Chapter 8 Comparison of Alternatives and 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-1 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

8 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

This chapter identifies the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) and Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) Preferred Alternative. 

As discussed in Section 1.1.1 of this Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact 

Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS), the Authority certified the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section California High-Speed Train Final Project EIR/EIS in May 2014. While the 

Authority identified a Preferred Alternative and certified the analysis in the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section Final EIR/EIS for the entire Fresno to Bakersfield Section (from the Fresno Station to the 

Bakersfield Station), the Authority’s project approval via the Notice of Determination was only for 

the portion from the southern limit of the Fresno Station to the north side of 7th Standard Road, 

the city limit of Bakersfield. 

Following the Authority’s certification of the Final EIR/EIS, the FRA issued a Record of Decision

for the 114-mile Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the high-speed rail (HSR). In its Record of 

Decision, the FRA selected a Preferred Alternative (FRA Decision) for the entire Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section. The FRA Decision included the Bakersfield Hybrid Alternative (south of 7th 

Standard Road to Oswell Street) including the Bakersfield Hybrid Station at Truxtun Avenue. The 

portion of the FRA-approved Project that will be evaluated against the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Locally Generated Alternative (F-B LGA) in this chapter of the Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS is the

portion extending approximately 1,600 feet north of Poplar Avenue north of the city of Shafter to 

Oswell Street in the city of Bakersfield, including the Bakersfield Hybrid Station at Truxtun 

Avenue. This portion has been called the May 2014 Project throughout this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS and is the complementary portion of the Preferred Alternative that was identified in the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. That portion consists of the portion of the BNSF 

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

Road to Oswell Street. The F-B LGA and May 2014 Project are shown in Figure 8-1. 

The Authority and FRA identified the Preferred Alternative in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 

based on a balanced consideration of the environmental information presented in the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Draft EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2011); Fresno to Bakersfield Revised Draft 

EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS (Authority and FRA 2012), including the supporting technical reports; 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2014); and this Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, including the supporting technical reports. The 

Authority and FRA also considered community input (as further described in Chapter 9 of this 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS) and relative costs (see Chapter 6 of this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS) when identifying the Preferred Alternative. 

The identification of the Preferred Alternative also integrates FRA’s Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act (United States Code Title 49, section 303) (Section 4[f]) 

evaluation, which provides special protection to publicly owned public parks; recreational areas of 

national, state, or local significance; wildlife or waterfowl refuges; and lands of an historic site of 

national, state, or local significance. As described in Chapter 4 (Section 4[f]/6[f] Evaluation), 

Section 4(f) properties can only be used by federally funded transportation projects if there is no 

feasible and prudent alternative and all possible planning has been taken to minimize harm to any 

4(f) property used by the project. For more information on FRA’s evaluation under Section 4(f), 

please see Chapter 4 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. 
Chapter 8 Comparison of Alternatives and 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-2 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Chapter 8 Comparison of Alternatives and 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative

California High-Speed Rail Authority

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

November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-3 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS
Chapter 8 Comparison of Alternatives and 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-4 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Section 8 Comparison of Alternatives and 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-5 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Additionally, the criteria used to identify the Preferred Alternative are consistent with the Section 

404(b)(1), Guidelines of the Clean Water Act (Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, Part 230–

233), including minimizing impacts on waters of the United States and other sensitive 

environmental resources. As a result of the analyses incorporated in the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section Final EIR/EIS and this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, as well as in the biological 

assessment of ecosystems impacts and cultural and community impacts, the United States Army 

Corps of Engineers (USACE) and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 

concurred on May 5, 2017 and May 22, 2017, respectively, that the Preferred Alternative contains 

the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative, which was identified consistent with 

USACE’s permit program (Code of Federal Regulations Title 33, Part 320–331) and USEPA’s 

Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (Code of Federal Regulations Title 40, 230–233). 

8.1 Summary of Comments

Pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Authority and FRA have conducted an extensive public 

and agency involvement program as part of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section environmental 

review process, including the preparation of the August 2011 Draft EIR/EIS, the July 2012 

Revised Draft EIR/ Supplemental Draft EIS, the April 2014 Final EIR/EIS, and this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS. Both public outreach and agency involvement have been emphasized 

throughout the life of the project, which included local public involvement and outreach through 

meetings, presentations, and materials, and agency consultations. Refer to Chapter 8 of the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS for more detail on the public coordination that 

occurred through March 2014.

Agency meetings were held starting in 2007 for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section. Public 

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

accepted, and draft documents were widely circulated. Comments received from the general 

public and the local governments as part of the public outreach associated with the draft 

environmental documentation for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section generally indicated support 

for the BNSF Railway (BNSF) Through Wasco-Shafter Alternative, which includes the 

northernmost segment of the May 2014 Project. Most farmers in the Wasco-Shafter area 

supported the BNSF alignment because it results in less impact on existing agricultural 

operations, and the City of Shafter, the Wasco-Shafter Ag Group, and the Kern Council of 

Governments expressed support for the BNSF alignment through Shafter. However, the City of 

Shafter commented that grade separations from BNSF at North Shafter Avenue, East Lerdo 

Highway, and South Beech Avenue/East Los Angeles Street were needed for transportation and 

public safety. The Authority noted the comment and committed to continue to coordinate with the 

City of Shafter on the required level of roadway improvements. 

Comments received from the general public and local officials in Kern County rejected all 

alternatives with a station in downtown Bakersfield. The City of Bakersfield noted that the 

Preferred Alternative alignment identified in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS

would severely impact the City's ability to utilize existing City assets including its corporation yard, 

senior housing, and parking facilities at the Rabobank Arena, Theatre and Convention Center. 

The City also noted it would render unusable one of the City's premier health facilities and would 

affect the Bakersfield Commons project, a retail/commercial/residential development. The 

majority of individual and government official comments preferred an alternative that would 

bypass Bakersfield and locate a station on the outskirts of the city. 

During the development of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS for the F-B LGA, the Authority and 

FRA consulted with federal, state, and local agencies, and held meetings to provide project 

updates and obtain feedback from the public. 

The Authority has hosted various outreach events, including open houses, workshops, and 

activity centers. (See Chapter 9 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS for additional discussion of 

public and agency involvement since March 2015.) Some of the most frequently asked questions 

by outreach event attendees were related to noise generation, property values, right-of-way 

acquisition, and construction employment opportunities. Project staff addressed these and other 
Chapter 8 Comparison of Alternatives and 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-6 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

questions, often explaining the environmental analysis underway for this Draft Supplemental

EIR/EIS and informing people of upcoming opportunities to provide comments. This Draft

Supplemental EIR/EIS addresses comments raised by the public throughout the environmental

process. The Authority also assessed the feasibility of other alternatives or changes suggested by

individuals and organizations. As described in Section 9.4 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, a 

public hearing was scheduled during the 60-day formal comment period for the Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS on December 19, 2017 at the Bakersfield Marriot Hotel from 3:00 p.m. to 

8:00 p.m. 

A summary of these activities since 2014 through the publication of this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS is provided below. 

8.1.1 Public Information Meetings 

The Authority has proactively sought to initiate meaningful dialogue with stakeholders, including 

resource agencies, landowners, community leaders, the agricultural community, and any 

interested member of the general public, going above and beyond what is required for outreach

activities for CEQA and NEPA to ensure the broadest possible participation. The Authority and 

FRA held informal and formal public meetings during the Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS preparation 

process for the F-B LGA, as summarized below. 

The Authority held four community open houses between August 25, 2015 and August 25, 2016, 

in the cities of Bakersfield and Shafter as well as two targeted community meetings for Sumner 

Street businesses and the Community of Oildale. Oildale was determined to be a prime location

for a community outreach meeting because of its proximity to the F-B LGA alignment and its 

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

The purpose of these meetings was to provide information to the interested public and agencies 

about the F-B LGA. These community open houses provided the community an opportunity to 

ask questions and provide comments about the F-B LGA. A total of 753 community members 

collectively attended these events. Ninety written comments were received. Of these comments, 

33 were in favor of the F-B LGA or the project in general, 10 comments expressed opposition to 

the alignment and/or the HSR project, and 7 comments expressed a preference for the 

previously-approved Bakersfield Hybrid Alternative (i.e., Truxtun Avenue station in downtown 

Bakersfield) or a different alignment. Other comments received were associated with impacts to 

homes, businesses, and public facilities; construction costs or job creation; station connectivity to 

other transportation modes; suggestions for alternative alignments or opposition to the project; 

water storage; electromagnetic field and noise impacts; airport conflicts; and security concerns 

during operation. 

As described in Chapters 5 and 9 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, the Authority has 

conducted specific outreach efforts to low-income and minority populations and to communities of 

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

numerous one-on-one meetings with stakeholders who are identified, either because of location, 

clientele, or socioeconomic background, as having minority or low-income status. Additionally, 

prior to the informational open houses described above, fliers were delivered or emailed to 

advertise each open house to several community and public spaces serving potentially impacted 

low-income and minority populations. For additional information about the outreach effort related 

to environmental justice, please see Chapter 5, Environmental Justice. 

The Authority also conducted numerous outreach meetings with affected property owners, 

businesses, schools, and special districts between 2015 and 2017. See Chapter 9 of this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS for more information on the public and agency involvement for the F-B 

LGA. 
Section 8 Comparison of Alternatives and 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-7 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

8.1.2 Federal, State, Regional, and Other Public Agencies

The Authority and FRA consulted with cooperating agencies under NEPA (i.e., USACE and the 

Surface Transportation Board) and with trustee and responsible agencies under CEQA (e.g., the 

State Water Resources Control Board and California Department of Fish and Wildlife) regarding 

specific resource areas associated with these agencies. Interested state, federal, and local 

agencies were also consulted throughout the process (e.g., USEPA, the United States Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and United States Bureau of Reclamation). For additional discussion of the 

agencies meetings conducted during the development of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section

EIR/EIS, see Section 8.4 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (pages 8-10 through 

8-12). 

The Authority and FRA conducted two meetings with the USACE and the USEPA (occurring on 

April 30, 2015 and July 21, 2015) to provide an overview of the conceptual F-B LGA and a 

summary of the proposed facilities along the F-B LGA and of steps taken to design the alternative 

in an effort to avoid impacts to specific resources. 

Other agency coordination meetings took place on:

• February 17, 2016 (USEPA, USACE, United States Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS],

National Marine Fisheries Service [NMFS], United States Bureau of Reclamation [USBR],

California Department of Fish and Wildlife [CDFW], State Water Resources Control Board

[SWRCB], State Transportation Board [STB] in attendance)

• March 16, 2016 (USEPA, USACE, USFWS, NMFS, USBR, CDFW, STB, and SWRCB in

attendance)

• April 20, 2016 (USEPA, USACE, USFWS, NMFS, USBR, CDFW, STB, and SWRCB in

attendance)

• May 18, 2016 (USEPA, USACE, USFWS, NMFS, USBR, CDFW, STB, and SWRCB in

attendance)

• June 15, 2016 (USEPA, USACE, USFWS, NMFS, USBR, STB, and CDFW in attendance)

• June 27, 2016 (USEPA, STB, and USACE in attendance)

• September 21, 2016 (USEPA, USACE, USFWS, NMFS, USBR, CDFW, STB, and SWRCB in

attendance)

• October 19, 2016 (USEPA, USACE, NMFS, USBR, CDFW, STB, and SWRCB in attendance)

• December 21, 2016 (USEPA, STB, and USACE in attendance)

• January 18, 2017 (USEPA, USACE, USFWS, NMFS, USBR, STB, and CDFW in attendance)

• March 6, 2017 (USEPA, STB, and USACE in attendance)

• April 4, 2017 (USEPA, STB and USACE in attendance)

• April 19, 2017 (USEPA, USACE, USFWS, NMFS, USBR, CDFW, SWRCB, California State

Parks, and the STB in attendance)

Each meeting included discussion and updates on project sections, including the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section, as well as permitting, implementation, and compliance issues. The Authority, 

FRA, and collaborating agencies were in attendance and provided progress information and 

feedback. 

8.1.3 Technical Working Group and Agency Coordination

The Authority formed two Technical Working Groups composed of senior staff from the cities of 

Shafter and Bakersfield, County of Kern, and Kern Council of Governments. The purpose of 

these groups was to facilitate the exchange of information and ideas during the course of the 

study. The Technical Working Groups met regularly during the Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS 
Chapter 8 Comparison of Alternatives and 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-8 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

preparation process to facilitate information exchanges about modifications to alignments and the 

HSR station, and identification of potential resource impacts and avoidance alternatives. The 

Technical Working Group meetings helped transfer information needs, express concerns and 

preferences, and relay important project updates. Seven Technical Working Group meetings 

occurred in Bakersfield and six Technical Working Group meetings occurred in Shafter since

2015.

8.1.4 Tribal Consultation

On August 12, 2015, consultation letters were sent via email and mail to six Native American 

tribes and individuals listed by the Native American Heritage Commission as consulting parties 

for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section. Those contacted were provided maps and information for 

the F-B LGA, asked for input regarding the presence of cultural resources that may be affected by 

the F-B LGA, and offered the opportunity to participate in a community open house on August 25, 

2015. The consulting party tribes were notified of an Area of Potential Effects expansion for the FB LGA on July 29, 2016; and again on October 5, 2016. Letters, maps, and information for the FB LGA modified Area of Potential Effects were provided and input was requested from the tribes 

regarding any concerns they may have about cultural resources that may be affected. 

To date, the Native Americans consulted have either: 1) not identified for the Authority or FRA

any traditional cultural properties or other cultural resources that could be affected by the F-B 

LGA; or 2) not responded. The Authority and FRA will continue to consult with these tribes 

throughout the environmental process. See Section 3.17, Cultural Resources, for additional 

details regarding the Native American consultation conducted for the F-B LGA. 

8.2 Alternatives Considered

This Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS focuses on the potential environmental impacts of the F-B LGA 

and compares the impacts of that new alternative to the May 2014 Project (Figure 8-1). The May 

2014 Project is the complementary portion of the Preferred Alternative identified in the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS for comparison with the F-B LGA. Below is a summary of the 

May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA, both of which extend approximately 1,600 feet north of

Poplar Avenue north of Shafter to Oswell Street in Bakersfield: 

• May 2014 Project. The May 2014 Project, which consists of alternatives evaluated in the

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, includes a 12-mile portion of the BNSF

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

from Hageman Road to Oswell Street. The description of the May 2014 Project included

below is based on detail included in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS

(Authority and FRA 2014).

The May 2014 Project alignment runs primarily at-grade as it follows the BNSF corridor and

State Route (SR) 43 through Shafter and SR 58 into Bakersfield. It parallels the F-B LGA until

approximately Beech Avenue, where it diverges from the F-B LGA, parallels the BNSF rightof-way in a southeasterly direction, and then curves back to the northeast to parallel the

BNSF tracks toward Kern Junction. After crossing Truxtun Avenue, the alignment curves to

the southeast to rejoin the F-B LGA and parallel the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and Edison

Highway to its terminus at Oswell Street. Refer to Section 2.4.2 (pages 2-54 through 2-66)

and Section 2.4.3.10 (page 2-72) of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS for more

detail associated with the BNSF Alternative and Bakersfield Hybrid, which comprise the May

2014 Project (Authority and FRA 2014).

The May 2014 Project Station would be built at the corner of Truxtun and Union Avenues/SR

204. Refer to Section 2.4.4.3 (page 2-80) of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS

for more detail associated with the May 2014 Project Station (Authority and FRA 2014).

Figure 2-43 (page 2-87) of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS depicts the

conceptual layout of the May 2014 Project Station (Authority and FRA 2014).

A maintenance of infrastructure facility (MOIF) would be located along the May 2014 Project

Alternative just north of the city of Bakersfield and 7th Standard Road. Please refer to
Section 8 Comparison of Alternatives and 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-9 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Chapter 2 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (pages 2-15 and 2-16) for more 

detailed information on the MOIF design and requirements (Authority and FRA 2014).

1

The May 2014 Project as approved does not preclude the adjustment of column spacing 

during final design. If required, the proposed columns can be adjusted to ensure planned 

future road widenings, and grade separations from BNSF are not precluded.

• F-B LGA. The F-B LGA was identified in December 2014 and provides an alternative

alignment within the same limits of the May 2014 Project. A summary description of the F-B

LGA is provided below; please refer to Chapter 2 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS,

including Figures 2-3 through 2-8, for a detailed description of the F-B LGA.

Similar to the May 2014 Project, the alignment would begin north of Shafter and run east of

the BNSF corridor, 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 deviate from the

Union Pacific Railroad corridor. Southwest of the community of Oildale, the alignment would

cross SR 99 and continue southeast. South of Airport Drive, the alignment would cross and

run parallel to the east side of SR 204. This route would continue until the SR 178 crossing,

where the alignment would turn east and return 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 near Oswell Street. The F-B LGA station would be located at

the intersection of SR 204 and F Street. A MOIF would be located along the F-B LGA in the

city of Shafter near Fresno Avenue.

In the city of Shafter, both the HSR and BNSF would be built on retained fill. Grade

separations from the BNSF would be provided at Poplar Avenue, Fresno Avenue, Shafter

Avenue, Central Avenue, E Lerdo Highway, and Riverside Street.

Chapter 3 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS describes and analyzes the proposed F-B LGA

alignment, F Street Station, MOIF, and operational facilities. The purpose of Chapter 8 is to 

identify the preferred alternative based on a comparison of the impacts associated with the F-B 

LGA (as presented in Chapters 3, 4, 5, and 6 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS) and the May 

2014 Project (as presented in Chapters 3, 4, and 5 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS). 2

8.3 Preliminary Preferred Alternative

At the November 2015 Authority Board of Directors (Board) meeting, the Board discussed the 

option of identifying a Preliminary Preferred Alternative in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS for

CEQA review. The advantage of identifying the Preliminary Preferred Alternative for CEQA

review in the Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS is to give the public and resource agencies an 

opportunity to provide comments with the knowledge of the agencies’ preliminary preference 

among alternatives. 

1

In the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, the proposed Shafter MOIF was collocated with the 

proposed heavy maintenance facility. For the purposes of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, no heavy 

maintenance facility site has been considered for the F-B LGA; therefore, the acreage of the heavy 

maintenance facility analyzed in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS has been omitted from the 

comparative analysis included in the analysis in this chapter and in the analysis of the May 2014 Project in 

Technical Appendix 8-A of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. 2

Chapter 5 of this 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. Chapter 5 of the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section Final EIR/EIS and Chapter 6 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS describe the project cost estimates.
Chapter 8 Comparison of Alternatives and 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-10 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

At the May 2016 Authority Board meeting, staff recommended that the Board identify the F-B 

LGA as the Preliminary Preferred Alternative for the purpose of preparing the Draft Supplemental

EIR/EIS. Staff presented that the F-B LGA would result in fewer residential displacements,

impacts to waters of the United States, and agricultural impacts than the May 2014 Project.

Additionally, the F-B LGA is supported by the City of Bakersfield. The Authority Board adopted 

Resolution #16-13, which concurred with staff’s recommendation that the F-B LGA be designated

as the Preliminary Preferred Alternative in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. The Preferred 

Alternative will be identified in the Final Supplemental EIR/EIS following the opportunity for public 

comment during the 60-day public review period. 

8.4 Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative for this Supplement EIR/EIS to the Fresno to Bakersfield Section has 

been identified by the Authority and FRA as the F-B LGA. The Preferred Alternative extends

approximately 1,600 feet north of Poplar Avenue, north of Shafter, to Oswell Street in Bakersfield. 

The station associated with the Preferred Alternative would be located at the intersection of SR 

204 and F Street in Bakersfield. The Preferred Alternative is estimated to cost approximately 

$2,687.5 million (in 2010 dollars). The Preferred Alternative would have lower capital costs than 

the May 2014 Project, which is estimated at $2,893.7 million (2010 dollars). As shown in Table 8-

A-65 of Appendix 8-A, Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project), the estimated 

capital cost of the entire Fresno to Bakersfield Section is approximately $7,746 million (in 2010 

dollars).

The project footprint for the Preferred Alternative includes all project components and right-of-way 

needed to construct and operate the Preferred Alternative. The project footprint components 

include the proposed HSR right-of-way and associated facilities, such as traction power supply 

stations and switching and paralleling stations, as described in Chapter 2 of this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS, F-B LGA Project Description. In selecting the Preferred Alternative, the 

Authority considered two design options for each of the systems sites adjacent to the F-B LGA 

alignment. Two design options for the following systems sites were included in the project 

footprint for the Preferred Alternative and subsequently evaluated: 

• Paralleling Station in Shafter (Stations 6026+00 and 6037+00)

• Switching Station in rural Shafter (Stations 6216+00 and 6258+00)

• Paralleling Station in rural Shafter (Stations 6475+00 and 6480+00)

• Paralleling Station in Kern County (Stations 6724+00 and 6733+00)

• Traction Power Substation in Bakersfield (Stations 6936+00 and 6940+00)

The Authority and FRA have considered the environmental and community impacts associated 

with each design option and has selected the system sites listed in Table 8-1 for incorporation

into the Preferred Alternative.
Section 8 Comparison of Alternatives and 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-11

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-1 F-B LGA Systems Sites

Facility Type Approximate Station Selection Criteria

Paralleling Station Station 6026+00 Paralleling Station 6026+00 would result in fewer impacts to 

agricultural lands.

Switching Station Station 6258+00 Although Switching Station 6258+00 would result in 0.29 

acre more permanent impact, it would not result in an 

unusable remnant parcel, whereas Switching Station 

6216+00 would. 

Paralleling Station Station 6480+00 Paralleling Station 6480+00 would impact 0.85 acre of 

agricultural lands, whereas Paralleling Station 6475+00 

would impact 0.96 acre of agricultural lands.

Paralleling Station Station 6724+00 Paralleling Station 6724+00 would minimize conflicts with 

land uses and property owners when compared to 

Paralleling Station 6733+00.

Traction Power 

Substation

Station 6940+00 Traction Power Substation 6940+00 would displace one 

business, whereas Traction Power Substation 6936+00 

would displace three businesses and would result in the loss 

of approximately $15 million more in sales.

This section describes how the Authority and FRA identified the F-B LGA as the Preferred 

Alternative that the agencies both believe would fulfill their statutory missions and responsibilities 

by giving consideration to economic, environmental, technical, and other factors. FRA and the 

Authority identified the Preferred Alternative by balancing the adverse and beneficial impacts of 

the project on the human and natural environment. Taking this holistic approach means that no 

single issue was the sole factor in identifying the Preferred Alternative in any given geographic 

area. FRA and the Authority weighed all of the issues including natural resource and community 

impacts, the input of the communities along the route, the views of federal and state resource 

agencies, project costs, and constructability, to identify what both agencies believe is the best 

alternative to achieve the project’s purpose and need. 

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, public utilities and energy, geology, soils and 

seismicity, and hazardous materials and waste). 

Table 8-2 summarizes the potential impacts on natural resources (i.e., impacts on aquatic 

resources and special-status species) for easy comparison. Table 8-3 summarizes the potential 

impacts of the project alternatives on community-based resources, including impacts on 

farmlands, visual impacts, potential displacements, and environmental justice considerations. A 

more detailed analysis of the environmental impacts of the May 2014 Project, and a subsequent 

summary comparison of impacts between the two alternatives is provided in Appendix 8-A, 

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project). 
Chapter 8 Comparison of Alternatives and 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-12 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table 8-2 Natural Resources Impacts Comparison 

Parameter Alternatives

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Natural Resources Direct Impacts (acres)1

Wetlands Impact (waters of the United States) 0.51 0.00

Other Waters of the United States Impact 19.63 17.14

Total Direct Impacts to Aquatic Resources (waters

States) 

of the United 20.14 17.14

Direct Impacts to Special-Status 

Thickets) 

Plant Communities (Black Willow 1.00 1.54

Direct Impacts to 

Species Habitat

Potentially Suitable Special-Status Plant 112.26 62.13

Direct Impacts to 

Species

Habitats that Support Special-Status Wildlife 1,656.41 989.73

1 Impact calculations in this table include project alternatives and station alternatives for the portion of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section between 

Poplar Avenue, north of Shafter, and Oswell Street in Bakersfield but do not include heavy maintenance facility alternatives. 

All impacts were calculated based on preliminary design project footprints. 

The shading provided in the table signifies the alternative with the lesser quantity of impact.

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative 

Table 8-3 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
Section 8 Comparison of Alternatives and 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-13

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Parameter

Alternatives

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

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

Impact calculations in this table include project alternatives and station alternatives for the portion of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section between 

Poplar Avenue, north of Shafter, and Oswell Street in Bakersfield but do not include heavy maintenance facility alternatives. 

All impacts were calculated based on the Preliminary Engineering for Project Definition footprint.

The shading provided in the table signifies the alternative with the lesser quantity of impact. 

The Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS also considered the following parameters, which are not applicable to the following section: Division 

of Ponderosa Road/Edna Way community and Division of Newark Avenue and 5th Avenue/Waukena-Corcoran community. 

EIR/EIS = Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative

The F-B LGA reflects the Authority’s and FRA’s outreach with local stakeholders to refine the 

HSR project to achieve positive outcomes for affected communities and the natural environment, 

while still meeting the overall project objectives consistent with the voter-approved Proposition 

1A. The Authority and FRA identified the F-B LGA as the Preferred Alternative for the following 

reasons:

• The F-B LGA, when compared to the May 2014 Project, would reduce the number of

residential displacements. The F-B LGA would require 86 residential displacements, while the

May 2014 Project would require 384 residential displacements. As shown in Table 8-A-38 of

Appendix 8-A, Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project), the F-B LGA would

result in fewer residential displacements in each of the affected communities (city of Shafter,

unincorporated Kern County, and city of Bakersfield) when compared with the May 2014

Project with the exception of the community of Oildale, which is not impacted by the May

2014 Project.

• The F-B LGA, when compared to the May 2014 Project, would result in similar business

relocation impacts. The F-B LGA would require 377 business relocations, while the May 2014

Project would require 392 business relocations. As shown in Table 8-A-39 of Appendix 8-A,

Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project), the F-B LGA would result in greater

business relocations in the city of Shafter and community of Oildale when compared to the

May 2014 Project. However, the F-B LGA would result in fewer business relocations in the

city of Bakersfield and in unincorporated Kern County.

• The F-B LGA, when compared to the May 2014 Project, results in fewer total direct impacts

on waters and wildlife habitat. As shown in Table 8-2, the F-B LGA would result in 17.14

acres of total direct impacts on waters, while the May 2014 Project would result in 20.14

acres of total direct impacts on waters. As shown in Table 8-2, the F-B LGA would result in

fewer total direct impacts to wildlife habitat than the May 2014 Project.

• With respect to resources protected by Section 4(f), both alternatives would cross the Kern

River Parkway, resulting in comparable impacts. The May 2014 Project would cross the Mill

Creek Linear Park, while the F-B LGA would cross the northern half of Weill Park. In the

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, FRA determined the impacts to Mill Creek

Linear Park and for the Kern River Parkway would be de minimis but the City of Bakersfield,

the official with jurisdiction, did not concur with the determination and therefore FRA instead

found a 4(f) use of those resources. For the F-B LGA, FRA has similarly made a preliminary

finding that the impacts to the Kern River Parkway and Weill Park will be de minimis,

however, in contrast with the May 2014 Project, the City has verbally agreed with that finding

(TY Lin 2015). The City’s formal written concurrence on the de minimis use determination will

be requested by FRA following the public review period of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS.

• The F-B LGA, when compared to the May 2014 Project, would result in fewer permanent

impacts to Important Farmlands. As shown in Table 8-3, the F-B LGA would permanently
Chapter 8 Comparison of Alternatives and 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-14 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

impact 372 acres of Important Farmlands compared to 485 acres under the May 2014 

Project. 

As reflected above in Table 8-2 and Table 8-3, although the F-B LGA would involve greater 

impacts associated with special-status plant communities, roadway segment level of service, 

vibration, Williamson Act lands, and Section 106 properties than the May 2014 Project, the F-B 

LGA is the Preferred Alternative because it is supported by the local community (e.g., City of 

Bakersfield); would result in fewer overall agricultural lands, noise, residential displacements, 

special-status species, aquatic habitats, and key community facilities impacts; and would cost 

less to construct.

8.5 Environmentally Superior Alternative

The California Environmental Quality Act guidelines (Section 15126.6[e][2]) state that if the 

environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, then the EIR must also identify 

an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives. For the reasons described 

in the Fresno to Bakersfield Final EIR/EIS, the environmentally superior alternative is not the No 

Project Alternative. This Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS acknowledges the No Project Alternative 

and that it was eliminated from consideration (see Section 2.2.1, No Project Alternative, of this 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS). Between the May 2014 Project and the Preferred Alternative (F-B 

LGA), the Preferred Alternative (F-B LGA) is the environmentally superior alternative. 

Implementing the HSR project will have adverse environmental impacts regardless of which 

alternative is selected, but overall, the Preferred Alternative (F-B LGA) provides the 

environmentally superior alternative by best meeting environmental regulatory requirements and 

best minimizing impacts on the natural environment, farmland, and communities.

8.6 Environmentally Preferable Alternative

The environmentally preferable alternative is a NEPA term for the alternative that will promote the 

national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA's Section 101 (United States Code Title 42, 

Part 4331). Ordinarily, this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological 

and physical environment. This is accomplished by protecting, preserving, and enhancing

historic, cultural, and natural resources. As required by the regulations implementing NEPA, the 

FRA will identify the environmentally preferable alternative if and when it issues a revised Record 

of Decision associated with this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS for the Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section.

8.7 Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative

The Authority and FRA are working closely with federal, state, and regional agencies to meet 

regulatory requirements by refining the F-B LGA to avoid and minimize impacts and, where 

necessary, to reach agreement on mitigation measures for impacts that cannot be avoided. 

Important processes that integrate many of the applicable regulatory requirements are Section 

404 and Section 408 of the Clean Water Act, under the jurisdiction of USACE with oversight from 

USEPA. The Authority and FRA entered into a NEPA/Section 404/408 Integration Process 

Memorandum of Understanding with USEPA and USACE (FRA et al. 2010), which outlines three 

major checkpoints in the integration of the NEPA and Section 404/408 process. Each checkpoint 

consists of the submittal of technical data and studies by the Authority and FRA to USACE and 

USEPA for review and consideration before issuing a formal written agency response. 

The first of these submittals is Checkpoint A, which involves preparing a project purpose 

statement that serves both NEPA and Section 404 requirements. USEPA concurred on the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section purpose and need on January 20, 2011, and USACE concurred on 

the purpose and need on February 2, 2011, to satisfy Checkpoint A. The second submittal is 

Checkpoint B, which is required to screen and reduce the potential alternatives to an appropriate 

range of “reasonable” and “practicable” alternatives using the best available information. Because 

the F-B LGA is consistent with the purpose and need of the Fresno to Bakersfield Project, 

Checkpoint A did not require revision. Given that a reasonable range of alternatives had been 

considered pursuant to the Checkpoint B process and the F-B LGA represents a single new 
Section 8 Comparison of Alternatives and 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | 8-15

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

alternative that would be evaluated as part of the Checkpoint C process (see below), no revision 

to Checkpoint B was required. As referenced above in Section 8.1.2, the Authority consulted with 

the USACE and EPA throughout the development of the Preferred Alternative. The Authority 

hosted workshops with these agencies on April 30, 2015 and July 21, 2015 to provide an 

overview of the F-B LGA, on June 27, 2016 and March 6, 2017 to provide detail on the status of 

the Checkpoint C process, described below, and on April 4, 2017 to discuss comments on the 

Draft Supplemental Checkpoint C package. 

Checkpoint C consists of the assembly and assessment of information contained in the EIR/EIS 

and associated technical studies for consideration by USACE and USEPA in determining the 

preliminary Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative and providing a formal 

agency response. The documentation includes those analyses completed to meet requirements 

of NEPA, Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act, and Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbor 

Act, which include consideration of compliance with the Federal Endangered Species Act and the 

National Historic Preservation Act. The Authority submitted Checkpoint C materials to the USACE 

and USEPA on March 10, 2017 and May 2, 2017, and received concurrence from the agencies 

that the Preferred Alternative contains the preliminary Least Environmentally Damaging 

Practicable Alternative on May 5, 2017 (USACE) and May 22, 2017 (USEPA). All materials 

prepared for the checkpoint are available on the Authority’s website. 
Chapter 8 Comparison of Alternatives and 

Identification of the Preferred Alternative 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

8-16 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank