f)

None of the schools in the Section 4(f) study area were identified to have a joint use agreement in 

place and no publicly accessible recreation facilities exist on public school grounds in the Section 

4(f) study area. As such, no further evaluation was deemed necessary for schools. Table 8-A-63 

shows parks, recreation, and open space properties evaluated for Section 4(f) use. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-136 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-63 Park, Recreation, and Open Space Properties Evaluated for Section 4(f) Use 

by the May 2014 Project

Property Name DocumentationNotes

Town Square Distance from the May 2014 Project alignment is 774 feet. Determined to be too far from 

the alternative alignment to potentially be affected.

Stringham Park Distance from the May 2014 Project alignment is 991 feet. Determined to be too far from 

the alternative alignment to potentially be affected.

Kirschenmann 

Park

Distance from the May 2014 Project alignment is 721 feet. Determined to be too far from 

the alternative alignment to potentially be affected.

Austin Creek Park Distance from the May 2014 Project alignment is 596 feet. At the time of the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS and this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, this park not been 

constructed. However, had it been considered it would have been determined to be too far 

from the May 2014 Project alignment to be affected.

Kern River 

Parkway

Direct impacts associated with the May 2014 Project. These included:

• Visual intrusion from overhead HSR

• Temporary construction activities in the park

• Temporary construction noise impacts

Jastro Park Distance from the May 2014 Project alignment is 560 feet. Determined to be too far from 

the May 2014 Project alignment to potentially be affected.

McMurtrey 

Aquatic Center

Distance from the May 2014 Project alignment is 37 feet. Indirect impacts to parking were 

considered in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. Column placement could 

result in a loss of up to 11 percent of the parking spaces; however, the Center would still 

comply with applicable parking requirements. 

Bakersfield 

Amtrak Station 

Playground

Distance from the May 2014 Project alignment is 199 feet. Indirect impacts to the park 

were considered in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. Noise and vibration 

levels would increase; however, the playground is subject to existing noise levels. 

Mitigation would reduce the increase to less than significant. 

The HSR elevated viaduct would be visually dominant; however, in an urbanized area that 

does not require a high-quality visual setting for the public to use the resource, mitigation 

measures would be sufficient to reduce the impact to less than significant. 

Mill Creek Linear 

Park

Direct impacts associated with the May 2014 Project alignment to Mill Creek Linear Park 

were considered in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. These included: 

• Visual intrusion from overhead HSR

• Temporary construction activities in the park

• Temporary construction noise impacts

Centennial Plaza Distance from the May 2014 Project alignment is 904 feet. This park was not considered in 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS although it existed at the time. However, 

had it been included it would have been determined too far from the alternative alignment 

to potentially be affected.

Central Park Distance from the May 2014 Project alignment is 1,930 feet. Determined to be too far from 

the May 2014 Project alignment to potentially be affected.

EIR = environmental impact report

EIS = environmental impact statement

HSR = high-speed rail

Implementation of the May 2014 Project would result in a permanent 4(f) impact to the Kern River 

Parkway and Mill Creek Linear Park. Mitigation would include deliberate placement of abutments 

and supports, as well as temporary easements for construction, to avoid the primary or secondary 

floodways and park amenities, to the extent possible and depending on the limits of each 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-137

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

resource verified through coordination with the city of Bakersfield. Any trails impacted would be 

re-routed and maintained for use during construction, and relocated if needed.

Table 8-A-64 shows historic resources listed in, or determined or recommended as eligible for the

National Register of Historic Places within the APE for the May 2014 Project. If the May 2014 

Project would permanently incorporate land from the property or result in an adverse temporary 

occupancy, and would also result in an adverse effect, this impact would constitute a Section 4(f) 

use. None of the historic resources identified within the APE was determined to have a Section 

4(f) use. 

Table 8-A-64 Resources Listed in, or Determined or Recommended Eligible for, the National

Register of Historic Places under Criteria A-C within the Study Area of the May 2014 

Project

ResourceName DocumentationNotes

Santa Fe Depot This resource was determined to have no 4(f) use under the May 2014 

Project alignment. 

San Francisco and San Joaquin Valley 

Railroad Section House

This resource was determined to have no 4(f) use under the May 2014 

Project alignment.

Friant-Kern Canal This resource was determined to have no 4(f) use under the May 2014 

Project alignment.

Harvey Auditorium, Bakersfield High 

School

This resource was determined to have no 4(f) use under the May 2014 

Project alignment.

Kern County Civic Administrative 

Center

This resource was determined to have no 4(f) use under the May 2014 

Project alignment.

Stark/Spencer Residence This resource was determined to have no 4(f) use under the May 2014 

Project alignment.

Union Avenue Corridor This resource was determined to have no 4(f) use under the May 2014 

Project alignment.

Salon Juarez This resource was determined to have no 4(f) use under the May 2014 

Project alignment.

1031 E 18th St This resource was determined to have no 4(f) use under the May 2014 

Project alignment.

2509 E California Ave This resource was determined to have no 4(f) use under the May 2014 

Project alignment.

Source: Authority and FRA 2012d

Section 6(f)

No Section 6(f) resources were identified within the May 2014 Project study area. 

Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

Table 8-A-65 compares the Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) impacts for the May 2014 Project and 

the F-B LGA. 

Table 8-A-65 Section 4(f) Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Park, Recreation, and Open Space Properties

Town Square Distance from the May 2014 Project is Distance from the F-B LGA is 560 feet. 

774 feet. Determined to be too far from Determined to be too far from the alternative 

the alternative alignment(s) to potentially alignment(s) to potentially be affected.

be affected.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-138 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Stringham Park Distance from the May 2014 Project is 

991 feet. Determined to be too far from 

the alternative alignment(s) to potentially 

be affected.

Distance from the F-B LGA is 895 feet. 

Determined to be too far from the alternative 

alignment(s) to potentially be affected.

Kirschenmann Park Distance from the May 2014 Project and 

is 721 feet. Determined to be too far from 

the alternative alignment(s) to potentially 

be affected.

Distance from the F-B LGA is 480 feet. 

Determined to be too far from the alternative 

alignment(s) to potentially be affected.

Austin Creek Park Distance from the May 2014 Project is 

596 feet. At the time of the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Final EIR/EIS, this park had 

not been constructed. However, had it 

been constructed it would have been 

determined to be too far from the May 

2014 Project alignment(s) to be affected.

No Impact

Uplands of the Kern 

River Parkway

No Impact Distance from the F-B LGA is 515 feet. 

Construction activities would not occur in the 

Uplands of the Kern River Parkway. 

Determined to be too far from the F-B LGA to 

potentially be affected.

Kern River Parkway Distance from the May 2014 Project is 

0 feet. 

Direct impacts include:

• Visual intrusion from overhead HSR

• 0.48 acres permanent impacts from

the dual-column supports

• 3.28 acres temporary construction

impacts to the park

• Temporary construction noise

impacts

Based on the information gathered to 

date, the analysis supports an FRA 

finding that the May 2014 Alternative on 

Kern River Parkway in Bakersfield could 

result in a de minimis impact, as defined 

by 49 U.S.C. 303(d). The Authority and 

FRA have begun conversations with the 

City of Bakersfield Department of 

Recreation and Parks with regard to the 

characterization of effects of the project in 

the context of this Section 4(f) evaluation, 

consistent with 49 U.S.C. 303(d)(3)(B).

Distance from the F-B LGA is 0 feet. 

Direct impacts include:

• Visual intrusion from overhead HSR

• 0.96 acre permanent impacts from the

dual-column supports.

• 4.4 acres temporary construction impacts

to the park

• Temporary construction noise impacts

Based on the information gathered to date,

the analysis supports an FRA finding that the

F-B LGA Alternative on Kern River Parkway

in Bakersfield could result in a de minimis

impact, as defined by 49 U.S.C. 303(d). The

Authority and FRA have begun

conversations with the City of Bakersfield

Department of Recreation and Parks with

regard to the characterization of effects of

the project in the context of this Section 4(f)

evaluation, consistent with 49 U.S.C.

303(d)(3)(B).

Jastro Park Distance from the May 2014 Project is 

560 feet. Determined to be too far from 

the alternative alignment(s) to potentially 

be affected.

No Impact

McMurtrey Aquatic 

Center

Distance from the May 2014 Project is 37 

feet. Indirect impacts to parking were 

considered in the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section Final EIR/EIS. Column placement 

could result in a loss of up to 11 percent

No Impact
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-139

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

of the parking spaces; however, the 

Center would still comply with applicable 

parking requirements. No Section 4(f) use 

would occur.

Bakersfield Amtrak 

Station Playground

Distance from the May 2014 Project is 

199 feet. Indirect impacts to the park 

were considered in the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. Noise 

and vibration levels would increase; 

however, the playground is subject to 

existing noise levels. Mitigation would 

reduce the increase to less than 

significant. 

The HSR elevated viaduct would be 

visually dominant; however, in an 

urbanized area that does not require a 

high-quality visual setting for the public to 

use the resource, mitigation measures

would be sufficient to reduce the impact 

to less than significant. No Section 4(f) 

use would occur.

No Impact

Mill Creek Linear Park Direct impacts of the May 2014 Project to 

the park were considered in the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS and 

determined not adverse. These impacts 

include:

No Impact

• Visual intrusion from overhead HSR

• 0.23 acres temporary construction

impacts to the park

• Temporary construction noise

impacts

Information garnered to date supports a 

finding that the impacts on the Mill Creek 

Linear Park from the May 2014 Project

are de minimis.

Centennial Plaza Distance from the May 2014 Project is 

904 feet. This park was not considered in 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS although it existed at the time. 

However, had it been included it would 

have been determined too far from the 

alternative alignment(s) to potentially be 

affected.

No Impact

Weill Park No Impact Distance from the F-B LGA is 0 feet. Direct 

impacts associated with the F-B LGA to the 

park were considered in the Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS. These include:

• Visual intrusion from overhead HSR

• 0.07 acre permanent impacts from

single-column supports.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-140 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

• 0.55 acres temporary construction

impacts to the park

• Temporary construction noise impacts

Based on the information gathered to date,

the analysis supports an FRA finding that the

F-B LGA Alternative on Weill Park in

Bakersfield could result in a de minimis

impact, as defined by 49 U.S.C. 303(d). The

Authority and FRA have begun

conversations with the City of Bakersfield

Department of Recreation and Parks with

regard to the characterization of effects of

the project in the context of this Section 4(f)

evaluation, consistent with 49 U.S.C.

303(d)(3)(B).

Riverview Park No Impact Distance from the F-B LGA is 985 feet. 

Determined to be too far from the alternative 

alignment(s) to potentially be affected.

Central Park Distance from the May 2014 Project is 

1,930 feet. Determined to be too far from 

the alternative alignment(s) to potentially 

be affected.

Distance from the F-B LGA is 920 feet. 

Determined to be too far from the alternative 

alignment(s) to potentially be affected.

Metropolitan Recreation 

Center

No Impact Distance from the F-B LGA is 615 feet. 

Transmission line modifications would occur 

within the park as described in Section 3.6.4. 

Mitigation Measure PP-MM#1 would be 

implemented to ensure detour signage and 

access to alternate park areas. With 

implementation of PP-MM#1, the F-B LGA

would require temporary physical occupation 

of the Metropolitan Recreation Center but 

would not result in a use due to temporary 

occupancy.

Based on the information gathered to date, 

the analysis supports an FRA finding that the 

F-B LGA Alternative on Metropolitan

Recreation Center in Bakersfield would result

in a de minimis impact, as defined by 49

U.S.C. 303(d).

Joshua Park No Impact Distance from the F-B LGA is 625 feet. 

Determined to be too far from the alternative 

alignment(s) to potentially be affected.

Historic Properties None of the resources identified was 

determined to have a Section 4(f) use.

None of the resources identified was 

determined to have a Section 4(f) use.

Section 6(f) properties There are no Section 6(f) resources 

within the Project area.

There are no Section 6(f) 

the Project area.

resources within 

= least-impact alternative

Authority = California High-Speed Rail Authority

EIR = environmental impact report

EIS = environmental impact statement

FB = Fresno to Bakersfield 

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated 

Alternative

November 2017
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-141

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

FRA = Federal Railroad Administration

HSR = high-speed rail 

U.S.C. = United States Code

Impacts associated with the May 2014 Project exceed those for F-B LGA for Section 4(f) 

resources. There are no 6(f) resources in either project area. There are no feasible and prudent 

alternatives to the use of Section 4(f) properties for the May 2014 Project. Both the May 2014 

Project and F-B LGA incorporate measures to minimize harm. However, because the May 2014 

Project would result in two permanent Section 4(f) uses, while the F-B LGA would result in de 

minimis Section 4(f) findings, the F-B LGA is determined to be the least environmentally 

damaging alternative. 

Environmental Justice 

Summary of May 2014 Project Environmental Justice Impacts

Federal agencies are required to identify and address, as appropriate, the potential 

disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental impacts, including 

interrelated social and economic effects, of their programs, policies, and activities on minority and 

low-income populations. This section describes the environmental justice impacts that would 

result from the May 2014 Project. 

Methodology 

The methodology used to identify minority and low-income populations that may be affected by 

the May 2014 Project is the same as that used for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section CIA 

Technical Report (Fresno to Bakersfield Section CIA) (Authority and FRA 2012g). 

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 contains 25 percent or more low-income persons.

• The percentage of minority and/or low-income persons in any census block or block group is

more than 10 percentage points greater than the County average (Authority and FRA 2017a).

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

the Project corridor and the census blocks and block groups that are located completely or 

partially within a 0.5-mile radius of the project alignment and station location. Figure 8-A-31 

provides an overview of the location of minority or low-income populations for the May 2014 

Project. 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 Project centerline and the footprint of the proposed station.

To provide comparability between the F-B LGA and the May 2014 Project, this figure was created 

using current data sources (e.g., the 2010 Census data for minority populations and the 2013 

American Community Survey data for poverty status) and at the same scale and level of detail as 

the mapping prepared for the F-B LGA (see Section 5.4.2 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS). As 

shown in Figure 8-A-30, 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, 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. 

For a description of minority and low-income areas affected by the May 2014 Project, refer to 

Section 3.12.6, Affected Environment: Socioeconomics, Communities, and Environmental 

Justice, of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority 2014: 3.12-16 through 3.12-

42). In comparing this updated figure to Figure 3.12-7 in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS (Authority 2014: 3.12-47), the minority and low-income areas identified for the May 2014 

Project have not significantly changed.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-142 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-31 Minority or Low-Income Communities by Census Block

(Sheet 1 of 2) 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-143

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure 8-A-31 Minority or Low-Income Communities by Census Block

(Sheet 2 of 2)
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project) 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-144 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impacts

As described in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section CIA (Authority and FRA 2012g), the May 2014 

Project traverses areas with minority and low-income populations and would result in 

disproportionately high and adverse effects on these populations even with the implementation of 

mitigation. For a description of minority and low-income areas affected by the May 2014 Project, 

refer to Section 4.3 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section CIA (Authority and FRA 2012g: pages 4-

30 through 4-39). The project includes mitigation measures that would minimize or avoid most of 

the impacts associated with project construction and operation. However, where mitigation 

measures would not completely reduce the impacts in areas with minority and low-income 

populations, disproportionately high and adverse effects on these populations would occur. 

Resource areas with disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income 

populations are summarized below and include: noise and vibration; socioeconomics and 

communities; station planning, land use, and development; parks, recreation, and open space; 

aesthetic and visual resources, and cumulative impacts. 

Noise and Vibration

Noise from construction activities would temporarily exceed noise standards evenly along the 

entire alignment and would affect sensitive receivers. These effects would be significant pursuant 

to CEQA, but would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with implementation of mitigation 

measures. Vibrations from construction activities would temporarily exceed vibration standards 

evenly along the entire alignment and would affect sensitive receivers. These effects would be 

substantial and significant, but would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with 

implementation of mitigation measures. 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 by implementation of the 

mitigation measures, which would be applied equally throughout the study area. Therefore,

construction noise and vibration impacts would not result in disproportionately high and adverse 

impacts on minority and low-income communities.

Operation of the May 2014 Project would increase ambient noise and vibration levels above 

standards and would affect sensitive receivers. These effects would be substantial and 

significant. Noise and vibration impacts would be distributed along the entire alignment, and 

mitigation measures would be applied as appropriate. Implementation of mitigation measures 

would reduce many of the impacts to a less-than-significant level. However, 305 sensitive 

receivers would still experience severe operational noise impacts even with the proposed 

mitigation. Most of these sensitive receivers are located in densely developed urban areas of 

Shafter and Bakersfield containing minority and low-income populations. Because the mitigation 

measures do not eliminate the adverse effects in these areas containing minority and low-income 

populations, and because these areas are more likely to experience more severe adverse noise 

impacts resulting from project operation, operational noise would have disproportionately high 

and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in these areas. 

Community Division and/or Disruption

Operation 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 would affect the minority and low-income populations in the urban 

communities, particularly in Bakersfield’s Northeast and Northwest districts (as defined in the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section CIA), as well as in rural communities, such as Crome. These 

effects would remain even after the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures. As 

detailed in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section 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. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-145

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Important community facilities would also be displaced as a result of project operation. The May 

2014 Project would have a substantial effect on Bakersfield High School, which is attended by 

predominantly minority and low-income students. Further, the May 2014 Project would also 

displace the Bakersfield Homeless Center, 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. Given that the 

communities that would be divided by the alignment are predominantly minority or low-income 

communities and that the project would affect community facilities that primarily serve minority or 

low-income communities, the May 2014 Project would disproportionately affect minority or lowincome communities. 

Land Use

Land use impacts would be distributed along the entire study area, but the adverse effects would 

be highest in places where the project would be incompatible with adjacent land uses, including in 

urban areas in Bakersfield where the May 2014 Project would enhance the existing 

incompatibility with adjacent residential and community facility land uses. Many high-density 

minority and low-income populations are located in Bakersfield. Because the urban areas in 

Bakersfield containing minority and low-income 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 use conversion would have disproportionately high and adverse 

effects on minority and low-income communities in Bakersfield.

Parks and Recreation

Impacts on park, recreation, open space resources, and school play areas would occur in 

Bakersfield, particularly the Kern River Parkway and Mill Creek Linear Park. Mitigation measures 

would be applied to address these impacts. However, these mitigation measures would not 

completely reduce the impacts to parks and recreation resources in Bakersfield. The parks that 

may be affected in Bakersfield are utilized by adjacent 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, project operation would have 

disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income populations in these 

locations.

Aesthetics

The May 2014 Project would result in aesthetics and visual resources effects during both 

construction and operation. 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 

construction of the elevated viaducts and the resulting visual impacts could not be mitigated to a 

less-than-significant level with the proposed mitigation measures. Therefore, the May 2014 

Project operation would have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and lowincome populations.

Cumulative Impacts

All communities along the May 2014 Project alignment and adjacent to the station would be 

impacted during project construction. However, in almost all cases, the impacts would not result 

in disproportionately high and adverse effects to minority and low-income populations since these 

impacts would not be unique to and would not be borne primarily by these populations. 

Nevertheless, because many of the minority and low-income populations reside in the urban 

areas of Shafter and Bakersfield, where other reasonably foreseeable construction projects would 

also occur, there likely would be disproportionately high and adverse cumulative effects 

experienced by these populations. Mitigation measures that would be implemented would not 

completely eliminate the adverse effects to minority and low-income populations, when 

considered with other reasonably foreseeable projects in the area; therefore, these populations 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-146 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

would likely bear a disproportionate burden of the cumulative impacts associated with project 

construction. 

Project operational impacts disproportionately affecting minority and low-income populations 

would be concentrated in urban areas along the project area in Shafter and Bakersfield, as well 

as in rural areas such as Crome. These impacts would include an increase in ambient noise 

levels above standards, disruption of communities and displacement of residences and 

community facilities, changes or loss of park resources, decreases in visual quality, and 

cumulative impacts for noise and vibration, communities, and aesthetics and visual resources.

Benefits

Although this project would result in benefits that 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 the 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 HSR System. 

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. In the absence of strong, affordable housing requirements 

established by the governing local jurisdiction for new construction, as well as effective rentcontrol programs, low-income renters could potentially be driven out of the downtown station 

areas. However, the Authority’s Station Area Planning funding aims to promote low-income 

housing as a part of station area development. Project design features and mitigation measures 

would reduce 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 construction and operation of the 

May 2014 Project. 

Comparison between the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA

Table 8-A-66 compares the Environmental Justice impacts for the May 2014 Project and the F-B 

LGA. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-147

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-66 Environmental Justice Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA

F-B LGA May 2014 Project Relative Difference 

Noise and 

Vibration

Disproportionately 

high and adverse 

effects 

Disproportionately 

high and adverse 

effects 

Lesser impacts would occur under the F-B 

LGA, as severe noise impacts would affect 152 

sensitive receivers compared to 305 sensitive 

receivers under the May 2014 Project.

Community 

Division and/or 

Disruption

Disproportionately 

high and adverse 

effects 

Disproportionately 

high and adverse 

effects 

Lesser impacts would occur under the F-B LGA

as it follows existing highway and railroad 

corridors and would not pass through 

established neighborhoods, while the May 

2014 Project would traverse residential areas 

in the Northwest District of Bakersfield and 

divide the community of Crome. 

Land Use -- Disproportionately 

high and adverse 

effects 

The F-B LGA would not result in 

disproportionately high and adverse effects to 

minority or low-income communities related to 

land use conversion and incompatible land 

uses. Because the F-B LGA follows existing 

transportation corridors, the conversion of land

use 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.

Parks and 

Recreation

-- Disproportionately 

high and adverse 

effects 

The F-B LGA would not result in 

disproportionately high or adverse effects to 

minority or low-income communities related to 

parks and recreation. 

Aesthetics Disproportionately 

high and adverse 

effects 

Disproportionately 

high and adverse 

effects 

Comparable operational impacts would occur 

under both alternatives, but the F-B LGA would 

be considered preferable based on reduced 

impacts to residential uses; impacts during 

construction would be the same for both 

alternatives.

Cumulative 

Impacts 

Disproportionately 

high and adverse 

effects 

Disproportionately 

high and adverse 

effects 

Comparable impacts would occur between the 

two alternatives as they would have similar 

contributions to cumulative effects.

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-148 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Similar to the May 2014 Project, the F-B LGA would result in disproportionately high and adverse 

effects on minority and low-income populations. When comparing the intensity of these effects 

under each alternative as they relate to each resource area, four resource areas have lesser or 

no effects under the F-B LGA, and two have comparable effects. Implementation of mitigation 

measures would minimize or avoid most of the impacts associated with project construction and 

operation for all communities along the alignment, including minority and low-income populations. 

Where mitigation measures would not completely reduce the impacts in areas with minority and 

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

populations would occur. As shown in Table 8-A-66, the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA 

would both result in disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income 

populations in the following areas: noise and vibration (operational noise); socioeconomics and 

communities (residential displacement and impacts to community facilities); aesthetics and visual 

resources (introduction of HSR infrastructure); and cumulative impacts. The May 2014 Project 

would also result in disproportionately high and adverse effects on minority and low-income 

populations related to station planning, land use and development; and parks and recreation.

Because the F-B LGA largely follows existing transportation corridors and areas with commercial 

and industrial land uses, it would result in lesser effects to minority and low-income communities 

compared to the May 2014 Project.

Project Costs and Operations

Summary of May 2014 Project Cost & Operation Impacts

This section discusses the estimated costs for building, operating, and maintaining the May 2014 

Project, based on a 15 percent level of design. 

Methodology 

The approach and details used to prepare the construction cost estimate are provided in the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Cost Estimate Report (Authority and FRA 2013), which is available 

upon request from the Authority.

Costs are divided into capital cost, which is the total cost associated with the design, 

management, land acquisition, and construction of the May 2014 Project, and O&M. O&M costs 

account for staff and supplies required to run the system and keep it properly maintained. O&M 

costs are estimated based on daily train miles, operation speeds, travel times, station 

configurations, maintenance and storage facilities, and assumed operating frequencies (Parsons 

Brinckerhoff 2011).

The apportionment of Fresno to Bakersfield cost estimates identified in the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section Final EIR/EIS to the May 2014 Project is proportional to the length of the section.

Impacts

Capital Cost

To help evaluate and compare project construction costs, FRA and the Authority have developed 

ten main Standardized Capital Cost Categories. The cost per each of these Standardized Capital 

Cost Categories for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section is provided in Table 8-A-67. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-149

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-67 Capital Cost of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section

FRA Standard Cost Categories Base Year FY 2010 Dollars (millions)

Track Structures & Track $2,945 

Stations, Terminals, Intermodal $283 

Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Admin. 

Bldgs.

Only item in this category for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section is the 

HMF if an alternative site in this section is selected. The cost estimate 

for the HMF is provided below.

Sitework, Right-of- Way, Land, Existing 

Improvements

$2,660 

Communications & Signaling $186 

Electric Traction $605 

Vehicles Considered a system wide cost and not included as part of individual 

HSR study alternatives.

Professional Services (applies to Cats. 10–

60)

$777 

Unallocated Contingency $290 

Finance Charges Estimate to be developed before project construction.

Total $7,746

Cats. = categories 

FRA = Federal Railroad Administration

FY = fiscal year 

HMF = heavy maintenance facility

HSR = high-speed rail

Since the May 2014 Project is 21.15 percent of the length of the Fresno to Bakersfield section, 

the costs can be estimated to be 21.15 percent of the costs. Table 8-A-68 shows the estimated 

capital cost for the May 2014 Project. As shown in the table, the total estimated cost is $2,893.7 

million (2010 dollars). 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-150 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-68 Capital Cost of the May 2014 Project

FRA Standard Cost Categories Base Year FY 2010 Dollars (millions)

Track Structures & Track $1,266.6

Stations, Terminals, Intermodal $260.8

Support Facilities: Yards, Shops, Admin. 

Bldgs., MOWF/MOIF 

$25.8

Sitework, Right-of- Way, Land, Existing 

Improvements

$766.8

Communications & Signaling $39.0

Electric Traction $127.8

Vehicles Considered a system wide cost and not included as part of 

individual HSR study alternatives.

Professional Services (applies to Cats. 10–60) $297.9

Unallocated Contingency $109.0

Finance Charges Estimate to be developed before project construction.

Total $2,893.7

Cats. = categories HMF = heavy maintenance facility

FRA = Federal Railroad Administration HSR = high-speed rail

FY = fiscal year MOWF/MOIF – Maintenance of Way Facility/Maintenance of Infrastructure Facility

Operating and Maintenance Cost

O&M costs for the Fresno to Bakersfield section of the statewide system, on completion of 

Phases 1 and 2, for the year 2035 are shown in Table 8-A-69. 

Table 8-A-69 Annual 2035 Operating and Maintenance Costs Apportioned to the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section (2010 $millions)

Annual O&M Cost HSR Fares at 50% of 

Airfare

HSR Fares at 83% of Airfare

Operating & Maintenance of Equipment $1,967 $1,312

Maintenance of Infrastructure $165 $165

Stations $101 $101

Insurance $25 $25

Administration (10% of above) $226 $161

Contingency (10% of above) $248 $176

Total $2,732 $1,940

Source: Authority and FRA 2014b. Table 5.3-2, Page 5-13.

HSR = high-speed train

O&M = operating and maintenance

Since the May 2014 Project is 21.15 percent of the length of the Fresno to Bakersfield section, 

the costs can be estimated to be 21.15 percent of the costs. Table 8-A-70 shows the estimated 

costs for the May 2014 Project. As shown in the table, costs for the May 2014 Project range from 

$241 million, with higher fares and no HMF, to $335 million, with lower fares and an HMF facility

(2010 dollars). 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-151

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-70 Annual 2035 Operating and Maintenance Costs Apportioned to the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section (2010 $millions)

Annual O&M Cost HSR Fares at 50% of 

Airfare

HSR Fares at 83% of Airfare

Operating & Maintenance of Equipment $236 $158

Maintenance of Infrastructure $25 $25

Stations $13 $13

Insurance $3 $3

Administration (10% of above) $28 $20

Contingency (10% of above) $30 $22

Total $335 $241

Source: Authority and FRA 2014b. Table 5.3-3, Page 5-14.

HSR = high-speed rail

O&M = operating and maintenance

Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

Table 8-A-71 compares the construction and operation costs for the May 2014 Project and the FB LGA. 

Table 8-A-71 Cost and Operation Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project and FB LGA (2010 $millions)

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Capital Cost for Alignment $2,893.7 $2,687.5

O&M Cost Costs for the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA are considered 

to be the same, and range from $57.7 million, with higher fares, to 

$80.7 million, with lower fares (2010 dollars)

Source: Authority 2016

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

O&M = operating and maintenance

As shown in Table 8-A-71, the May 2014 Project’s estimated construction costs are $206.2 

million higher than those estimated for the F-B LGA. The May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA 

have approximately the same number of trainset miles, stations, and route miles. Therefore, O&M 

costs for each of these alignments are considered to be the same. The costs associated with 

“Operation & Maintenance Equipment” for the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA are 

apportioned on the basis of trainset miles operated within the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA. 

The costs associated with “Maintenance of Infrastructure” of the May 2014 Project and the F-B 

LGA are apportioned as a ratio of 23 route miles to the 800 total route miles. The costs 

associated with “Stations” for the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA are apportioned as a ratio 

based on 1 of the 24 stations being located in the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA. The costs 

of “Administration” and “Contingency” are each calculated to be ten percent of the overall system 

costs. Operation and maintenance costs for the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA are 

considered to be the same. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-152 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

8-A-3 Summary

This evaluation provides information on the environmental topics where the May 2014 Project and 

the F-B LGA are substantively different, and does not focus on resource topics where the 

potential impacts for the alternatives are similar (e.g., air quality and global climate change, safety 

and security, electromagnetic fields and interference, station planning, and archaeological 

resources) or were not significant (e.g., hydrology and water resources, public utilities and 

energy, geology, soils and seismicity, and hazardous materials and waste).

Table 8-A-72 summarizes the potential impacts on natural resources (i.e., impacts on aquatic 

resources and special-status species) for comparison. Table 8-A-73 summarizes the potential 

impacts of the project alternatives on community-based resources, including impacts on 

farmlands, visual impacts, potential displacements, and environmental justice considerations. The 

shading provided in the tables signifies the alternative with the lesser quantity of impact. The 

color codes offered the resource specialist a method of integrating a professional, qualitative 

judgment with the quantity of impacts. When impacts are equal or comparable, no shading has 

been provided. 
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-153

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-72 Natural Resources Impacts Comparison 

Parameter Alternatives

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Natural Resources Direct Impacts1 (acres)

Wetlands Impact (Waters of U.S.) 0.51 0.00

Other Waters of the U.S. Impact 19.63 17.14

Total Direct Impacts to Aquatic Resources (Waters of the United States) 20.14 17.14

Direct Impacts to Special-Status Plant Communities (Black Willow Thickets) 1.00 1.54

Direct Impacts to Potentially Suitable Special-Status Plant Species Habitat 112.26 62.13

Direct Impacts to Habitats that Support Special-Status Wildlife Species 1,656.41 989.73

The shading provided in the table signifies the alternative with the lesser quantity of impact. 1 The acreage impacts include direct permanent impacts. 

Impact calculations in this table include project alternatives and station alternatives but do not include heavy maintenance facility alternatives. 

All impacts were calculated based on 15 percent engineering design project footprint.

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

U.S. = United States
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-154 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-A-73 Community Resources Impacts Comparison

Parameter Alternatives

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Section 4(f) Properties Impacted by Project 2 0 

Transportation and traffic (roadway segments operating below standards – Future [Year 2035] with Project 

Conditions) 

0 1 

Transportation and traffic (study intersections operating below standards – Future [Year 2035] with Project 

Conditions) 

11 15

Transportation and traffic (permanent road closures) 14 10

Noise-sensitive receptors affected after mitigation 305 152

Vibration Impacts (number of properties affected) 0 18

Important Farmland (acres) 485 372

Williamson Act lands (acres) 47 114

Parks, recreation, open space: before mitigation 2 2 

Visual quality in rural areas adversely affected Yes Yes

Visual quality in urban areas adversely affected Yes Yes

Number of Section 106 properties affected–direct (indirect) 0(1) 0(4) 

Oil wells (active wells within 200 feet of centerline) 2 0 

PEC Sites within 150 feet of Footprint 2 149

Key community facilities affected 20 15

Displacement of religious facilities 2 0 

Disproportionate effects on minority and low-income communities Yes Yes

Impacts on the Environmental Justice Community of Crome Yes No

Impacts on the Environmental Justice Community of Oildale No Yes

Estimated no. of commercial and industrial businesses displaced 392 377

Estimated no. of housing units displaced 384 86

The shading provided in the table signifies the alternative with the lesser quantity of impact. 

Impact calculations in this table include project alternatives and station alternatives but do not include heavy maintenance facility alternatives for the portion of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section between Poplar Avenue and 

Oswell Street. 

All impacts were calculated based on 15 percent engineering design project footprint.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-155

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

The Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement also considered the following parameters which are not applicable to this section: Division of Ponderosa Road/Edna 

Way community and Division of Newark Ave and 5th Ave/Waukena-Corcoran community. 

EJ = Environmental Justice 

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-156 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

8-A-4 References

Arvin-Edison Water Storage District. 2008. Water Management Plan Update.

www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/sb7/docs/2014/plans/Arvin%20Edison%20WSD.W

MP.2005.FINAL.AD%20for%202012.pdf (accessed March 1, 2016).

Beard, David. 2014. An Overview of the Kern County Water Agency’s Improvement District No. 4. 

www.water.ca.gov/waterquality/drinkingwater/docs/KCWA_MWQI14-0730.pdf (accessed 

March 1, 2016).CalFire. 2007. “Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA [State Responsibility 

Area]: Adopted by CAL FIRE on November 7, 2007.” “Fire Hazard Severity Zoning.” 

SRA-only maps for Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Kern counties. 

http://frap.cdf.ca.gov/data/frapgismaps/download.asp (accessed June 2010).

California Department of Education. 2015. Dataquest website http://data1.cde.ca.gov/dataquest/. 

(accessed December 2015)

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2007. “Visual and Aesthetics Review.” 

Chapter 27 in Standard Environmental Reference. http://www.dot.ca.gov/ser/vol1/sec3/

community/ch27via/chap27via.htm. Accessed November 1, 2009.

California High-Speed Rail Authority and USDOT Federal Railroad Administration (Authority and 

FRA). 2011. Section 106 Programmatic Agreement Among the Federal Railroad 

Administration, the Advisory Council on Historical Preservation, the California State 

Historic Preservation Officer, and the California High-Speed Rail Authority Regarding 

Compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

———. 2012a. Bay Area to Central Valley High-Speed Train Partially Revised Final Program 

Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Sacramento, CA: California High-Speed Rail 

Authority, April 2012.

———. 2012b. California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield Supplemental Historic 

Architectural Survey Report (Supplemental HASR). Sacramento and Washington, DC: 

California High-Speed Rail Authority and USDOT Federal Railroad Administration, 2012.

———. 2012c. California High-Speed Train Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental 

Impact Statement Fresno to Bakersfield: Biological Resources and Wetlands Technical 

Report. Prepared by URS/HMM/Arup Joint Venture. Sacramento, CA, and Washington, 

DC: California High-Speed Rail Authority and USDOT Federal Railroad Administration, 

2013. 

———. 2012d. California High-Speed Train Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental 

Impact Statement Fresno to Bakersfield: 4(f)/6(f) Methodology Technical Memo.

———. 2012e. California High-Speed Train Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental 

Impact Statement Fresno to Bakersfield: Aesthetics and Visual Resources Technical 

Report

———. 2012g. Fresno to Bakersfield Section: Community Impact Assessment Technical Report.

———. 2013a. California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield: Second Supplemental Historic 

Architectural Survey Report.

———. 2013b. California High-Speed Train Fresno to Bakersfield: Second Supplemental Historic 

Property Survey Report. Authority and FRA. 2011. Director’s Policy Context Sensitive 

Solutions. DP-22. January 29, 2011.

———. 2014a. California High-Speed Train Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental 

Impact Statement Fresno to Bakersfield: Air Quality Technical Report. Prepared by 

URS/HMM/Arup Joint Venture. Sacramento, CA, and Washington, DC: California HighSpeed Rail Authority and USDOT Federal Railroad Administration, revised March 2014.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-157

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

———. 2014b. California High-Speed Train Project Final EIR/EIS: Fresno to Bakersfield Section, 

Volume 1, Report. April 2014. Sacramento, CA. http://www.hsr.ca.gov/Programs/

Environmental_Planning/final_fresno_bakersfield.html. (accessed March 1, 2016).

———. 2014c. California High-Speed Train Project Environmental Impact Report/Environmental 

Impact Statement Fresno to Bakersfield: Transportation Analysis Technical Report. 

Prepared by URS/HMM/Arup Joint Venture. Sacramento, CA, and Washington, DC: 

California High-Speed Rail Authority and USDOT Federal Railroad Administration, 2014.

———. 2014d. Fresno to Bakersfield Section Archaeological Treatment Plan. 

———. 2017a. F-B LGA: Community Impact Assessment Technical Report. Sacramento, CA and 

Washington, D.C. February 2016.

———. 2017b. F-B LGA: Air Quality Technical Report. Sacramento, CA and Washington, D.C. 

2016.

California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority). 2010. EMC Program Plan. Prepared by Turner 

Engineering Corporation, September 2010.

———. 2012a. “Irrigation Systems – Will the delivery of agricultural water be impacted by the 

high-speed train?” Agricultural Working Group White Paper. Sacramento, CA: California 

High-Speed Rail Authority, July 2, 2012. http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/green_

practices/conservation/Approved%20Revised%20Final%20White%20Paper%

20Irrigation.pdf.

———. 2012b. “Induced Wind Impacts – Effects on pollination, blossoms and dust” Agricultural 

Working Group White Paper. Sacramento, CA: California High-Speed Rail Authority, July 

2, 2012. 

http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/green_practices/conservation/Approved%20Revise

d%20Final%20White%20Paper%20Induced%20Wind%20Impacts.pdf.

———. 2012c. “Pesticide Use Impacts – Will the train create new regulations?” Agricultural 

Working Group White Paper. Sacramento, CA: California High-Speed Rail Authority, July 

2, 2012. http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/green_practices/conservation/Approved%

20Revised%20Final%20White%20Paper%20Pesticide%20Regulation.pdf.

———. 2012d. Resolution 12-20 and attachments. Merced to Fresno Section High-Speed Train 

Project: Adoption of CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. 

Sacramento CA. May 3, 2012. http://www.hsr.ca.gov/docs/programs/merced-fresnoeir/final_EIR_MerFres_FinalResolve12-20.pdf. 

———. 2016. Fresno to Bakersfield Section Locally Generated Alternative (F-B LGA) Preliminary 

Engineering For Project Definition Record Set Design Submission Preliminary Right-ofWay Requirements Report (Authority 2016; F-B LGA)

California State Board of Equalization. 2015. Detailed Description of the Sales & Use Tax Rate. 

http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/sp111500att.htm. (accessed August 2015).

_____. 2016. Countywide 1% Allocation (AB8) Factors. http://www.co.kern.ca.us/auditor/

GenLevy/genlevyradio.asp. (accessed January 2016).

Cambridge Systematics Inc. 2010. California High-Speed Rail County-Level Growth Inducement 

Projections. Developed for use in regional environmental studies. Oakland, CA. July 

2010. 

California Water Service Company. 2011. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, Bakersfield 

District. 

www.bakersfieldcity.us/cityservices/water/pdfs/2010_FINAL%20UWMP%20Bakersfield_2

014_05_13.pdf.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-158 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Cawelo Water District. 2015. “Produced Water for Agricultural Use.” 

www.cawelowd.org/files/Download/Cawelo%20Produced%20Water%20Fact%20Sheet%

209.1.15.pdf (accessed March 1, 2016).City of Bakersfield and Kern County. 1994. 

Metropolitan Bakersfield Habitat Conservation Plan. Bakersfield: Metropolitan Bakersfield 

Habitat Conservation Plan Steering Committee, April 1994. 

http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/MetroBakHCP.pdf. 

City of Bakersfield. 2005. Implementation Plan for the Downtown Bakersfield Redevelopment 

Project.

———. 2015a. City of Bakersfield, California, FY 2015-16 Adopted Budget. 

http://www.bakersfieldcity.us/administration/citymanager/budget/. (accessed January 

2016).

City of Bakersfield and Kern County. 2007. Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan. December 11, 

2007. www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/mbgp/mbgptoc.pdf (accessed January 2011).

City of Shafter. 2015. City of Shafter 2015-2016 Annual Operating Budget & Capital Improvement 

Plan. http://www.shafter.com/DocumentCenter/View/3661. (accessed August 2015)

East Niles Community Services District. 2016. “East Niles Community Services District.” 

www.eastnilescsd.org/default.html (accessed March 1, 2016).

Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 2004. Electromagnetic Interference with Implanted 

Medical Devices, 1997–2003. March 2004. http://my.epri.com/portal/ server.pt?space

=CommunityPage&cached=true&parentname=ObjMgr&parentid=2&control=SetCommuni

ty&CommunityID=221&PageIDqueryComId=0. Accessed September 11, 2010.

Endangered Species Recovery Program (ESRP). 2002a. General Rare Plant Survey Guidelines. 

Prepared by Ellen. A. Cypher. Stanislaus, CA: California State University, Stanislaus, 

revised July 2002. http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/survey-protocolsguidelines/Documents/rare_plant_protocol.pdf.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 1988. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 

Report No. FTA-VA-90-1003-06. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Transportation. 

May. Available at: http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_

Manual.pdf.

Health and Safety Code Section 38505 (g). http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?

section=hsc&group=38001-39000&file=38505, accessed March 15, 2016. Sacramento, 

California.

Kern County. 2015a. Assessor Recorder Online, Property Search. 

http://www.recorder.co.kern.ca.us/propertysearch/index.php (accessed December 2015).

_____. 2015b. Assessor Recorder Online, Property Search. http://www.recorder.co.kern.ca.us/

propertysearch/index.php (accessed December 2015).

Kern County Planning Department. 2009. “Safety Element.” In Kern County General Plan. 

September 2009. http://www.co.kern.ca.us/planning/pdfs/kcgp/KCGPChp4Safety.pdf. 

North Kern Water Storage District. 2016. About Us. 

http://northkernwsd.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1&Itemid=2

(accessed March 1, 2016).

North of the River Municipal Water District. 2014. Annual Water Report. www.normwd.org/

index.cfm/fuseaction/Pages.Page/id/41 (accessed March 1, 2016).

Oildale Mutual Water Company. 2010. 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. 

www.water.ca.gov/urbanwatermanagement/2010uwmps/Oildale%20Mutual%20Water%2

0Company/Oildale_UWMP2010.pdf (accessed March 1, 2016).
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-159

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Parsons Brinckerhoff. 2011. Communications Systems Site Requirements. TM 3.4.2. Prepared 

for Federal Railroad Administration and California High-Speed Rail Authority. 

Sacramento, CA, and Washington, DC: July 2010.

Reference USA. 2015. Database of 24 million U.S. Businesses. http://www.referenceusa.com/ 

(accessed December 2015).

Shafter-Wasco Irrigation District. 2013. Shafter-Wasco Irrigation District Water Management Plan 

2011 Criteria. www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/sb7/docs/2014/plans/ShafterWasco%20ID%202011%20Water%20MGT%20Plan%20Final%20pdf.pdf (accessed 

March 1, 2016).

Smith, T.C. 1983. “Pond Fault, Northern Kern County.” California Division of Mines and Geology, 

Fault Evaluation Report-FER 144.

Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. 2010. Highway Capacity Manual.

USDOT Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 2012. High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise 

and Vibration Impact Assessment. September. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Transportation. Available at: https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/Details/L04090.

U.S. Bureau of Reclamation. 2003a. Cal-Atlas Geospatial Clearinghouse, Private Water District 

Boundaries. MPGIS Service Center in coordination with the CDWR. October 2003. 

www.atlas.ca.gov/download.html#/casil/boundaries. 

———. 2003b. Cal-Atlas Geospatial Clearinghouse, State Water District Boundaries. MPGIS 

Service Center in coordination with the CDWR. March 2003. www.atlas.ca.gov/

download.html#/casil/boundaries. 

———. 2009. Cal-Atlas Geospatial Clearinghouse, Federal Water District Boundaries. MPGIS 

Service Center. February 24, 2009. 

http://www.atlas.ca.gov/download.html#/casil/boundaries.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. Summary File 1 DP-1: Profile of General Population and Housing 

Characteristics: 2010. http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. 

(accessed September 2015)

———. 2013. American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates S1903: Median Income in the Past 

12 Months (in 2013 Inflation-Adjusted Dollars). http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/

pages/index.xhtml (accessed September 2015)

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2015. California Agricultural Statistics 2013 Crop Year. April

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2014. 2007 Industries Use Table/ 

Before Redefinitions/ Margin Details for 71 Industries. November 2014.

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2016a. CPI Detailed Report, Data for 

November 2016. (Table 24. Historical Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers 

(CPI-U): U. S. city average, all items). December 15, 2016.

———. 2016b. Employer Costs for Employee Compensation – September 2016. (Table 1. 

Employer costs per hour worked for employee compensation and costs as a percent of 

total compensation: civilian workers, by major occupational and industry group, 

September 2016). December 8, 2016.

———. 2016c. May 2015 State Occupational Employment and Wages, California, 47-0000 

Construction and Extraction. March 30, 2016.

———. 2016d. Union Members -- 2015. (Table 4. Median weekly earnings of full-time wage and 

salary workers by union affiliation, occupation, and industry, 2014-2015 annual 

averages). January 28, 2016.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-A-160 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998. Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San 

Joaquin Valley, California. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon. 

319 pp.
Appendix 8-A 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project)

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-A-161

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank