Summary 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | S-1 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

S SUMMARY

S.1 Introduction and Background

This section will introduce the California High-Speed Rail 

Project Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative (FB LGA), and will summarize the background, development, and 

findings of this Fresno to Bakersfield Section Draft 

Supplemental Environmental Impact Report/Environmental 

Impact Statement (Supplemental EIR/EIS).

The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority), a state governing board formed in 1996, has 

responsibility for planning, designing, constructing, and operating the California High-Speed Rail 

(HSR). Its mandate is to develop a high-speed rail system coordinating with the state’s existing 

transportation network, which includes intercity rail and bus lines, regional commuter rail lines, 

urban rail and bus transit lines, highways, and airports.

The California High-Speed Rail System (HSR System) will provide electrified intercity, high-speed 

service on nearly 800 miles of tracks throughout California, connecting the major population 

centers of Sacramento, the San Francisco Bay Area, the Central Valley, Los Angeles, the Inland 

Empire, Orange County, and San Diego. Figure S-1 shows this system. It will use state-of-the-art, 

electrically powered, high-speed, steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology, including contemporary 

safety, signaling, and automated train-control systems, with trains capable of operating up to 220 

miles per hour (mph). When completed, the HSR system would provide new passenger rail

service to more than 90 percent of the state’s population, providing more than 200 weekday trains 

to serve the statewide intercity travel market. 

As described in Connecting and Transforming California, 2016 Business Plan (Authority 2016), 

the Authority intends to implement this system in two phases. Phase 11 will connect San 

Francisco Bay Area to Los Angeles Basin via the Central Valley with a mandated express travel 

time of 2 hours and 40 minutes or less. Phase 2 will extend the system from Merced to

Sacramento in the north, and from Los Angeles to San Diego via the Inland Empire in the south. 

The Fresno to Bakersfield HSR Section as shown on Figure S-2 is a critical Phase 1 link 

connecting to the Merced to Fresno and Bay Area HSR sections to the north and the Bakersfield 

to Palmdale and Los Angeles HSR sections to the south. Figure S-2 shows the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section project alternatives that includes HSR stations in the cities of Fresno and 

Bakersfield and a third station east of Hanford (the Kings/Tulare Regional Station) that would 

serve the Hanford, Visalia, and Tulare areas. The Fresno and Bakersfield stations are the Fresno 

to Bakersfield HSR Section’s beginning and ending points, or project termini. The Preferred 

Alternative as shown on Figure S-3 identified in the California High-Speed Rail Authority Fresno 

to Bakersfield Section Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement

(Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS) (Authority and FRA 2014) consists of the BNSF 

Alternative in combination with the Corcoran and Allensworth Bypasses, and the Bakersfield 

Hybrid Alternative and Bakersfield Hybrid Station (Truxtun Avenue Station). 

On May 7, 2014, the Authority certified the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (Authority 

and FRA 2014). While the analysis in the Final EIR/EIS was certified from the Fresno Station to 

the Bakersfield Station, the Authority’s project approval was from the southern limit of the Fresno 

Station to the north side of 7th Standard Road, the city limit of the City of Bakersfield.

1 Phase 1 would be built in stages dependent on funding availability.

High-Speed Rail System

The system that includes the HSR 

guideways, structures, stations, 

traction-powered substations, and 

maintenance facilities.
Summary 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

S-2 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Summary 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | S-3 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure S-1 California HSR System Initial Study Corridors 
Summary 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

S-4 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure S-2 Fresno to Bakersfield Section project alternatives
Summary 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | S-5 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure S-3 Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS Preferred Build Alternative
Summary 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

S-6 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Summary 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | S-7 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Based on the analyses in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS and after consideration 

of public and agency comments received on the Final EIR/EIS, the Federal Railroad 

Administration issued a Record of Decision (ROD) on June 27, 2014 that approved the entire 

Preferred Alternative in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, from the Fresno Station 

to the Bakersfield Station at Truxtun Avenue. The ROD includes findings in compliance with 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 4(f) of the Department of 

Transportation Act of 1966, and Section 7 of the Federal Endangered Species Act. Pursuant to 

Executive Orders the FRA made findings on Wetlands, Floodplains, and Environmental Justice. 

Finally, it makes a General Conformity Determination for implementation of the State’s 

Implementation Plan as required by the Clean Air Act. The Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS considered the impacts associated with three alternative alignments through Bakersfield, 

and ultimately the Authority and FRA selected the Bakersfield Hybrid as the best of the three 

Bakersfield alternatives.

On June 5, 2014, the City of Bakersfield filed a state lawsuit challenging the Authority’s May 7, 

2014, approvals under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City claimed that 

the Preferred Alternative 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; 

would render unusable one of the city's premier health facilities; and would affect the Bakersfield 

Commons project, a retail/ commercial/ residential development. In a Settlement Agreement 

signed December 19, 2014 between the City of Bakersfield and the Authority, the two agencies 

agreed to work together to develop and study the F-B LGA. The F-B LGA described and analyzed 

in this Fresno to Bakersfield Section Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS evolved from this mutual 

cooperation and subsequent public input. The Authority has also collaborated with the City of 

Shafter and Kern County in developing the F-B LGA. 

When developing the geographic scope of the F-B LGA, the Authority and FRA identified a 

northern terminus (i.e., Poplar Avenue) allowing for a full evaluation of the impacts that could 

result from the F-B LGA. This enables the agencies to focus their review on an alignment and 

station alternative that was not evaluated in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. 

While the northern terminus is within the section of the Fresno to Bakersfield Project Section 

approved by both the Authority and FRA, no final design or construction activities will occur in 

areas being analyzed in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS prior to its approval. However, this does 

not preclude the Authority from advancing project activities north of Poplar Avenue including 

those described in Sections 2.1.1 through 2.1.6 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS.

The Authority and FRA have prepared this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS to supplement the Final 

EIR/EIS for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section. The F-B LGA provides an alternative alignment for 

a 23.13-mile segment of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section between the City of Shafter and the 

City of Bakersfield. The F-B LGA station (F Street Station) would be located at the intersection of 

State Route (SR) 204 and F Street. A maintenance of infrastructure facility (MOIF) would be 

located along the F-B LGA in northern Shafter between Poplar Avenue and Fresno Avenue. 

As previously discussed, the 2014 Fresno to Bakersfield Section Preferred Alternative consists of 

the BNSF Alternative in combination with the Corcoran and Allensworth Bypasses, and the 

Bakersfield Hybrid Alternative and Bakersfield Hybrid Station (Truxtun Avenue Station). The 

portion of the Preferred Alternative which is comparable to the F-B LGA is referred to as the “May 

2014 Project” in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. The May 2014 Project is a 23.13-mile portion of 

the Preferred Alternative, encompassing the BNSF Alternative from Poplar Avenue to Hageman 

Road and the Bakersfield Hybrid from Hageman Road to Oswell Street (Figure S-4; see also 

Figure 2-30 [page 2-35] of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS for a depiction of the 

BNSF Alternative and the Bakersfield Hybrid from Shafter to Bakersfield). 
Summary 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

S-8 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Summary 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | S-9 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Figure S-4 May 2014 Project and F-B LGA Alignment Comparison
Summary 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

S-10 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

This page intentionally left blank
Summary 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | S-11

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

The May 2014 Project alignment runs primarily at-grade as it follows the BNSF corridor and 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 right-of-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 UPRR tracks and Edison Highway to its terminus at Oswell Street. The May 2014 

Project includes a station at the corner of Truxtun and Union Avenues/SR 204 as well as a MOIF 

located along the alignment just north of the City of Bakersfield and 7th Standard Road. See 

Figure S-4 for a comparison of the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA alignments and stations. This 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS in its entirety has been posted on the Authority’s website as well as 

FRA’s website. In addition, the Authority has published materials online (in English and Spanish)

summarizing the purpose and contents of the document and how to participate in the public 

comment period.

S.2 Public Involvement

Pursuant to the requirements of National Environmental Policy Act and CEQA, the Authority and 

FRA conducted an extensive public and agency involvement program as part of the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section environmental review process, including during the preparation of the August 

2011 Draft EIR/EIS, the July 2012 Revised Draft EIR/Supplemental Draft EIS, and the April 2014 

Final EIR/EIS. Beginning in 2007, the Authority held statewide agency meetings for the Fresno to 

Bakersfield project section. Public workshops, open houses, and other informational sessions 

were held; public comments were accepted; and draft documents were widely circulated and 

made available. For more detail on the public coordination that occurred through March 2014, see 

the Fresno to Bakersfield Final EIR/EIS, Chapter 8.0. These efforts are consistent with the 

Authority’s emphasis on public and agency outreach throughout the development of the statewide 

high-speed rail system. This includes public involvement and outreach through meetings, 

presentations, and materials, agency consultations, and notification and circulation of the 

Statewide Program EIR/EIS. 

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 including Native American tribes, and held 

meetings to provide project updates and obtain feedback from the public. 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 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. Approximately 753 community members attended these events. Ninety comments were 

received. Of these, 33 were in favor of the F-B LGA or the project in general, 10 comments 

expressed opposition to the alignment 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; the potential Shafter Heavy Maintenance Facility (HMF)2

; and security concerns 

during operation. The Authority has also conducted numerous outreach meetings with potentially 

2 An HMF is a maintenance facility that supports delivery, testing, and commissioning on the first completed 

segment of the HSR System. Trainset assembly, testing and commissioning, train storage, inspection, 

maintenance, retrofitting, and overhaul are typical HMF activities. A MOIF is a facility where HSR 

infrastructure would be maintained and would be located on 150-mile intervals along the HSR System. 

MOIFs provide equipment, materials and replacement parts for the HSR system subdivision it serves. 

MOIFs would be locations of regional maintenance machinery servicing storage, materials storage, 

personnel, and maintenance and administration staff. 
Summary 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

S-12 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

affected property owners, businesses, and school and special districts since 2015. See Chapter 

9.0 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS for more information on the Public and Agency 

Involvement for the F-B LGA. 

Communities with high concentrations of minority or low-income populations along the alignment 

were identified and targeted for additional public outreach, in accordance with NEPA 

requirements. The communities included Shafter and the area identified as East Bakersfield 

(generally east of Union Avenue between the Union Pacific Railroad tracks and California 

Avenue). These efforts included holding meetings to provide information about possible 

alignments and the proposed station locations, canvassing in areas near the proposed alignment, 

conducting educational workshops to inform the public about the release of the environmental 

document, and directing outreach to vendors in proximity to the alignment. Special outreach 

conducted for minority and low-income populations in these communities included availability of 

Spanish-language versions of presentation materials and availability of Spanish-language 

interpreters at public meetings. 

S.3 Purpose and Need for the High-Speed Rail System and the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section, including the F-B LGA

The need for a HSR system exists statewide, and the Fresno to Bakersfield Section is an 

essential component. The purpose, need, and objectives documented in the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS have not changed and are included below for context and 

readability. The purpose of the HSR system is as follows: 

The purpose of the statewide HSR System is to provide a reliable high-speed 

electrified train system that links the major metropolitan areas of the state, and 

that delivers predictable and consistent travel times. A further objective is to 

provide an interface with commercial airports, mass transit, and the highway 

network and relieve capacity constraints of the existing transportation system as 

increases in intercity travel demand in California occur, in a manner sensitive to 

and protective of California’s unique natural resources. (Authority and FRA 2005)

The purpose of this project is to implement the Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the California 

HSR System to provide the public with electric-powered HSR service that provides predictable 

and consistent travel times between major urban centers and connectivity to airports, mass 

transit, and the highway network in the south San Joaquin Valley, and that connects the northern 

and southern portions of the system. This region contributes significantly to the statewide need 

for a new intercity transportation service that would connect with the major population and 

economic centers and to other regions of the state.

The Fresno to Bakersfield Section is an essential part of the statewide HSR System. As part of 

the Central Valley section of the HSR System, the Fresno to Bakersfield Section would provide 

Shafter and Bakersfield access to a new transportation mode, and would contribute to increased 

mobility throughout California. This section will connect the south San Joaquin Valley region to 

the rest of the statewide HSR System via Fresno, Kings, Tulare, and Kern counties.

The approximately 23.13-mile-long F-B LGA provides an alternative alignment to the selected 

alternative for the southern terminus of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section (from Poplar Avenue in 

the City of Shafter to Oswell Street in the City of Bakersfield).

The Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the HSR System would help meet the need for 

improvements to intercity travel in California in response to future growth in demand for intercity 

travel, increased congestion and travel delays on highways, unreliability and decreased safety, 

reduced mobility, and poor and deteriorating air quality and pressure on natural resources and 

agricultural lands, resulting from expanded highways and urban development. For a more 

detailed description of the purpose, objectives, and need of the HSR System, including the F-B 

LGA, refer to the Program EIR/EIS documents and the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS.
Summary 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | S-13

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

S.4 Alternatives

S.4.1 Alternatives Evaluated in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section EIR/EIS

The Authority developed the alternatives evaluated in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final 

EIR/EIS based on input provided by stakeholders during the preparation of the Final Program 

Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the proposed 

California High-Speed Train System (2005 Statewide Program EIR/EIS) (Authority and FRA 

2005) and the 2008 Bay Area to Central Valley Program EIR/EIS (Authority and FRA 2008), 

public and agency input from the scoping process, extensive local and agency involvement during 

Technical Working Group3 meetings, other stakeholder meetings, and public and agency 

comments on the Draft EIR/EIS and Revised DEIR/Supplemental DEIS. 

The Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS considered several alternatives between the 

cities of Fresno and Bakersfield: (1) No Project Alternative; (2) BNSF Alternative; (3) Hanford 

West Bypass 1 Alternative; (4) Hanford West Bypass 1 Modified Alternative; (5) Hanford West 

Bypass 2 Alternative; (6) Hanford West Bypass 2 Modified Alternative; (7) Corcoran Elevated 

Alternative; (8) Corcoran Bypass Alternative; (9) Allensworth Bypass Alternative; (10) WascoShafter Bypass Alternative; (11) Bakersfield South Alternative; and (12) Bakersfield Hybrid 

Alternative. Ultimately, as described above, the Authority and FRA identified a Preferred 

Alternative that consisted of the BNSF Alternative in combination with the Corcoran and 

Allensworth Bypasses, and the Bakersfield Hybrid Alternative and Bakersfield Hybrid Station 

(Truxtun Avenue Station). While the analysis in the Final EIR/EIS was certified from the Fresno 

Station to the Bakersfield Station, the Authority’s project approval was from the southern limit of 

the Fresno Station to the north side of 7th Standard Road, the city limit of the City of Bakersfield.

For a complete discussion of the alternatives considered during development of the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section, please refer to Chapter 2, Alternatives, Sections 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 of the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (pages 2-54 through 2-72) (Authority and FRA 2014). 

Additionally, Section 2.2 of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (page 2-3) provides 

information on HSR system performance criteria, infrastructure, and systems, which would apply 

to the HSR, including the F-B LGA.

S.4.2 May 2014 Project

The May 2014 Project4 consists of a portion of the Preferred Alternative identified for the Fresno 

to Bakersfield Section in the Final EIR/EIS. The May 2014 Project alignment runs primarily atgrade as it follows the BNSF corridor and 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 right-of-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 UPRR tracks and Edison 

Highway to its terminus at Oswell Street. The May 2014 Project begins at-grade but elevates 

through Shafter for a distance of about 4 miles between North Shafter Avenue and Cherry 

Avenue and in Bakersfield at Country Breeze Place and continues as an elevated structure all the 

way to the project terminus at Oswell Street. The May 2014 Project Station would be built at the 

corner of Truxtun and Union Avenues/SR 204. A MOIF would be located along the May 2014 

Project just north of the City of Bakersfield and 7th Standard Road.

3

 Technical Working Groups were composed of senior staff from county and city public works, planning, economic 

development, and administrative departments. 

4

 The May 2014 Project 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 Railway Alternative from Poplar 

Avenue to Hageman Road and the Bakersfield Hybrid from Hageman Road to Oswell Street. 
Summary

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

S-14 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

S.4.3 Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative (F-B LGA)

As described above, in a Settlement Agreement between the City of Bakersfield and the 

Authority, the two agencies agreed to work together to develop and study an alternative that 

would respond to concerns raised by the City and meet the Authority’s design requirements. The 

F-B LGA evolved from this mutual cooperation and subsequent public input. It provides an 

alternative alignment between Poplar Avenue in Shafter and Oswell Street in Bakersfield to the 

east of the Preferred Alternative described in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. 

The F-B LGA alignment would begin north of Shafter, continuing southeasterly until just north of 

Burbank Street where it would turn east until reaching the UPRR corridor. At this point, the 

alignment would turn and continue southeasterly, adjacent to, and west of, the UPRR corridor. 

The alignment would continue southeasterly into Bakersfield and would deviate from the UPRR 

corridor at Airport Drive. 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 

west side of SR 204. This route would continue until the SR 178 crossing, where the alignment 

would turn east and parallel to the UPRR 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 MOIF would 

be located along the F-B LGA in the City of Shafter between Fresno Avenue and Poplar Avenue. 

S.5 Measures to Avoid and Minimize Impacts

The HSR project includes alternatives and design features that were developed to avoid and 

minimize environmental impacts. Project design incorporates the following measures:

• Follows existing transportation corridors

to the extent feasible

• Uses shared right-of-way when feasible

• Uses a narrowed footprint with elevated

or retained cut profile

• Spans water crossings where practical

• Includes passages for wildlife movement

• Avoids sensitive environmental

resources to the extent practical

Avoidance and minimization measures for the F-B LGA that are specific to each resource area 

are discussed in Chapter 3 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS.

S.6 F-B LGA Comparison with May 2014 Project

The following section provides an overview of the effects, including benefits of the F-B LGA and 

May 2014 Project and proposed mitigation, and compares differences between the impacts and 

costs of these two alternative alignments. Section S.11 provides a high-level comparison of key 

features associated with each of the alternative alignments under consideration. A more detailed 

analysis of the environmental effects associated with the May 2014 Project, and a subsequent 

summary comparison of impacts between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA, is provided in 

Appendix 8-A, Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 2014 Project), of this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS.
Summary 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | S-15

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

S.6.1 Transportation

The F-B LGA would grade-separate many existing at-grade crossings in Shafter, benefiting traffic 

safety and circulation. Additionally, the F-B LGA would eliminate seven existing at-grade 

intersections with the BNSF railway in the City of Shafter.5 Removal of the at-grade intersections 

would improve traffic safety and circulation. Project operation would increase traffic congestion at 

numerous intersections around the Bakersfield station and result in permanent road closures in 

urban and rural areas. Potential construction-related cumulative impacts on transportation would 

be similar for the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA. Both alternatives would require similar 

construction techniques, including temporary road closures and delays, but at different locations; 

avoidance and minimization measures to reduce these delays would be applicable to both 

alternatives. 

Section S.11 includes a comparison of the transportation and traffic impacts associated with the 

May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA. 

S.6.2 Air Quality and Global Climate Change

Implementation of the HSR project is predicted to have a beneficial effect on (i.e., reduce) 

statewide emissions of CO, NOx, ROG, SOx, PM10 and PM2.5. The entire Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section with the inclusion of the F-B LGA, when compared to the entire Fresno to Bakersfield 

Section with the inclusion of the May 2014 Project, would be expected to have similar changes in 

vehicles miles traveled and intrastate air travel, as well as similar increases in electrical demand 

(required to power the HSR). Therefore, as with the May 2014 Project, implementation of the F-B 

LGA would have a beneficial effect on (i.e., reduce) statewide emissions of all applicable 

pollutants, as compared to the existing conditions.

Construction of the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA would result in criteria pollutants and 

greenhouse gas emissions. Similar to the entire Fresno to Bakersfield Section with the inclusion 

of the May 2014 Project, the entire Fresno to Bakersfield Section with the inclusion of the F-B 

LGA, would be able to offset the greenhouse gas emissions within 12 months of the beginning of 

operation. 

S.6.3 Noise and Vibration

Both the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA would create noise impacts during construction. 

These impacts would be temporary and mitigated through the implementation of project design 

features and mitigation measures identified in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS.

Mitigation for these impacts includes noise monitoring during construction and requiring the 

contractor to implement one or more noise control measures to meet the noise limits. The F-B 

LGA could also result in building damage from construction vibration when fragile/historic 

buildings and residential structures are located approximately 77 feet and 55 feet, respectively, 

from pile driving activities. Mitigation for vibration impacts includes preconstruction surveys to 

document the existing condition of buildings located within 50 feet of pile installation and using 

methods other than a hammer to install piles close to buildings that could be damaged by 

vibration. 

5

 Analysis the Authority conducted shows that five grade separations of rail lines from cross vehicle traffic would 

adequately maintain present and future-condition traffic circulation in Shafter (Poplar, Fresno, Central, East Lerdo 

Highway, and Riverside). A sixth, at Shafter Avenue, is not necessary to maintain adequate traffic circulation. It is 

evaluated in this environmental document for informational purposes only, at the request of Shafter and in attempt to 

settle litigation (not concluded) Shafter filed in 2014; its inclusion in this document does not commit the Authority to 

include it in any project the Authority approves at the conclusion of the environmental process. Similarly, Zachary Avenue, 

Driver Road and Zerker Road are existing north-south roadways the LGA would cross as it traverses between the BNSF 

and SR-99. The LGA design includes openings under the HSR tracks to allow for the current roadway and Shafter’s 

desired future improvements, however it is likely that one or more of these three roadways are not required to remain 

open to maintain adequate circulation. These three openings are included in this environmental document at the request 

of Shafter and in attempt to settle litigation (not concluded) Shafter filed in 2014; their inclusion in this document does not 

commit the Authority to their inclusion in any project the Authority approves at the conclusion of the environmental 

process.
Summary 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

S-16 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

The existing noise environment near the BNSF rail line in the city of Shafter includes noise 

generated from BNSF rail operations and train horns. The BNSF rail line in the city of Shafter 

would be elevated as part of the proposed F-B LGA HSR Project. Noise levels generated from 

the BNSF rail operations would continue, but would generally be lower due to shielding of the 

retained fill and elimination of the train horns. Since the background noise level would either be 

the same or lower, noise impacts from both the elevated BNSF railway and proposed F-B LGA 

would remain the same. 

Both alternatives would create operational noise impacts. After mitigation, noise associated with 

operation of the F-B LGA would severely impact a total of 152 sensitive receptors, including 149

residences, compared to 305 sensitive receptors, including 299 residences, that would be 

impacted under the May 2014 Project. 

S.6.4 EMF/EMI 

During construction, only a slight measurable increase of electromagnetic field 

(EMF)/electromagnetic interference (EMI) levels would occur and within a very limited 

geographical area. 

Under both alternatives, 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 mili-Gauss. Even within the mainline right-of-way, 

this limit would not be reached. A review of land uses along the May 2014 Project identified two 

potentially sensitive receptors (i.e., medical imaging facilities) within the 200-foot study area that 

would be impacted by HSR-produced EMI. No sensitive receptors were identified within 1,000 

feet of the F-B LGA. Although the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS identified a 

mitigation measure to provide adequate shielding to medical imaging facilities, the F-B LGA 

would be located at a distance greater than the potential area of impact to such facilities.

S.6.5 Public Utilities and Energy

Construction of the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA could result in planned temporary interruption 

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

generation. 

Utility demand occurring under the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA would not require expansion 

of existing facilities or the construction of new facilities or entitlements, including those related to 

water and wastewater treatment, or stormwater drainage. The F-B LGA would require 1,201.2 

total acre-feet of water during construction whereas the May 2014 Project would require 1,333.1 

total acre-feet of water. There are 1,892.3 acre-feet per year of existing water uses along the F-B 

LGA whereas there are 4,999.27 acre-feet per year of existing water uses along the May 2014 

Project. The F-B LGA would generate 468,000 cubic yards of waste whereas the May 2014 

Project is anticipated to generate 484,068 cubic yards. Finally, with inclusion of the MOIF the F-B 

LGA would require 1,018.75 billion British thermal units (Btu) of energy during construction 

whereas the May 2014 Project would require 1,037.7 billion Btu of energy during construction. 

S.6.6 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Implementation of the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA would result in direct and indirect impacts 

on biological resources as a result of both construction period impacts and operation impacts. 

The following summarizes how temporary and permanent impacts were evaluated for 

construction and operation of the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA:

• Construction and operation impacts were considered temporary if they can be fully restored

to pre-disturbance conditions following construction. Temporary impacts would include

construction staging areas, construction laydown, relocation of underground utilities, and

other workspace that would not be occupied by HSR facilities during project operation.

• Impacts were considered permanent when they have lasting effects beyond the project

construction period, or cannot be fully restored following construction. Permanent impacts

included right-of-way for at-grade track segments, elevated structure track segments
Summary 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | S-17

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

(everything under the aerial extent of the structure), road crossings, electrical substations, 

facilities for maintenance-of-way and stations.

Construction activities would result in both permanent and temporary direct or indirect impacts 

through the disturbance or removal of lands that have been determined to support or could 

potentially support special-status species, affect habitats of concern, or interfere with wildlife 

movement corridors. Project operation would result in both permanent and temporary direct and 

indirect impacts on special-status species and habitats of concern, and would obstruct wildlife 

movement corridors.

Section S.11 compares the impacts to biological resources and wetlands associated with the two 

alternatives. Overall, the F-B LGA would result in less impact to special-status plant species, less 

impact to terrestrial habitats that support special-status wildlife species, greater impacts to black 

willow thickets, less impact to riparian areas, and fewer direct impacts to jurisdictional waters than 

the May 2014 Project. A more detailed analysis of the environmental effects associated with the 

May 2014 Project, and a subsequent summary comparison of impacts between the May 2014 

Project and F-B LGA, is provided in Appendix 8-A, Analysis of the Comparable Section (May 

2014 Project), of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS.

S.6.7 Hydrology and Water Resources

Construction and operational activities associated with the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA could 

potentially result in hydrology and water quality impacts to existing drainage, irrigation distribution 

systems, and water quality; however, avoidance and minimization measures have been 

incorporated into the design to reduce impacts on hydrology and water resources. These 

measures include, but are not limited to, project design features for storm water management and 

flood protection, and erosion and sedimentation controls, tracking controls, and waste 

management and materials pollution controls. 

The F-B LGA would result in impacts associated with hydrology and water quality in similar ways 

to the May 2014 Project. There may be site-specific differences in the location of potential 

impacts due to routing variations included under the F-B LGA (e.g., major water body crossings, 

water districts); however, the nature and intensity of potential impacts would be largely 

comparable. The F-B LGA would require two more water body crossings and would affect one 

additional water district with infrastructure in the study area compared to the May 2014 Project. 

Impacts associated with groundwater and floodplains would be the same for the F-B LGA and the 

May 2014 Project and are further discussed in Chapter 3.8 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. 

S.6.8 Geology, Soils Seismicity, and Paleontology

Both the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA could result in impacts associated with geologic, soils, 

and seismic hazards, including unstable slopes, soil settlement, accelerated erosion, expansive 

and corrosive soil properties, and earthquake-induced ground liquefaction and slope 

destabilization. Potential impacts would be addressed through implementation of conventional 

foundation design methods for elevated structure, retained-fill, at-grade, and retained-cut 

facilities. Impacts associated with the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA are comparable for this 

issue area.

The F-B LGA would impact fewer active, idle, new, and plugged wells (11) when compared to the 

May 2014 Project (28). There are 5 active wells within 150 feet of the May 2014 Project centerline 

and none within 150 feet of the F-B LGA centerline. 

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.
Summary 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

S-18 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

S.6.9 Hazardous Materials and Wastes

Construction and operation of the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA could cause ground 

disturbance (including disturbance of groundwater or surface water) near known contaminated 

site or sites, or where contamination could exist in the study area. Construction and operation of 

both alternatives could also involve the use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials and 

wastes in the study area. Impacts associated with the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA are 

generally comparable for hazardous materials and wastes, except that substantially more 

Potential Environmental Concern (PEC) sites are within 150 feet of the F-B LGA footprint (149 

PEC sites for F-B LGA compared to 2 PEC sites for May 2014 Project), resulting in the need for 

additional investigation during the final engineering and design phase. Increased activities 

associated with the investigation and remediation of PEC sites would be required under the F-B 

LGA when compared to the May 2014 Project, due to the increased concentration of PEC sites 

along the alignment. However, potential impacts would be similar between the May 2014 Project 

or F-B LGA, and the same types of mitigation actions would be required.

S.6.10 Safety and Security

Both alternatives could increase demand for local emergency responders around the stations due 

to station activity and associated redevelopment and increased commercial 

development/increased employees in the area, which could increase response times and require 

new or physically altered government facilities that might impact the environment. 

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. There are a total of 25 at-grade railroad crossings within the F-B LGA footprint: 8 

at-grade crossings in the City of Shafter and 17 in the City of Bakersfield. FRA records indicate 

that historically, for the 8 at-grade crossings in Shafter, there have been 29 at-grade roadway 

crossing accidents, resulting in 10 injuries and 10 fatalities (FRA 2016). According to FRA 

accident/incident reports, 108 train accidents/incidents occurred in the Kern County portion of the 

study area between January 2004 and December 2009, resulting in 5 fatalities and 22 injuries. 

According to records, 89 train accidents/incidents at highway/rail grade crossings occurred in the 

study area between January 2004 and December 2009, resulting in 12 fatalities and 11 injuries 

(FRA 2010b). The crossings within the May 2014 Project footprint have more accidents/incidents 

and have resulted in more fatalities, but fewer injuries. Design and implementation of the F-B 

LGA would eliminate at-grade crossings resulting in the elimination of pedestrian and vehicle 

conflicts with BNSF currently experienced throughout the City of Shafter. Sixteen 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 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.

Project design features, plans, and protocols developed as part of the May 2014 Project would 

avoid or minimize most safety and security impacts and would also be applicable to the F-B LGA.

S.6.11 Socioeconomics and Communities

Potential impacts that would result from the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA 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 and F-B LGA. As the F-B 

LGA would follow existing and long-established highway and railroad corridors through the urban 

areas, and would not bisect 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 
Summary

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | S-19

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

one-third of the homes and the only church in this community would be displaced under the May 

2014 Project. However, sufficient comparable 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.

The F-B LGA would result in the displacement of 15 fewer businesses equating to 277 more 

employees when compared to the May 2014 Project. Many of the business relocations that would 

occur under the F-B LGA 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. However,

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.

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. Implementation of both the 

F-B LGA and May 2014 Project would result in one displaced agricultural facility. Both 

alternatives would have approximately the same impact to the number of jobs lost in the 

agricultural industry. 

Both the F-B LGA and May 2014 Project would result in loss of sales tax revenue associated with 

displacement of businesses. However, construction-related sales tax gains would help to offset 

these losses and sales tax losses associated with displacements would begin to decrease as 

displaced businesses become re-established at new locations and new businesses move in to 

replace those that did not reopen. 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 

$707,000 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, 

$130,000 per year higher for the F-B LGA than for the May 2014 Project. The construction-related 

sales tax gains would help to offset these losses, reducing them to approximately $54,000 per 

year over the construction period for the F-B LGA. The May 2014 Project has been estimated to 

generate $758,000 in annual sales tax revenues for the region during the construction period; 

increases in tax revenues for Kern County is estimated to be $3.79 million under the May 2014 

Project. 

Project operation 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. 

S.6.12 Station Planning, Land Use, and Development

Construction of the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA would result in temporary impacts, including 

an increase in noise and pollutants and disruption of access during the construction period. 

These impacts also include temporary use of land for construction staging that would cease when 

construction is complete. The lands would be restored to their pre-construction condition at the 

end of construction and returned to the landowner, with restored access, utility connections, and 

other infrastructure already existing. 

Project operation impacts are permanent impacts and include acquisition of property, even 

though that acquisition would occur before construction. Both the May 2014 Project and the F-B 

LGA would result in permanent conversion of land currently in other uses (agricultural, residential, 

industrial, and commercial uses) to transportation-related uses, but would not change existing 

adjacent land uses. Overall, the May 2014 Project would result in greater impacts associated with 

land conversion than the F-B LGA (976 acres compared to 819 acres under the F-B LGA). 

S.6.13 Agricultural Land

Construction of both alternatives would result in the temporary use of agricultural land, including 

Important Farmland, for construction sites outside of the permanent right-of-way, such as for 

staging and material laydown areas. This land would be restored and returned to agricultural use 

after project construction is completed. The F-B LGA would result in similar impacts to the May 
Summary 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

S-20 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

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. 

Both the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA would convert Important Farmland to nonagricultural 

uses, bisect agricultural parcels, and require full or partial acquisition of parcels under Williamson 

Act and Farmland Security Zones (FSZ) contract. In addition to full or partial acquisitions, the F-B 

LGA would also implement a Farmland Consolidation Program to reduce impacts caused by 

parcel severance; while parcel ownership may change due to severance, the larger remnant 

parcels would remain in agricultural use. 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 System

farmland conversion rating (the F-B LGA would result in the loss of 372 acres of Important 

Farmland whereas the May 2014 Project would result in the loss of 485 Important Farmland). In 

addition, a remnant parcel analysis was conducted to determine which Important Farmland 

parcels severed by the project footprint would continue to remain economically viable for 

agriculture or would be necessary to convert from agricultural use to nonagricultural use. Severed 

parcels determined necessary to convert to nonagricultural use are referred to as “noneconomic 

parcels.” The F-B LGA would result in fewer total non-economic remnant parcels (12 remnant 

parcels) than the May 2014 Project (18 remnant parcels) and would affect more acres (114) of 

protected farmland (i.e., Williamson Act) than the May 2014 Project (47 acres). 

S.6.14 Parks, Recreation, and Open Space

There are two fewer parks located within 300 feet of the centerline (three versus five) of the F-B 

LGA than the May 2014 Project. In addition, while 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), 

more schools (whose spaces can serve as recreational spaces) would be located within 0.5 mile 

of the May 2014 Project passenger station than the F-B LGA passenger station (three versus 

one). Moreover, 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 

smaller 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. The following 

information 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, permanent acquisition of portions of the Kern River

Parkway, and introduce a new visual feature to users 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. The F-B LGA would result in the permanent

acquisition of the northern portion of Weill Park; however, 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,

the portion displaced would be replaced by the new park space included at the proposed F

Street Station.
Summary 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | S-21

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

• 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.

S.6.15 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Overall aesthetic impacts during construction would be the same for both the F-B LGA and the 

May 2014 Project. Under both alternatives, HSR construction in the vicinity of the Kern River 

Parkway Bike Trail would temporarily obstruct scenic views of natural vegetation and landforms, 

and could increase light and glare, reducing visual quality from moderately high to moderate. 

Similarly, construction of both the F-B LGA and the May 2014 Project would have an adverse 

effect on visual quality in the rural San Joaquin Valley and urban Bakersfield portions of the 

alignment, as well as through the City of Shafter, and result in a significant impact from

obstruction, light, and glare.

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. Therefore, the F-B LGA would avoid the May 2014 Project’s adverse operation-period effect 

to these residents. 

The F-B LGA would also avoid the May 2014 Project’s operation impacts to single-family 

residential neighborhoods in the Rosedale/Greenacres landscape unit. Instead, it would cross the 

North Bakersfield landscape unit along SR 99, passing within approximately 300 feet of singleand multi-family residences along Norris Road. Although the F-B LGA would introduce aesthetic 

impacts in North Bakersfield, the number of receptors affected in this area would be substantially 

less than the number of receptors affected in the Rosedale/Greenacres area under the May 2014 

Project. 

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. In the East Bakersfield landscape unit, the F-B LGA would avoid impacts 

to residences while introducing impacts to a commercial district. 

Overall, the F-B LGA would substantially reduce the number of adversely affected residential 

receptors. 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 not be as impactful based on the reduced impacts to residential receptors.

S.6.16 Cultural Resources

Activities that cause impacts on cultural resources are typically associated with construction of a 

project: disturbance of the ground, material, or physical alteration of the built environment, or 

alteration of the visual setting. Construction of the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA would occur in 

both urban and rural/undeveloped areas. Both alternatives would have the greatest potential to 

affect historic architectural and historic-era archaeological resources in the urban areas and the 

greatest potential to affect undisturbed prehistoric archaeological sites in rural/undeveloped 

areas. The F-B LGA would result in indirect adverse visual effects to four historic architectural 

resources that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) 

and qualify as historical resources under CEQA. One CEQA-only historical resource was 

identified within the F-B LGA project area. The May 2014 Project may result in a direct effect on 

one archaeological resource that is assumed eligible for listing in the NRHP and CRHR, and 

would result in an indirect adverse visual effect on one historic architectural resource that is listed 

or eligible for listing on the NRHP, and substantial adverse changes to four CEQA historical 

resources. 
Summary 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

S-22 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Both alternatives have the potential to cause impacts to unknown archaeological resources. 

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. 

Mitigation for the identified and potential impacts includes implementing the resource treatment 

plans for prehistoric and historic resources developed in coordination with the State Historic 

Preservation Officer, as well as complying with the mitigation framework outlined in the

Programmatic Agreement and Memorandum of Agreement for cultural resources protection that 

have been developed for this project. 

S.6.17 Regional Growth

Both the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA 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. The 

May 2014 Project and F-B LGA would have similar impacts to regional growth. Over the six-year 

construction period, the May 2014 Project would result in the creation of approximately 846 more 

one-year full-time job equivalents in Kern County than the F-B LGA; however, both would create 

over 11,000 jobs in the County. It is anticipated that these jobs would generally be filled by local 

residents and would not result in a substantial increase in the population. Even accounting for the 

requirements of residents displaced by construction of the F-B LGA, there is a surplus of housing 

in the Project area, with additional development in Kern County ongoing, so it is unlikely that new 

housing would be required for any incoming workers.

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.

Although both the May 2014 Project and the F-B LGA would result in the creation of additional 

short-term annual jobs in the region during the construction period, these jobs would generally be 

filled by local residents and would not result in a substantial increase in the population.

S.6.18 Cumulative and Secondary Impacts

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 result in 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.

S.6.19 Section 4(f)-6(f) Evaluation

Implementation of the May 2014 Project would result in a permanent 4(f) use 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 resource verified through coordination with the owner agency. Any trails impacted would be 

re-routed and maintained for use during construction, and temporarily relocated if needed. The FB LGA would result in a de minimis Section 4(f) impact to the Kern River Parkway and Weill Park. 

Weill Park is not affected under the May 2014 Project; however, the May 2014 Project has a 

permanent Section 4(f) use impact to Mill Creek. None of the historic resources identified within 

the project area was determined to have a Section 4(f) use. No Section 6(f) resources were 

identified within the May 2014 Project or F-B LGA study area. Impacts to Section 4(f) resources 
Summary 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | S-23

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

under the May 2014 Project are greater than those under the F-B LGA. There are no Section 6(f) 

resources under either alternative. 

S.6.20 Environmental Justice

Similar to the May 2014 Project, the F-B LGA would result in disproportionately high and adverse 

effects on minority and low-income populations. A comparison of the intensity of these high and 

adverse effects under each alternative as they relate to each of the resource areas discussed in 

this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS shows that: four resource areas have lesser affects under the FB LGA and one has comparable effects (see Table 5-3 in Chapter 5 of this Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS). Cumulative impacts are also comparable between the May 2014 Project and the F-B 

LGA. The F-B LGA includes mitigation measures that would minimize or avoid most of the 

impacts associated with project construction and operation. 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. 

With implementation of the F-B LGA, displacement and community disruption, noise and 

vibration, visual, and cumulative impacts would have disproportionately high and adverse effects 

on minority and low-income populations. 

S.6.21 Capital Cost Comparison between F-B LGA and May 2014 Project

Table S-1 compares the construction and operation costs for the May 2014 Project and the F-B 

LGA. 

Table S-1 Cost and Operation Impact Comparison between the May 2014 Project and F-B 

LGA 

May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Capital Cost for Alignment $2,893.7 million $2,687.5 million

Operations and Maintenance 

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)

As shown in Table S-1, 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, 

Operations and Maintenance 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 23.13 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.

S.7 Areas of Controversy

Based on the public outreach efforts throughout the environmental review process, the following 

are known areas of controversy: 

• Selection of the preferred HSR alternative.

• Impacts on special-status plants and wildlife and wildlife habitat preserves.

• Impacts on corridor communities (including noise, visual quality impacts, loss of community

character and cohesion, and right-of-way acquisition).
Summary 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

S-24 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

• Impacts on farmlands (including severance of farmlands, loss of productive farmland, and

loss of agricultural enterprises).

• Trade-offs between corridor communities and agricultural lands.

S.8 Public and Agency Comment Summary

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

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

comments were accepted, and draft documents were widely circulated. Refer to Chapter 8 of the 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS (page 8-1) for more detail on the public coordination 

that occurred through March 2014.

Throughout the Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS development process, some of the most frequently 

asked questions were related to noise generation (discussed further in Section 3.4, Noise and 

Vibration of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS), property values (property values of parcels that 

would be acquired due to project implementation) (discussed further in Section 3.12, 

Socioeconomics and Communities of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS), right-of-way acquisition

(discussed further in Appendix 3.12-A of the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS), and 

construction employment opportunities. At the project open houses, project staff addressed these 

and other questions, often referring to the environmental analysis underway for this Draft 

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

Those comments raised by the public have informed this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. When 

developing the F-B LGA, project staff also considered alternative alignments or design 

modifications that individuals and organizations had suggested (refer to the Draft Feasibility 

Summary Memorandum of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS). When questions could not be 

answered at a public meeting, outreach staff followed up with inquiring party(ies) or included the 

discussion as items to be addressed at future public meetings. With information gathered during 

public meetings the Authority, in cooperation with the City of Bakersfield, and also the City of 

Shafter and Kern County, conducted a high-level analysis to assess the feasibility and 

practicability of potential alternatives to carry forward into the preliminary design and 

environmental review in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. Further discussion of this analysis is 

provided in Chapter 2 Section 2.1.1 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. 

During the development of the 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. A summary of these activities is provided in 

Chapter 9 of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS.

S.9 Identification of Preferred Alternative

At the November 2015 Board meeting, the Board discussed the opportunity of identifying a 

Preliminary Preferred Alternative in the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS. The advantage of identifying the Preliminary Preferred Alternative in the Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS is that the public would be able to comment sooner on the Preliminary 

Preferred Alternative allowing the FRA and Authority to take such comments into consideration 

and revise aspects of the project as applicable. 

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

LGA as the Preliminary Preferred Alternative in the Fresno to Bakersfield Draft Supplemental 

EIR/EIS. The Board concurred with staff’s recommendation that the F-B LGA be designated as 

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

The Authority and FRA have determined that sufficient information will be available to identify the 

F-B LGA as the Preferred Alternative as described in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. The 

Preferred Alternative extends from Poplar Avenue, north of Shafter, to Oswell Street in 

Bakersfield. The station associated with the Proposed 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. 
Summary 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | S-25

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

The F-B LGA reflects the ability and willingness of the Authority to work 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 F-B LGA is the Preferred Alternative because it is supported by the local 

community (e.g., City of Bakersfield); would result in lesser impacts associated with agricultural 

lands, residential displacements, special-status plant species, riparian areas, and permanent 

impacts to jurisdictional waters; would cost less to construct; would improve traffic, pedestrian, 

and bicycle safety and circulation in the City of Shafter; and would reduce overall system-wide

travel time. 

S.10 Next Steps in the Environmental Process

The Authority and FRA are circulating the Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS to affected local 

jurisdictions, elected officials, state and federal agencies, tribes, community organizations, other 

interest groups, interested individuals, and the public. The document also is available at the 

Authority offices, public libraries in the study area, and on the Authority’s website. The following 

discussion explains the decision-making processes of the agencies relying on the information 

included in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. 

The Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS will be circulated for a 45-day comment period, which will 

include open houses and a public hearing. Information about the schedule for these meetings is 

available on the Authority’s website. 

S.10.1 FRA Decision-Making

The FRA issued a ROD in June 2014 based on the environmental analysis in the Fresno to 

Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS. That decision extends from the Fresno HSR Station through 

the Bakersfield Truxtun Avenue HSR Station to Oswell Street. FRA would consider the 

information and analysis regarding the potential impacts of the F-B LGA contained in this Draft 

Supplemental EIR/EIS, along with public and agency comments, to determine whether to modify 

its decision for the Fresno to Bakersfield Section. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 304a(b), FRA is 

required to expeditiously develop a single document consisting of the Final EIS and ROD to the 

maximum extent practicable, unless the Final EIS makes substantial changes to the proposed 

action that are relevant to environmental safety or concerns, unless there is significant new 

information relevant to environmental concerns bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. 

S.10.2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Decision-Making

The Fresno to Bakersfield Section of the HSR System will require permits from the United States 

Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 14 of the Rivers 

and Harbors Act (33 U.S.C. 408). The United States Army Corps of Engineers is using the Fresno 

to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS to integrate the procedural and substantive requirements of 

NEPA and its permitting responsibilities (including consideration of EPA’s 404(b)(1) Guidelines in 

determining the Least Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative). The EIR/EIS enables 

informed decision-making by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to support adoption of 

the EIS, issuance of ROD(s), Statement of Findings, and Section 404 permit and Section 408 

permit decisions (as applicable). 

S.10.3 Surface Transportation Board

If the Authority approves the F-B LGA as its new preferred alternative for the Fresno to 

Bakersfield project, and the FRA approved the F-B LGA in a modified Record of Decision, the 

Authority would submit a petition to the Surface Transportation Board for authorization to 

construct the F-B LGA. The Surface Transportation Board would consider the Transportation 

merits of the project, review the environmental record, and decide whether to deny, approved, or 

approve with conditions (including environmental conditions) the Authority’s construction request.

S.10.4 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) may issue rights of entry permits for pedestrian 

surveys and ground disturbing investigations, such as geotechnical investigations, or other 
Summary 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

S-26 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

information gathering activities. It may grant temporary construction permits for the relocation of 

facilities and equipment such as pipes, canals, and pumps. If the facilities are relocated outside of 

Reclamation’s ownership, the Authority will acquire any needed land rights necessary for future 

operations and maintenance needs and/or relocated Reclamation features. After construction, 

the Authority will transfer to Reclamation necessary land rights. Reclamation will grant or transfer 

land rights as appropriate to the Authority. The HSR alignment crosses Reclamation lands and 

facilities, one of which is the Friant-Kern Canal. Impacts to Reclamation facilities within the F-B 

LGA project footprint are analyzed in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS.

S.10.5 California High-Speed Rail Authority Decision-Making

Although the Authority Board certified the Fresno to Bakersfield Section Final EIR/EIS, which 

evaluated the alignment from the Fresno HSR Station to the Bakersfield Truxtun Avenue HSR 

Station, the Board only approved the project from the Fresno HSR Station to 7th Standard Road, 

which is the northern limit of the City of Bakersfield The Board determined that the F-B LGA is the 

Preliminary Preferred Alternative in May 2016. The Board will determine if based on the analysis 

in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS, agency comments, public comments and testimony, and a 

Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration, it will approve the F-B LGA, the 

comparable segment of the May 2014 Project, or no project at all.

S.11 Project Implementation

After the issuance of the FRA ROD and the Authority’s Notice of Determination, the Authority 

would complete final design, obtain construction permits, and acquire property before starting 

construction. The Authority has commenced the right-of-way acquisition process in Bakersfield on 

long-lead locations, and right-of-way acquisition of the alignment is anticipated to commence in 

summer 2018. 

Table S-2 provides a high-level comparison of key features associated with each of the 

alternative alignments presented in this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS. Table S-2 provides a 

comparison of impacts with discernable difference between the May 2014 Project and the F-B 

LGA. Where impacts between the two alternatives are similar, a summary statement identifying 

the similar nature of impacts has been included. A more detailed analysis of the environmental 

effects associated with the May 2014 Project, and a subsequent summary comparison of impacts 

between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA, is provided in Appendix 8-A, Analysis of the 

Comparable Section (May 2014 Project), of this Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS.

Table S-2 Impact Comparison between May 2014 Project and F-B LGA

Impact May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Project Costs 

Project Costs Base Year 2010 

Dollars (millions)

$2,893.7 $2,687.5

Transportation Impacts 

Construction Impacts: There is no significant differentiating construction impact between the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA for transportation and traffic. Approximately 170 peak-hour trips would be added to roadways during

construction for the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA.

Project Impacts:

TR#13: Impacts on the Local 

Roadway Network due to Station 

Activity

No roadway segments would 

experience a significant impact

under Existing Plus Project 

Conditions. 

One roadway segments would experience 

a significant impact under Existing Plus 

Project Conditions.

TR#11: Changes in Vehicle 14 permanent road closures 10 permanent road closures 

Movements and Flows on 

Highways and Roadways
Summary 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | S-27

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impact May 2014 Project F-B LGA

No roadway segments would 

experience a significant impact 

under Future (Year 2035) with 

Project Conditions (operational)

Two roadway segments would experience 

a significant impact under Future (Year 

2035) with Project Conditions (operational)

11 study intersections would 

experience a significant impact 

under Future with Project 

Conditions. 

 9 study intersections would experience a 

significant impact under Future with Project 

Conditions. 

Air Quality and Global Climate Change Impacts 

Construction Impacts: There is no significant differentiating construction impact between the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA for air quality and global climate change.

Project Impacts: There is no significant differentiating project impact between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA for 

air quality and global climate change. 

Noise and Vibration Impacts 

Construction Impacts: There is no significant differentiating construction impact between the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA for noise and vibration.

Project Impacts:

N&V#3: Moderate and Severe 

Noise Impacts from Project 

Operation to Sensitive Receivers 

305 severe noise impacts post 

mitigation from operations 

152 severe noise impacts post mitigation 

from operations

N&V#5: Impacts from Project 

Vibration 

0 properties affected by vibration. 18 properties affected by vibration. 

Electromagnetic Fields and Electromagnetic Interference Impacts 

Construction Impacts: There is no significant differentiating construction impact between the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA for EMF/EMI.

Project Impacts: Two sensitive receptors (hospitals) are located within 200 feet of the May 2014 Project and there 

are none located within 200 feet of the F-B LGA. Impacts would be less with F-B LGA implementation compared to 

implementation of the May 2014 Project. 

Public Utilities and Energy 

Construction Impacts:

PU&E#3: Water demand during 

construction

265.3 AFY (1,333.1 total acre-feet) 244.05 AFY (1,201.25 total acre-feet)

PU&E#4: Waste Generation 

during construction

484,068 cubic yards 468,000 cubic yards

PU&E#5: Energy Consumption 

during construction 

998.48 billion BTU (no MOIF)

1,037.7 billion BTU (with MOIF)

980.53 billion BTU (no MOIF)

1,018.75 billion BTU (with MOIF) 

Project Impacts: There is no significant differentiating project impact between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA for 

public utilities and energy. 
Summary 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

S-28 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impact May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Biological Resources and Wetlands 

Construction and Project Impacts:

BIO#1: Impacts to Special-Status 

Plant Species

(Number of acres directly 

impacted that have the potential 

to support special-status plant 

species)

Direct Impacts – 112.26 acres Direct Impacts – 62.13 acres

BIO#2: Impacts to Special-Status 

Wildlife Species

(Number of acres permanently 

impacted and temporarily 

impacted that have the potential 

to support special-status wildlife 

species)

Permanent Impacts – 977.42 acres

Temporary Impacts – 678.99 acres

Permanent Impacts – 819.31 acres

Temporary Impacts – 170.42 acres

bvBIO#3: Impacts to SpecialStatus Plant Communities Permanent Impacts – 0.70 acre

Temporary Impacts – 0.30 acre

Permanent Impacts – 1.13 acres

Temporary Impacts – 0.41 acre

BIO#4: Impacts to Jurisdictional 

Waters 

Permanent Impacts – 17.03 acres

Temporary Impacts – 3.11 acres

Permanent Impacts – 15.96 acres

Temporary Impacts – 1.18 acres

BIO#5: Impacts to Conservation 

Areas 

Project not located in a 

Conservation Area; therefore, not 

quantified

Project not located in a Conservation Area; 

therefore, not quantified

BIO#6: Impacts to Protected 

Trees 

Number not generated for 

comparative analysis in 

documentation.

412

Hydrology and Water Resources 

Construction Impacts: There is no significant differentiating construction impact between the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA for hydrology and water resources.

Project Impacts: There is no significant differentiating project impact between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA for 

hydrology and water resources. 

Geology, Soils, Seismicity and Paleontology 

Construction Impacts: There is no significant differentiating construction impact between the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA for geology, soils, seismicity, and paleontology.

Project Impacts: There is no significant differentiating project impact between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA for 

geology, soils, seismicity, and paleontology. 

Hazardous Materials and Wastes 

Construction Impacts:

HW#3: Construction on or in 

Proximity to PEC Sites

2 PEC sites within 150 feet of the 

footprint. 

149 PEC sites within 150 feet of the 

footprint. 

HW#4: Temporary Hazardous 

Material and Waste Activities in 

the Proximity of Schools. 

There are 22 schools with 0.25 mile

of the construction footprint. 

There are 16 schools within 0.25 mile of 

the construction footprint. 

HW#5: Construction in Proximity 

to Landfills and Oil Well Sites 

There are no active or closed

landfills within 0.25 mile of the May 

2014 Project footprint.

There are 13 (1 active) landfills within 0.25

mile of the F-B LGA footprint.
Summary 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | S-29

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impact May 2014 Project F-B LGA

2 active oil wells within 150 feet of 

centerline. 

0 active oil wells within 150 feet of 

centerline. 

Project Impacts: There is no significant differentiating project impact between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA for 

hazardous materials and wastes. 

Safety and Security 

Construction Impacts: There is no significant differentiating construction impact between the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA for safety and security.

Project Impacts: There is no significant differentiating project impact between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA for 

safety and security.

Socioeconomics and Communities 

Construction Impacts: 

SO#4: Construction-Related 

Sales Tax Revenue Gains

$758,000 annually or $235,000 

when offset with sales tax losses 

from businesses displaced during 

construction

$707,000 annually or $54,000 when offset 

with sales tax losses from businesses 

displaced during construction 

Project Impacts: 

SO#6: Disruption to Community 

Cohesion or Division of Existing 

Communities from Project 

Operation

20 key community facilities affected1

2 religious facilities displaced

15 key community facilities affected1 

0 religious facilities displaced. 

SO#9: Residential Displacements 384 housing units displaced 

(estimated)

86 housing units displaced (estimated). 

SO#10: Commercial and 

Industrial Business 

Displacements

392 commercial and industrial 

businesses displaced (estimated). 

377 commercial and industrial businesses 

displaced (estimated).

SO#11: Project Effects on 

Agricultural Businesses

Splits 10 agricultural parcels Splits 22 agricultural parcels 

SO#12: Operation-Related 

Property and Sales Tax Revenue 

Effects 

Loses $4.2 million in property tax 

revenue 

Loses $3.6 million in property tax revenue

Loses approximately $523,000 in 

annual sales tax revenues 

Loses approximately $653,000 in annual 

sales tax revenues

SO#14: Changes in School 

District Funding and School 

Access Effects

384 residential units, displacing 101 

students. 

86 residential units; displacing 22 students.

Station Planning, Land Use and Development 

Construction Impacts: There is no significant differentiating construction impact between the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA for station planning, land use and development.
Summary 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

S-30 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impact May 2014 Project F-B LGA

Project Impacts: 

LU#2: Permanent Conversion of 

Existing Land Uses to 

Transportation Use.

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 Facilities2 17 acres

Agriculture3 429 acres

Other4 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 acres

Multi-family 2 acres

Commercial 20 acres

Industrial 115 acres

Community Facilities2 76 acres

Agriculture3 323 acres

Other4 281 acres

Agricultural Land 

Construction Impacts: There is no significant differentiating construction impact between the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA for agricultural land.

Project Impacts: 

AG#4: Permanent Conversion of 

Agricultural Land to 

Nonagricultural Use

485 acres of Important Farmland. 372 acres of Important Farmland. 

Farmland conversion impact rating 

is 144. 

Farmland conversion impact rating is 140.

AG#5: Effects on Agricultural 

Land from Parcel Severance

18 non-economic remnant parcels

totaling 10 acres. 

12 non-economic remnant parcels totaling 

20 acres. 

AG#6: Effects on Land Under 

Williamson Act or FSZ Contracts, 

Local Zoning

47 acres of Williamson Act lands. 114 acres of Williamson Act lands. 

Parks, Recreation and Open Space

Construction Impacts: There is no significant differentiating construction impact between the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA for parks, recreation, and open space.

Project Impacts: There is no significant differentiating project impact between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA for 

parks, recreation, and open space. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Construction Impacts: There is no significant differentiating construction impact between the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA for aesthetics and visual resources.

Project Impacts: There is no significant differentiating project impact between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA for 

aesthetics and visual resources.

Cultural Resources

Construction Impacts: 

CUL#1: Potential Adverse Effects 

on Archaeological Resources Due 

to Construction Activities

One archaeological resource 

identified within the Area of 

Potential Effect (APE) presumed 

NRHP-eligible for lack of access.

No archaeological resources identified 

within the APE.
Summary 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | S-31

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impact May 2014 Project F-B LGA

ndirect adverse visual effect on one 

Section 106 historic property and 

substantial adverse changes to five 

CEQA historical resources.

Indirect visual effects on four historic 

properties (also considered CEQA 

historical resources). 

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 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) 

to avoid and minimize potential 

adverse effects.

Indirect adverse visual effects on the 

Noriega Hotel from the introduction of 

visual features that would diminish the 

integrity of the historic property (Section 

106).

Project Impacts: There is no significant differentiating project impact between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA for 

cultural resources.

Regional Growth 

Construction Impacts: There is no significant differentiating construction impact between the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA for regional growth.

Project Impacts: There is no significant differentiating project impact between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA for 

regional growth.

Cumulative Impacts 

Construction Impacts: There is no significant differentiating construction impact between the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA for cumulative impacts.

Project Impacts: There is no significant differentiating project impact between the May 2014 Project and F-B LGA for 

cumulative impacts.

Section 4(f)-6(f) Evaluation 

Construction Impacts: Construction impacts for the May 2014 Project exceed those of the F-B LGA for Section 4(f) 

Properties. Neither alternative has Section 6(f) impacts.

Project Impacts: Project impacts for the May 2014 Project exceed those of the F-B LGA for Section 4(f) Properties. 

Neither alternative has Section 6(f) impacts.

Environmental Justice 

Construction Impacts: There is no significant differentiating construction impact between the May 2014 Project and 

F-B LGA for environmental justice.

Project Impacts: Lesser impacts would occur under the F-B LGA as it 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. 

1 Socioeconomic effects include displacement, temporary restricted access, impacts such as noise, dust, and glare during construction which would 

disrupt use.

2 Community Facilities includes government and other public and quasi-public agency uses, public parks, and schools. 3 Agriculture includes mineral and petroleum, resource management areas and floodplains. 

4 Other includes right-of-way, transportation, and vacant lands. 

AG = Agricultural Resources LU = Land Use

APE = Area of Potential Effects MOA = memorandum of agreement

BIO = Biological Resources and Wetlands MOIF = maintenance of infrastructure facility

BTU = British thermal unit N&V = Noise and Vibration

CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act NRHP = National Register of Historic Places

CUL = Cultural Resources PEC = potential environmental concern

EMF/EMI = electromagnetic field/electromagnetic interference PU&E = Public Utilities and Energy

F-B LGA = Fresno to Bakersfield Locally Generated Alternative SO = Socioeconomics and Communities

FSZ = Farmland Security Zones TCP = traditional cultural property

HW = Hazardous Wastes and Materials TR = Transportation

CUL#2: Potential Adverse Effects I

on Historic Architectural 

Resources Due to Construction 

Activities
Summary 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

S-32 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Table S-3, F-B LGA Mitigation Measures identifies the potentially significant impacts of the F-B 

LGA, as well as any new mitigation measures applied to the F-B LGA. It should be noted that 

Table S-3 only shows impacts that are applicable to the F-B LGA. In cases where impacts are not 

applicable to the F-B LGA but are applicable to the May 2014 Project impact statements are not 

included in Table S-3. Mitigation measures developed specifically for the F-B LGA are N&VMM#9, N&V-MM#10, and N&V-MM#11, as well as S&S-MM#2, S&S-MM#3, and S&S-MM#4. 

Some significant impacts would remain significant after mitigation. These impacts are: N&V#5, 

N&V#7, BIO#7, LU#2, AG#4, AVR#4, AVR#5, CUL#2, CUM-N&V and Environmental Justice 

impacts for noise, community impacts, and aesthetics.

Table S-3 F-B LGA Mitigation Measures

Impact Mitigation Measure 

Transportation

Construction Impacts

TR #1: Construction (Not Including 

Stations) Impacts on Circulation and 

Emergency Access

TR #5: Impacts on Circulation from 

Bakersfield Station Alternatives 

Construction 

TR #7: Impacts on Circulation from Rural 

Area Construction

TR #8: Regional Transportation Impacts 

from Construction Material Hauling

TR #9: Construction (Not Including 

Stations) Impacts on School Districts

No mitigation required. 

Project Impacts 

TR #10: Impacts on Regional 

Transportation System

TR #11: Changes in Vehicle Movements 

and Flow on Highways and Roadways

TR #12: Loss of Property Access as a 

Result of Road Closures

No mitigation required.

TR #13: Impacts on the Local Roadway 

Network due to Station Activity Existing 

Plus Project Conditions.

TR MM#3: Add Signal to Intersection to Improve LOS/Operation.

TR MM#5: Revise Signal Cycle Length.

TR MM#6: Widen Approaches to Intersections.

TR MM#7: Add Exclusive Turn Lanes to Intersections.

TR MM#8: Add New Lanes to Roadway.

TR MM#9: Restripe Roadway Segment

TT MM#10: Convert Intersection to an all-way stop. 

Air Quality and Global Climate Change

Construction Impacts 

AQ #1: Regional Air Quality Impacts 

During Construction 

AQ-MM#1: Reduce Criteria Exhaust Emissions from Construction 

Equipment.

AQ-MM#2: Reduce Criteria Exhaust Emissions from On-Road 

Construction Equipment.

AQ-MM#4: Offset Emissions Through the VERA Program.
Summary 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | S-33

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impact Mitigation Measure 

AQ #2: Compliance with Air Quality Plans AQ-MM#1: Reduce Criteria Exhaust Emissions from Construction 

Equipment.

AQ-MM#2: Reduce Criteria Exhaust Emissions from On-Road 

Construction Equipment.

AQ-MM#4: Offset Emissions Through the VERA Program.

AQ #3: Material hauling outside of 

SJVAB

AQ-MM#2: Reduce Criteria Exhaust Emissions from On-Road 

Construction Equipment.

AQ-MM#5: Purchase Offsets for Emissions Associated with Hauling 

Ballast Material in Certain Air Districts (i.e., Mojave Desert AQMD, 

BAAQMD, and the South Coast AQMD).

AQ # 8: Localized Air Quality Impacts 

from Concrete Batch Plants

AQ-MM #3: Reduce the potential impact of concrete batch plants.

AQ #4: Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

During Construction 

AQ #5: Asbestos and Lead-Based Paint 

Exposure During Construction

AQ #6: Localized Air Quality Impacts 

During Guideway/Alignment Construction

AQ #7: Localized Air Quality Impacts to 

Schools and Other Sensitive Receptors 

During Station Construction 

AQ #9: Localized Air Quality Impacts 

from MOIF 

No mitigation required. 

Project Impacts 

AQ #10: Regional Criteria Pollutant 

Emissions 

AQ #11: Greenhouse Gas Analysis 

During Operation 

AQ # 12: Localized Air Quality Impacts 

During Train Operations

AQ #13: Localized Mobile Air Toxics 

Analysis

AQ #14: Microscale CO Impact Analysis

AQ #15: Localized PM10/PM2.5 Hot-Spot 

Impact Analysis

AQ #16: Localized Air Quality Impacts to 

Sensitive Receptors Including Schools

AQ #17: Odor Impacts from Operations

AQ #18: Compliance with Air Quality 

Plans

No mitigation required.

Noise and Vibration

Construction Impacts 

N&V #1: Construction noise N&V-MM#1: Construction noise mitigation measures.

N&V #2: Construction vibration N&V-MM#2: Construction vibration mitigation measures.
Summary 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

S-34 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impact Mitigation Measure 

Project Impacts

N&V #3: Moderate and severe noise 

impacts from project operation to 

sensitive receptors.

N&V-MM #3: Installation of noise barriers, installation of building 

insulation, or full property acquisition for noise impacts from HSR 

operations.

N&V #5: Impacts from Project Vibration N&V-MM #5: Special trackwork at crossovers and turnouts

N&V #7: Noise from HSR Stationary 

Facilities

N&V-MM #7: Station, Maintenance of Infrastructure Facility, and Traction 

Power Supply Station noise mitigation measure. 

N&V #4: Noise Effects on Wildlife and 

Domestic Animals

N&V #6: Traffic Noise

No mitigation required. 

Electromagnetic Fields and Electromagnetic Interference

Construction Impacts

EMF/EMI #1: Impacts During 

Construction

No mitigation required.

Project Impacts

EMF/EMI #2: General Human Exposure 

to EMF 

EMF/EMI #3: People with Implanted 

Medical Devices and Exposure to EMF 

EMF/EMI #4: Livestock and Poultry 

Exposure

EMF/EMI #5: Effects on Sensitive 

Equipment from EMI

EMF/EMI #6: EMI Effects on Schools 

EMF/EMI #7: Potential for Corrosion of 

Underground Pipelines and Cables and 

Adjoining Rail

EMF/EMI #8: Potential for Nuisance 

Shocks

EMF/EMI #9: Effects on Adjacent 

Existing Rail Lines

No mitigation required.

Public Utilities and Energy

Construction Impacts

PU&E #1: Temporary Interruption of 

Utility Service

PU&E #2: Accidents and Disruption of 

Service

PU&E #3: Water Demand during 

Construction 

PU&E #4: Waste Generation during 

Construction 

PU&E #5: Energy Consumption during 

Construction

No mitigation required. 
Summary 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | S-35

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impact Mitigation Measure 

Project Impacts

PU&E #6: Conflicts with Existing Utilities

PU&E #7: Reduced Access to Existing 

Utilities in the HSR Right-of-Way

PU&E #8: Upgrade or Construction of 

Power Lines

PU&E #9: Potential Conflicts with 

Electrical Facilities 

PU&E #10: Potential Conflicts with 

Natural Gas Lines (High Pressure)

PU&E #11: Potential Conflicts with 

Petroleum and Fuel Pipelines

PU&E #12: Potential Conflicts with Water 

Facilities

PU&E #13: Wastewater Facilities – 

Conflicts and Capacity

PU&E #14: Storm Drain Facilities – 

Conflicts and Capacity

PU&E #15: Waste Generation during 

Operation

PU&E #16: Hazardous Waste Generation 

during Operation

PU&E #17: Energy Consumption – 

Project Period Impacts 

No mitigation required.

Biological Resources and Wetlands

Construction Impacts 

Special-Status Plants 

BIO #1: Construction Effects on SpecialStatus Plant SpeciesBIO-MM #1: Designate Project Biologist(s), Regulatory Specialist 

(Waters), Project Botanist, and Project Biological Monitor(s) 

BIO-MM #2: Regulatory Agency Access

BIO-MM #3:Prepare and Implement a Worker Environmental Awareness 

Program

BIO-MM #4: Prepare and Implement a Weed Control Plan and Annual 

Vegetation Control Plan 

BIO-MM #5: Prepare and Implement a Biological Resource Management 

Plan

BIO-MM #6: Prepare and Implement a Restoration and Revegetation Plan

BIO-MM #7: Delineate Environmentally Sensitive Areas and 

Environmentally Restricted Areas (on plans and in field)

BIO-MM #9: Equipment Staging Areas

BIO-MM #11: Vehicle Traffic

BIO-MM #13: Work Stoppage

BIO-MM #14: “Take” Notification and Reporting

BIO-MM #15: Post-Construction Compliance Reports

BIO-MM #16: Conduct Protocol-Level Preconstruction Surveys for SpecialStatus Plant Species and Special-Status Plant Communities

BIO-MM #17: Prepare and Implement Plan for Salvage, Relocation and/or 

Propagation of Special-Status Plant Species
Summary 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

S-36 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impact Mitigation Measure 

BIO-MM #47: Restore Temporary Riparian Impacts 

BIO-MM #53: Compensate for Impacts on Special-Status Plant Species

BIO-MM #61: Compensate for Permanent Riparian Impacts

BIO-MM #62: Prepare and Implement a Site-Specific Comprehensive 

Mitigation and Monitoring Plan

BIO-MM #65: Offsite Habitat Restoration, Enhancement, and Preservation

Special-Status Wildlife Species 

BIO #2: Construction Effects on SpecialStatus WildlifeBIO-MM #1 through 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 15, 61, 62, and 65 as described 

above under Impact BIO #1.

BIO-MM #8: Wildlife Exclusion Fencing 

BIO-MM #10: Mono-Filament Netting

BIO-MM #22: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Special-Status Reptile 

and Amphibian Species

BIO-MM #23: Conduct Special-Status Reptile and Amphibian Monitoring, 

Avoidance, and Relocation

BIO-MM #29: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys and Delineate Active Nest 

Exclusion Areas for Other Breeding Birds 

BIO-MM #30: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys and Monitoring for 

Raptors

BIO-MM #31: Bird Protection

BIO-MM #32: Conduct Protocol and Preconstruction Surveys for 

Swainson’s Hawks 

BIO-MM #33: Swainson’s Hawk Nest Avoidance and Monitoring

BIO-MM #34: Monitor Removal of Nest Trees for Swainson’s Hawks

BIO-MM #35: Conduct Protocol Surveys for Burrowing Owls

BIO-MM #36: Burrowing Owl Avoidance and Minimization 

BIO-MM #37: Conduct Surveys for Nelson’s Antelope Squirrel, Tipton 

Kangaroo Rat, Dulzura Pocket Mouse, and Tulare Grasshopper Mouse

BIO-MM #38: Implement Avoidance and Minimization Measures for 

Nelson’s Antelope Squirrel, Tipton Kangaroo Rat, Dulzura Pocket Mouse, 

and Tulare Grasshopper Mouse

BIO-MM #40: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for Special-Status Bat 

Species

BIO-MM #41: Bat Avoidance and Relocation

BIO-MM #42: Bat Exclusion and Deterrence

BIO-MM #43: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for American Badger and 

Ringtail

BIO-MM #44: American Badger and Ringtail Avoidance

BIO-MM #45: Conduct Preconstruction Surveys for San Joaquin Kit Fox

BIO-MM #46: Minimize Impacts on San Joaquin Kit Fox

BIO-MM #51: Install Flashing or Slats within Security Fencing

BIO-MM #52: Construction in Wildlife Movement Corridors

BIO-MM #57: Compensate for Impacts on Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard, 

Tipton Kangaroo Rat, and Nelson’s Antelope Squirrel

BIO-MM #58: Compensate for Loss of Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Trees

BIO-MM #59: Compensate for Loss of Burrowing Owl Active Burrows and 

Habitat

BIO-MM #60: Compensate for Destruction of San Joaquin Kit Fox Habitat 
Summary 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | S-37

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impact Mitigation Measure 

Special-Status Plant Communities 

BIO #3: Construction Effects on Habitats 

of Concern

BIO-MM #1 through 7, 9, 11, 13 through 17, 47, 53, 61, 62, and 65 as 

described above under Impact BIO #1 and Impact BIO #2.

Jurisdictional Waters: BIO-MM #1 through 7, 9, 11, 13, 47, 61, 62, and 65 

described above under Impact BIO #1 and Impact BIO #2.

BIO-MM #48: Restore Temporary Riparian Impacts

BIO-MM #49: Monitor Construction Activities within Jurisdictional Waters

BIO-MM #63: Compensate for Permanent and Temporary Impacts on 

Jurisdictional Waters

Conservation Areas: BIO-MM #1 through 7, 17, 47, 48, 49, 52, 61, 62, 63, 

and 65 described above under Impact BIO #1, Impact BIO #2, and under 

Jurisdictional Waters of Impact BIO #3. 

Protected Trees: 

BIO-MM #50: Mitigation and Monitoring of Protected Trees

BIO-MM #64: Compensate for Impacts on Protected Trees

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

BIO #4: Construction Effects on Wildlife 

Movement Corridors

BIO-MM #52 as described under Impact BIO #2. 

Project Impacts

Special-Status Plant Species 

BIO #5: Project Effects on Special-Status 

Plant Species

Same Mitigation Measures as listed above under Impact BIO #1. 

Special-Status Wildlife Species 

BIO #6: Project Effects on Special-Status 

Wildlife Species

Same Mitigation Measures as listed above under Impact BIO #2.

Habitats of Concern 

BIO #7: Project Effects on Habitats of 

Concern 

Same Mitigation Measures as listed above under Impact BIO #3.

Wildlife Movement Corridors

BIO #8: Project Effects on Wildlife 

Movement Corridors 

Same Mitigation Measures as listed above under Impact BIO #4.

Hydrology and Water Resources

Construction Impacts

HWR #1: Temporary Changes to 

Drainage Patterns and Stormwater 

Runoff 

HWR #2: Temporary Water Quality 

Impacts 

HWR #3: Temporary Impacts on 

Groundwater

No mitigation required.
Summary 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

S-38 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impact Mitigation Measure 

HWR #4: Temporary Impacts on 

Floodplains

HWR-MM#1: Implement floodplain protection measures during 

Construction.

Project Impacts

HWR #5: Permanent Impacts on 

Hydraulic Capacity and Connectivity 

HWR #6: Permanent Impacts on Surface 

Water Quality

HWR #7: Permanent Impacts on 

Groundwater Quality and Volume

No mitigation required. 

HWR#8: Permanent Impacts on 

Floodplains

HWR-MM#2: Implement Best Management Practices for water quality 

protection.

Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontology

Construction Impacts

GSSP #1: Encountering Unstable Soils 

during Construction

GSSP #2: Soil Settlement as Structures 

or along Trackway during Construction

GSSP #3: Soil Erosion during 

Construction

GSSP #4: Difficult Excavations due to 

Hardpan Soil and Shallow Groundwater

GSSP #5: Encountering Mineral and 

Energy Resources during Construction 

and Loss of Availability of Known Mineral 

or Energy Resources of Statewide or 

Regional Significance

No mitigation required. 

Project Impacts

GSSP #6: Effects of Unstable Soils on 

Operations

GSSP #7: Effects of Soil Settlement on 

Operations 

GSSP #8: Effects of Moderate to High 

Shrink-Swell Potential on Operations 

GSSP #9: Effects of Moderately to Highly 

Corrosive Soils on Operations 

GSSP #10: Effects of Slope Failure on 

Operations

GSSP # 11: Effects of Seismicity on 

Operations 

No mitigation required. 

GSSP #12: Sensitive Paleontological 

Resources 

CUL-MM#16: Engage a Paleontological Resources Specialist to Direct 

Monitoring during Construction

CUL-MM#17: Prepare and Implement a Paleontological Resource 

Monitoring and Mitigation Plan

CUL-MM#18: Halt Construction When Paleontological Resources Are 

Found
Summary 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | S-39

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impact Mitigation Measure 

Hazardous Materials and Wastes

Construction Impacts

HMW #1: Temporary Transport, Use, 

Storage, and Disposal of Hazardous 

Materials and Wastes

HMW #2: Inadvertent Disturbance of 

Hazardous Materials or Wastes

HMW #3: Construction on or Near 

Potential Environmental Concern Sites

HMW #5: Construction in Proximity to 

Landfills and Oil Well Sites

No mitigation required. 

HMW #4: Temporary hazardous material 

and waste activities in proximity of 

schools (within 0.25 mile of a school).

HMW-MM#1: Limit use of extremely hazardous materials near schools 

during construction.

Project Impacts

HMW #6: Transport, Use, Storage, and 

Disposal of Hazardous Materials and 

Wastes

HMW #7: Hazardous Materials and 

Wastes in the Proximity of Schools

HMW #8: Operation in Proximity to 

Landfills and Oil Well Sites

No mitigation required.

Safety and Security

Construction Impacts

S&S #1: Accidents and Accidental 

Releases at Construction Sites

S&S #2: Accidents Associated with 

Construction-Related Detours

S&S #3: Crime at Construction Sites 

No mitigation required.

Project Impacts

S&S #4: Train Accidents

S&S #5: Motor Vehicle, Pedestrian, and 

Bicycle Accidents Associated with HSR 

Operations

S&S #6: HSR Accidents Associated with 

Seismic Events

S&S #9: Increased Response Times for 

Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Services 

Associated with Access to Elevated 

Track

S&S #11: Accident Risks to Airports, 

Private Airstrips, and Heliports

S&S #12: Hazards to the HSR from 

Nearby Facilities

S&S #13: Hazards to Residences from 

HSR Derailment

S&S #14: Safety Impacts to Schools

No mitigation required.
Summary 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

S-40 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impact Mitigation Measure 

S&S #15: Hazards to HSR Passengers 

and Employees from Flooding

S&S #16: Criminal Activity aboard Trains 

at the F Street Station

S&S #7: Risk of Fire and Explosions. S&S-MM #2: Site-specific mitigation for the continued operation of the 

Halliburton Facility.

S&S-MM #3: Site-specific mitigation for the continued operation of the 

Rain-for-Rent Facility.

S&S-MM #4: Site-specific mitigation for the continued operation of the 

Golden Empire Gleaners Facility.

S&S #8: Increased Response Times for 

Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Services 

from Permanent Road Closures

S&S #10: Need for Expansion of Existing 

Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Services 

Facilities.

S&S-MM #1: Monitor response of local fire, rescue, and emergency 

service providers to incidents at the Bakersfield F Street Station and 

provide a fair share cost of service.

Socioeconomics and Communities

Construction Impacts

SO #1: Disruption to Community 

Cohesion or Division of Existing 

Communities from Project Construction

SO-MM #3: Implement measures to reduce impacts associated with the 

displacement of religious facilities.

SO #2: Construction Effects on 

Children’s Health and Safety 

SO #3: Construction-Related Property 

Tax Revenue Reductions

SO #4: Construction-Related Sales Tax 

Revenue Gains

SO #5: Temporary Construction 

Employment 

No mitigation required. 

Project Impacts

SO #6: Displacement of the Bakersfield 

Homeless Shelter.

SO-MM #1: Disruption to community cohesion and division of existing rural 

communities during operation. 

SO #7: Effects to the Regional 

Agricultural Community

SO-MM #4: Partial-property acquisitions via measures that will design 

overcrossings and under crossings to allow farm equipment passage 

where feasible. 

SO #18: Potential for Physical 

Deterioration 

SO-MM #3: Implement measures to reduce impacts associated with the 

displacement of religious facilities.

SO-MM #5: Physical deterioration via measures that will design station 

and non-station structures to allow for contextual design responses to sitespecific or unique conditions

SO #8: Effects of Project Operations on 

Children’s Health and Safety 

SO #9: Residential Displacements

SO #10: Commercial and Industrial 

Business Displacements

SO #11: Project Effects on Agricultural 

Business 

No mitigation required. 
Summary 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | S-41

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impact Mitigation Measure 

SO #12: Displacement of Community 

Facilities

SO #13: Relocations of Sensitive 

Populations

SO #14: Economic Effects on Agriculture

SO #15: Changes in School District 

Funding and School Access

SO #16: Employment Growth 

SO #17: Operation-Related Property and 

Sales Tax Revenue Effects

Station Planning, Land Use, and Development

Construction Impacts

LU #1: Potential for Construction to Alter 

Land Use Patterns

No mitigation required. 

Project Impacts

LU #2: Permanent Conversion of Existing 

Land Uses to Transportation Use 

LU #3: Land Use Effects of Parking 

Demand at Station Site

LU #4: Indirect Effects on Surrounding 

Land Uses from the High-Speed Rail 

Alignment, High-Speed Rail Station, and 

the Maintenance of Infrastructure Facility

No mitigation required. 

Agricultural Lands

Construction Impacts

AG #1: Temporary Use of Agricultural 

Land

AG #2: Temporary Utility and 

Infrastructure Interruption

AG #3: Temporary Noise and Vibration 

Effects on Adjacent Farm Animals

No mitigation required because agricultural lands would be restored to preproject conditions.

Project Impacts

AG #4: Permanent conversion of 

agricultural land to nonagricultural use.

AG-MM #1: Preserve the total amount of prime farmland, farmland of 

statewide importance, farmland of local importance, and unique farmland.

AG #5: Effects on Agricultural Land from 

Parcel Severance.

AG-MM #1: Preserve the total amount of prime farmland, farmland of 

statewide importance, farmland of local importance, and unique farmland.

AG-MM#2: Conserve additional Important Farmland for indirect impacts 

adjacent to HSR permanently fenced infrastructure.

AG #6: Effects on Land under Williamson 

Act, Farmland Security Zone Contracts, 

or Local Zoning

AG #7: Effects on Confined Animal 

Agriculture

AG #8: Effects on Irrigation Distribution 

Canals

AG #9: Noise Effects to Grazing Animals

No mitigation required. 
Summary 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority

S-42 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impact Mitigation Measure 

AG #10: Wind-Induced Effects 

AG #11: Effects on Aerial Spraying

Parks, Recreation, and Open Space

Construction Impacts

PK #1: Construction Impacts on Parks, 

Recreation, Open Space and School 

Recreation Facilities 

PP-MM #1: Provide Alternate Pedestrian and Bicycle Access During 

Temporary Closures of Portions of Park Property During Construction.

Project Impacts

PK #2: Project Acquisition of Parks, 

Recreation, and Open Space Resources 

PP-MM#3: Collect Additional Maintenance Funds. 

PK #3: Project Acquisition of School 

District Play Areas and Recreation 

Facilities

PK #4: Project Changes to Park 

Character

No mitigation required. 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Construction Impacts

AVR #1: Construction Impacts on Scenic 

Vistas

No mitigation required. 

AVR #2: Construction Impacts on 

Existing Visual Quality.

AVR-MM #1a: Minimize visual disruption during construction activities.

AVR #3: Construction Impacts from Light 

and Glare

AVR-MM #1b: Minimize light disturbance during construction.

Project Impacts

AVR #4: Lower visual quality in the 

Shafter Town, Rural San Joaquin Valley, 

North Bakersfield, Kern River and East 

Bakersfield Landscape Units.

AVR-MM #2a: Incorporate Design Criteria for Elevated and Station 

Elements That Can Adapt to Local Context (Kings/Tulare Regional Station

AVR-MM #2b: Integrate Elevated Guideway into Affected Cities, Parks, 

Trail, and Urban Core Designs

AVR-MM #2c: Screen Elevated Guideways Adjacent to Residential Areas

AVR-MM #2e: Provide Offsite Landscape Screening Where Appropriate

AVR-MM #2f: Landscape Treatments along the HST Project 

Overcrossings and Retained Fill Elements of the HST

AVR-MM #2g: Provide Sound Barrier Treatments

AVR-MM #2i: Install Decorative Parapet Design at Kern River Crossing 

AVR #5: Lower visual quality at Valley 

Oaks Charter School.

AVR-MM #2a: Incorporate Design Criteria for Elevated and Station 

Elements That Can Adapt to Local Context

AVR-MM #2b: Integrate Elevated Guideway into Affected Cities, Parks, 

Trail, and Urban Core Designs 

AVR-MM #2e: Provide Offsite Landscape Screening Where Appropriate

AVR-MM #2f: Landscape Treatments along the HST Project 

Overcrossings and Retained Fill Elements of the HST AVR-MM #2e: 

Provide Offsite Landscape Screening Where Appropriate
Summary 

California High-Speed Rail Authority November 2017 

Fresno to Bakersfield Section Page | S-43

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS

Impact Mitigation Measure 

Cultural Resources

Construction Impacts

CUL #1: Potential Adverse Effects on 

Archaeological Resources due to 

Construction Activities.

CUL-MM #4: Comply with State and Federal Law for Human Remains

CUL-MM #5: Conduct Additional Testing and Recovery

CUL #2: Potential Adverse Effects on 

Historic Architectural (Built) Resources 

due to Construction Activities: 

Introduction of Visual Elements

CUL-MM #12: Prepare and Submit Additional Recordation and 

Documentation

CUL-MM #13: Prepare Interpretive or Educational Materials

Project Impacts

CUL #4: Potential Adverse Effects on 

Archaeological Resources Due to 

Operational Activities

CUL #5: Potential Adverse Effects on 

Historic Architectural (Built) Resources 

due to Operational Activities 

No mitigation required. 

Regional Growth

Construction Impacts

Construction Effects No mitigation required.

Project Impacts

Operations Effects on Employment, 

Population Growth, Land Use 

Consumption, and, Consistency with 

Regional Growth Management Plans, 

Hydrology and Water Resources

No mitigation required.

Cumulative Impacts

Construction Impacts

Transportation, Air Quality, Noise and 

Vibration, EMF/EMI, Public Utilities and 

Energy, Biological Resources and 

Wetlands, 

Geology/Soils/Seismicity/Paleontological 

Resources, Hazardous Materials and 

Wastes, Safety and Security, 

Socioeconomics and Communities, 

Station Planning/Land Use and 

Development, Agricultural Lands, 

Parks/Recreation and Open Space, 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources, 

Cultural Resources

No mitigation required.

Project Impacts

CUM-N&V: The project’s contribution to 

cumulative construction noise and 

vibration impacts.

CUM-N&V-MM#1: Consult with agencies regarding construction activities 

to minimize potential overlapping construction activities occurring in the 

same area. 
Impact Mitigation Measure 

Transportation, Air Quality, EMF/EMI, 

Public Utilities and Energy, Biological 

Resources and Wetlands, 

Geology/Soils/Seismicity/Paleontological 

Resources, Hazardous Materials and 

Wastes, Safety and Security, 

Socioeconomics and Communities, 

Station Planning/Land Use and 

Development, Agricultural Lands, 

Parks/Recreation and Open Space, 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources, 

Cultural Resources 

No mitigation required. 

Environmental Justice 

Construction Impacts 

EJ #1: Effect of Project Construction on 

Minority or Low-Income Populations 

No mitigation required. 

Project Impacts 

EJ #2: Effects of Project Operation on 

Minority or Low-Income Populations 

No mitigation required. 

Summary 

AG = Agricultural Resources LU = Land Use 

AQ = Air Quality MM = Mitigation Measure 

AQMD = air quality management district N&V = Noise and Vibration 

AVR = Aesthetics and Visual Resources NO2 = nitrogen dioxide 

BAAQMD = Bay Area Air Quality Management District NOx = nitrogen oxides 

BIO = Biological Resources and Wetlands NRHP = National Register of Historic Places 

CEQA = California Environmental Quality Act O3 = Ozone 

CO = carbon monoxide PK = Parks, Recreation, and Open Space 

CRHR = California Register of Historical Resources PM2.5 = particulate matter smaller than or equal to 2.5 microns in diameter 

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

CUM = Cumulative Impacts PP = Parks, Recreation, and Open Space (Specific to Project Operations) 

HMF = heavy maintenance facility S&S = Safety and Security 

HSR = high-speed rail SO = Socioeconomics and Communities 

HST = high-speed train TR = Transportation 

HWM = Hazardous Wastes and Materials VERA = Voluntary Emission Reduction Agreement 

HWR = Hydrology and Water Resources VOC = volatile organic compound 

November 2017 California High-Speed Rail Authority 

S-44 | Page Fresno to Bakersfield Section 

Draft Supplemental EIR/EIS