1

U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

RECORD OF DECISION

COAST CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM

1.0 SUMMARY

This Record of Decision (ROD) records the decision of the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), 

an operating administration of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), with regard to the 

Coast Corridor Improvements Program (the project) proposed by the San Luis Obispo Council of 

Governments (SLOCOG), the California Department of Transportation Division of Rail (Caltrans 

DOR), and the Transportation Agency of Monterey County (TAMC), at the initial programmatic 

phase of environmental review. The state agencies propose to implement physical and service 

improvements that would extend over the existing 130 miles of railroad between Salinas and 

San Luis Obispo, California, in order to enhance safety and develop a faster and more reliable 

passenger and freight rail system that provides added capacity between Los Angeles and San 

Francisco. 

FRA is the federal lead agency for the environmental review under the National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) and SLOCOG is the state lead agency for the California Environmental Quality 

Act (CEQA) (together, Lead Agencies). FRA and the state agencies used a tiered environmental 

process for this project. With a tiered approach, the program-level or Tier 1 NEPA document 

evaluates impacts of a broad scale project at the appropriate level of detail which may focus on 

more qualitative than quantitative impacts on specific resources. Following completion of the 

program-level NEPA document and the associated decision document, project-level or Tier 2 

NEPA documents are developed to evaluate the site-specific environmental impacts of project 

components.

In making this program-level decision, FRA considered the information and analysis contained in 

the Draft and Final Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report 

(hereinafter Program EIS/EIR). FRA also considered comments from the public and agencies 

received during the scoping process and the public comment period for the Draft Program 

EIS/EIR. 

This ROD has been prepared in accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) 

regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR § 1505.2) and FRA Environmental Procedures (64 Fed. 

Reg. 28545, May 26, 1999). Specifically, this ROD: 

 Describes FRA's role in the Coast Corridor Improvements Program and the NEPA tiering 

process for the project.

 States FRA's decision on the proposed Coast Corridor Improvements Program and 

describes the factors considered by FRA in making this decision.

 Provides background on the NEPA process, including a summary of public involvement 

and agency coordination.
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

2

 States and reaffirms the project’s Purpose and Need.

 Identifies the alternatives considered by FRA, including the environmentally preferable 

alternative.

 Identifies the Selected Alternative for the project.

 Summarizes environmental benefits and adverse impacts of the Selected Alternative.

 Discusses measures to avoid and minimize environmental harm, and the future 

evaluation for project-level studies.

 Describes compliance with other federal regulations.

 Describes some initial next steps in the tiered environmental review process.

This ROD is also being issued with the Final EIS consistent with Section 1319(b) of the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21).

2.0 DECISION

The Coast Corridor Program EIS/EIR is the first programmatic phase of a tiered environmental 

review process. In making this decision on the proposed Coast Corridor Improvement Program, 

FRA has worked jointly with SLOCOG and the other state agencies to develop the analyses 

included in the Program EIS/EIR. 

Based on the analysis in the Programmatic EIS/EIR and in consideration of public comments, FRA 

selects the Preferred Alternative for further evaluation and consideration in future project-level 

environmental reviews to be prepared subsequent to the Program EIS/EIR.

As described further in Section 5.2.3, the Preferred Alternative modifies the Build Alternative to 

reduce the potential environmental impacts of the Project and in response to public comments

received on the Draft Program EIS/EIR. The purpose of and need for the Coast Corridor 

Improvements Program is to enhance safety and develop a faster and more reliable passenger 

and freight rail system that provides added capacity in response to increased travel demand 

between San Francisco and Los Angeles and the intermediate cities along the US 101 corridor. 

The evaluation in the Program EIS/EIR also indicates that taking no action under the No Build 

Alternative would not increase the travel capacity, safety and reliability as population continues

to grow, and would fail to meet the purpose and objectives of the program which can be met by 

the Preferred Alternative. The Preferred Alternative would result in safety and transportation 

capacity improvements that would not be accomplished under the No Build Alternative. In 

addition to better meeting the purpose and need, the Preferred Alternative would also provide 

environmental benefits in the form of improved travel conditions, including mobility, safety, 

reliability, travel times, and connectivity and accessibility; and reduced air pollutant emissions 

along the existing rail corridor. 

The Lead Agencies prepared the Program EIS/EIR to allow the federal and state lead agencies to 

consider a future program of improvements to the Coast Corridor between Salinas and San Luis 

Obispo and to provide information to decide between the No Build and the Build Alternatives. 

Subsequent tiers of project-level environmental review will evaluate the potential 

environmental impacts of site-specific components of the Preferred Alternative before they are 
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

3

advanced for construction. Project-level reviews will also identify specific mitigation measures 

to address those impacts. These reviews will assess the site characteristics, size, nature, and 

timing of specific components of the Preferred Alternative to determine if the impacts are

significant and if those impacts can be avoided or mitigated. 

The Program EIS/EIR identifies design practices and mitigation strategies, which are an array of 

actions that can be applied at the project level to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the types of 

environmental impacts anticipated as a result of implementation of the Coast Corridor 

Improvements Program. To minimize potential future environmental harm from 

implementation of Coast Corridor improvements, FRA adopts the design practices and

mitigation strategies identified in this ROD. 

3.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION

The project corridor is comprised primarily of a portion of the existing Coast Corridor railroad 

right-of-way (ROW) between the existing Amtrak stations in Salinas and San Luis Obispo. The 

project corridor is about 130 miles in length and is located within Monterey and San Luis Obispo 

counties. Portions of the corridor traverse several incorporated cities, including Salinas, 

Soledad, Greenfield, King City, Paso Robles, Atascadero, and San Luis Obispo. 

The Coast Corridor serves as a transportation link between Los Angeles and the San Francisco 

Bay Area. Figure 1 shows the entire length of the 470-mile-long Coast Corridor rail line. 

The Coast Corridor is divided into three segments: 

 Northern Segment - 77 miles from San Francisco to Gilroy, also known as the Caltrain 

Corridor

 Middle Segment - 171 miles from Gilroy to San Luis Obispo - inclusive of the entirety of 

the project area considered in this document (Salinas - San Luis Obispo)

 Southern Segment - 222 miles from San Luis Obispo to Los Angeles. Corresponds to the 

northern half of the Pacific Surfliner Corridor, also known as the LOSSAN Corridor1

The Coast Corridor is also served by air and highway systems. In terms of seat capacity, the 

second most heavily traveled air route in the US connects Los Angeles International Airport and 

San Francisco International Airport. Additional heavily traveled air routes spanning the corridor 

serve the Oakland, San José, Burbank and Long Beach airports.2

While travel between the ends of the Coast Corridor today is facilitated predominantly by air 

and automobile, rail plays an increasingly important role in corridor mobility. Current passenger 

rail services in the corridor include: 

 Pacific Surfliner intercity service between San Luis Obispo and San Diego, operated by 

Amtrak and funded by Caltrans

 

1

The LOSSAN Corridor is a 351 mile long intercity and commuter rail corridor between San Luis Obispo and San 

Diego. As of fall 2015, a programmatic EIS/EIR is underway for potential improvements to the LOSSAN North 

corridor - the segment of the LOSSAN Corridor between Los Angeles and San Luis Obispo Counties.

2

Additional smaller airports exist along the Corridor; those listed are the 4 next largest regional airports.
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

4

 Coast Starlight long distance service between Seattle and Los Angeles, operated and 

funded by Amtrak

 Capitol Corridor intercity service between Placer and Santa Clara Counties, for which a 

planned service extension to Salinas (by 2019) has completed environmental review and 

as of Spring 2015 is in design/engineering work3

 Metrolink Ventura County Line commuter rail service, sharing the same route as Pacific 

Surfliner trains between Los Angeles Union Station and Oxnard, with additional service 

to East Ventura Station in Ventura

 Caltrain commuter rail service between San Francisco and Gilroy

By 2029, the California High-Speed Rail (CA HSR) system is expected to run from San Francisco to 

the Los Angeles basin in under three hours, at speeds capable of over 200 miles per hour. The 

system will eventually extend to Sacramento and San Diego, totaling 800 miles with up to 24 

stations. An Initial Operation Section (IOS) between Merced and the San Fernando Valley 

(Burbank) is projected to open as soon as 2022. While the bulk of the CA HSR alignment will 

traverse the San Joaquin Valley, the Coast Corridor will provide several connection points to the 

proposed high speed rail system. None of these potential Coast Corridor/CA HSR connection 

points are in the Salinas to San Luis Obispo corridor that is the subject of this Program EIS/EIR. 

To the north, the closest major connection points would be Diridon Station in San José and the 

Gilroy Caltrain Station. To the south, the closest connection points would be Burbank Airport 

and Los Angeles Union Station. 

The Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) operates freight rail services along the Coast Corridor. 

Currently, the Coast Corridor carries low levels of freight traffic and is primarily considered a 

“secondary” or “relief” line to the much busier Central Valley line to the east. The Coast

Corridor does not see any containerized traffic, but does carry bulk commodities such as 

fertilizer, lumber, aggregate, fuel, and coal.

Several planning and feasibility studies have identified and proposed program of improvements 

for the Coast Corridor. Amtrak completed the California Passenger Rail System: 20-Year 

Improvement Plan Technical Report (Amtrak 20-Year Plan) in March 2001. Caltrans DOR 

coordinated with Amtrak, FRA, and other transportation agencies to complete the Coast 

Corridor Service Development Plan (SDP) in May 2013. UPRR has recommended a series of 

improvements it asserts are necessary to allow for increased passenger use of the Coast 

Corridor. The Preferred Alternative, further described below, was intentionally drawn broadly 

to encompass all the physical improvements contemplated by these plans and studies.

 

3

The Transportation Agency for Monterey County (TAMC) certified an EIR for the Salinas Rail Extension project in 

2006 and subsequently adopted a CEQA Addendum for the proposed extension of commuter rail service from 

San Jose to Salinas. These environmental documents identify proposed physical improvements associated with 

the planned rail extension. Such improvements would occur between San Jose and Salinas. At present, no NEPA 

documentation has been completed for this project, but would be required if federal funding were proposed to 

implement any of the proposed improvements. 
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

5

4.0 NEPA PROCESS

Pursuant to NEPA, the Lead Agencies conducted a comprehensive public and agency

involvement effort as part of the Program EIS/EIR process. FRA initiated scoping by publishing a 

Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare a Program EIS/EIR in the Federal Register on August 17, 2012. 

Public scoping meetings were held on August 28 and 29, 2012. During the scoping process, 

stakeholder briefings were also held in August, October, and November 2012.

During the preparation of the Draft Program EIS/EIR, the Lead Agencies conducted agency and 

tribal outreach in July and August 2013. The Lead Agencies published the Draft Program EIS/EIR 

on November 14, 2014. The Draft Program EIS/EIR presented the purpose and need for the 

project, the range of alternatives and the alternatives considered and eliminated, the existing 

environmental setting, potential adverse and beneficial effects from project implementation, 

and potential strategies to avoid, minimize or mitigation potential adverse environmental 

effects, and area of future study. Draft Program EIS/EIR public hearings were held on December 

3, 2014 in Salinas and Soledad; December 9, 2014 in King City; and on January 7, 2015 in 

Atascadero.

4.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION

The purpose of the proposed rail improvements to the Coast Corridor is to enhance safety and 

develop a faster and more reliable passenger and freight rail system that provides added

passenger rail capacity in response to increased travel demand between Los Angeles and San 

Francisco and the intermediate cities along the US 101 corridor. The existing capacity of the 

Corridor’s transportation system is insufficient to meet existing and future demand, and the 

current and projected future system congestion will continue to result in reduced reliability, 

slower travel speeds, increased travel times, and deteriorated air quality. In addition to 

providing new direct passenger rail service, another purpose of the proposed rail improvements 

is to foster improved rail connectivity to the proposed CA HSR system.

The greater Coast Corridor region from San Francisco to Los Angeles faces significant mobility 

challenges today. These challenges apply to the portion of the Coast Corridor between Salinas 

and San Luis Obispo and are likely to continue in the future as continued growth in population, 

employment, and tourism activity is expected to generate increased travel demand. By 2040, 

statewide population is expected to grow substantially, further straining the existing 

transportation network. An effective rail system is necessary to meet the future mobility needs 

of residents, businesses, and visitors.

The additional capacity for increased intercity passenger rail service would also allow flexibility 

for passengers who may prefer other means of transportation over automobiles. Such an 

increase in service would provide additional transportation system capacity that could relieve 

some of the projected near- and long-term demand on the highway system, potentially slowing 

the need to further expand highways and airports in this portion of the corridor, or reduce the 

scale of those expansions, including their associated cost and impacts on communities and the 

environment. Reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would have substantial benefits in 

reducing air pollutant emission and improving air quality in the region. Increasing rail travel 

capacity could reduce VMT and air pollutant emissions by shifting automobile travel to a more 

environmentally efficient mode.
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

6

An investment in rail improvements to the Coast Corridor would complement and support other 

transportation systems that currently or are planned to interface with the rail service and the 

future CA HSR system. Like the Coast Corridor, the Pacific Surfliner Corridor and Capitol Corridor 

experience similar challenges regarding travel demand growth, congestion, and capacity 

constraints. Because many trips span the service of all these corridors, improvements and 

upgrades on one corridor would indirectly impact other corridors. The Coast Corridor would 

offer multiple connections to the future CA HSR system (north and south of the Salinas - San Luis 

Obispo segment studied here), offering a feeder service to passengers originating in counties 

without proposed high-speed rail stations (such as Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa 

Barbara and Ventura). New communities would gain access to rail services with the 

construction of new stations that are not currently served. In all, many communities between 

San Francisco and Los Angeles would see improved transportation access. 

Investment in corridor rail service has not kept pace with population and travel demand growth. 

Particularly within the Salinas to San Luis Obispo portion of the corridor, many tracks, signals, 

and bridges have not been upgraded or improved in decades – and in some cases are over 100 

years old. Aging infrastructure in need of maintenance or replacement can result in a decrease 

in operating safety and can impede trains from operating at top speeds. Aging infrastructure if 

not properly maintained can, therefore, translate to longer travel times and decrease the 

attractiveness of rail as a transportation option.

5.0 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

5.1 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED BUT DISMISSED FROM FURTHER ANALYSIS

The list of proposed physical components comprising the action alternatives originated from 

several previous planning efforts discussed above. These earlier efforts, including the Amtrak 

20-Year Plan and the SDP, took into account factors of overall feasibility and constructability, but 

were intended to yield a comprehensive list of near, medium, and long-term improvements to 

rail service along the Coast Corridor. These earlier studies dismissed alternative modes of 

transportation along the Coast Corridor, such as express buses or increased air travel. Such 

alternative modes would be inconsistent with the purpose and need for the proposed action 

(improving intercity rail through the Salinas to San Luis Obispo area, ultimately providing 

improved passenger rail service between San Francisco and Los Angeles) and were therefore not 

considered in the Program EIS/EIR. These earlier planning efforts also suggested maintaining 

conventional rail systems and discounted major changes in locomotive technology, such as 

electrification or conversion of the Coast Corridor to a high-speed rail corridor. Earlier efforts 

also screened out the potential inclusion of additional passenger rail stations beyond those

proposed for Soledad and King City. Soledad and King City are the two largest cities in 

population along the corridor not currently served by passenger rail. The SDP summarized that 

adequate population levels, complementary surrounding land uses, and links to other 

transportation modes are all necessary features for any proposed station to function properly. 

Communities along the corridor not meeting these criteria would not be considered for new 

passenger stations. 
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

7

5.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED IN PROGRAM EIS/EIR

5.2.1 No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative represents the continuation of existing passenger and freight rail 

operations upon the existing physical components of the railroad system. Existing passenger 

operations consist of one daily roundtrip of the Coast Starlight passenger train through the 

Salinas to San Luis Obispo area. Existing freight operations consist of 2 daily long-haul trains (80 

cars or more) traveling all or the vast majority of the distance between Salinas and San Luis 

Obispo to points beyond. Local trains are assumed to travel 50 miles or less of the distance 

between Salinas and San Luis Obispo with origins or destinations within the corridor. The SDP 

estimates that an average of 2 long-haul freight trains traverse the corridor daily (year 2012) and 

estimates this number to increase to 4 daily trains by 2020. The SDP does not estimate the 

number of local trains. 

The No Build Alternative also includes rail improvement projects anticipated to take place 

between Salinas and San Luis Obispo with or without the project. Only two rail improvements 

projects are slated for the Salinas to San Luis Obispo corridor. 

1. TAMC is proposing a series of rail capital improvements, including station, platform, rail 

yard, and parking improvements between San José and Salinas so that commuter rail 

service can be extended to Salinas. TAMC has also designated funding for the operating 

costs of this commuter rail extension. 

2. The No Build Alternative also assumes the future installation of a PTC System along the 

Coast Corridor in compliance with requirements of the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 

2008. 

5.2.2 Build Alternative

The Build Alternative is comprised of a program of potential physical components, signal 

upgrades, equipment purchases, and operational changes intended to meet the identified 

purpose and need. 

The existing Coast Corridor is characterized by single-track operations, short sidings (or no 

sidings), manually-thrown switches, and an inefficient (automatic block system or ABS) signaling 

system, each of which individually and all of which collectively result in lower travel speeds and 

substandard operating conditions.

Various components of the Build Alternative are intended to remedy these conditions and 

otherwise better enable both existing and proposed future passenger and freight rail services to 

utilize the corridor. 

Table 1 identifies the several corridor-wide proposed components. Table 2 lists specific 

improvements by location. Both corridor-wide and specific area components are further 

described below. 
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

8

Table 1 Summary of Build Alternative Proposed Components –

Corridor-Wide

Location Component Type

Corridor-Wide

Extend Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) from Salinas to Soledad; install island CTC 

from San Lucas to Bradley

Corridor-Wide Grade crossing safety and mobility enhancements

Corridor-Wide

Tie replacement, installation of continuous welded rail (CWR), ballasting, track 

surfacing, track structure realignment, rehab existing Salinas and Soledad sidings; 

replace turnouts.

Corridor-Wide Rolling stock purchases 

Source: Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b

Table 2 Summary of Build Alternative Proposed Components – Site Specific

Mile Post (MP) Location Component Type Approximate Length/Acreage 

of Proposed Component4

Monterey County

114.9 Existing Salinas siding New powered switch NA

121 - 123.4 Spence New siding 1.89 miles; 19.3 acres

130

Existing Gonzales

siding New powered switch

NA

140 Existing Soledad siding New powered switch NA

140 Soledad New station 1.9 acres

143.9 -151.3 Harlem to Metz Curve/track realignment 3.43 miles; 41.6 acres

147 – 149 Chalone Creek New siding 1.89 miles 14.9 acres

154.3 - 154.7 Coburn Curve/track realignment 2.27 miles; 27.5 acres

160

Existing King City

siding Siding extension

2.41 miles; 25.1 acres

160.3 King City New station 3.4 acres

160.3

Existing King City

siding New powered switch

NA

165 South of King City Curve/track realignment 1.06 miles; 12.8 acres

167.2 -190.74 San Lucas New siding 1.89 miles; 22.9 acres

172 South of San Lucas Curve/track realignment 2.07 miles; 25.1 acres

177 -179

Existing San Ardo

siding New powered switch

NA

181.5 – 191 Getty to Bradley Curve/track realignment 1.50 miles; 18.2 acres

190 -192 Existing Bradley siding Siding extension 2.68 miles; 50.2 acres

190 -192 Bradley New powered switch NA

 

4

Reported acreages and lengths of proposed siding extensions take a conservative approach and likely overstate 

actual values. No specific siding extension plans have been developed to date. All existing sidings could 

potentially be extended to 10,000 feet by adding track at either their north or south ends. For a more 

conservative basis of analysis, siding extension areas developed for this EIS/EIR contemplate extensions on both 

north and south ends. For example, an existing 5,000 foot long siding could be extended to 10,000 feet with a 

5,000 foot addition on either end. The siding extensions examined here include both extensions. Therefore, 

generally speaking, likely siding extension lengths and acreages could be computed by dividing in half the 

numbers reported in the table above.
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

9

Mile Post (MP) Location Component Type Approximate Length/Acreage 

of Proposed Component4

San Luis Obispo County

200 – 207 McKay to Wellsona Curve/track realignment 2.06 miles; 24.9 acres

200 -203 Existing McKay Siding New powered switch NA

205 - 207.6 Wellsona New siding 1.89 miles; 22.8 acres

208.3 - 216.7

Wellsona to Paso 

Robles Curve/track realignment

0.43 miles; 5.2 acres

217 - 218.59 Templeton Siding extensions 2.78 miles; 46.8 acres

218-223 Templeton to Henry Curve/track realignment 0.47 miles; 5.7 acres

229-232

Henry to Santa 

Margarita Curve/track realignment

2.19 miles; 26.5 acres

226 - 228

Existing Santa 

Margarita siding New powered switch

NA

233 - 235.62 Cuesta New second mainline 1.89 miles; 25.8 acres

Source: Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b

 Corridor-wide Track Upgrades: Track improvements intended to improve performance 

are proposed along the entire rail alignment between Salinas and San Luis Obispo. 

Proposed corridor-wide track upgrades include replacement of existing rail with 

continuous welded rail (CWR), track structure realignment, track resurfacing, tie 

replacement, replacing or upgrading ballasting, rehabilitation of existing sidings, and 

replacement of existing turnouts. CWR reduces the number of joints and thus enables 

trains to move more quickly and with less friction and noise. 

 Signal System Upgrades: Rail signal systems communicate vital safety information to 

train conductors. Conductors rely on clear signals regarding maximum allowable 

speeds, when to slow down or stop, track obstructions, and the like. The existing signal 

scheme is a mix of older and newer systems. 

The remainder of the corridor is under an ABS that uses train warrant control (TWC). 

This requires a dispatcher to communicate directly with each train crew before the train 

can obtain authority to proceed through “blocks.” At the end of each block, the train 

must wait for permission to go forward once again.

CTC is managed centrally, but uses remotely controlled signals and switches. CTC 

reduces the amount of time trains must spend waiting for dispatching instructions. 

Caltrans estimates that about 40 percent of all delays experienced in the Coast Corridor 

are the result of signaling issues.5 

The Build Alternative proposed that CTC be introduced in two locations: 1) from Salinas 

to Soledad, via the extension of an existing CTC system to the north and 2) an “island” 

CTC between San Lucas and Bradley (both unincorporated communities in southern 

Monterey County).

 New powered switches: Powered switches are mechanical devices within a railroad 

track that guide trains from one track to another - such as a siding, or a second mainline. 

Switching mechanisms include sensors placed on rails/ties and control boxes placed 

 

5

Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b, p. 9-7
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

10

immediately alongside the railroad within the railroad ROW. Powered switches are 

generally considered an upgrade over manually thrown switches insofar as they 

facilitate the speed of transition from one track to another. 

 Siding extensions/new siding: A siding is a short section of track adjacent to a main 

track used for passing and dwelling purposes in single track systems. At present, the 

sidings in the Salinas to San Luis Obispo portion of the corridor are generally one mile in 

length or shorter. Freight trains often exceed one mile in length and sometimes cannot 

be accommodated in the existing sidings. The proposed siding extensions are generally 

located within the existing railroad ROW and would lengthen existing sidings so that 

each would be at least 10,000 feet in length. 

Sidings could potentially be extended on either their northern or southern ends. For the 

purposes of the Program EIS/EIR, extensions to existing sidings were contemplated on 

both their northern and southern ends. The extension lengths are such that either the 

northern or southern extension area would provide sufficient space to increase the 

siding to the requisite 10,000 feet in length. 

In addition to several siding extensions, the Build Alternative also includes entirely new 

sidings at Chalone Creek near Soledad (MP 147 to MP 149), San Lucas (MP 167.2 to MP 

190.4), and Wellsona (MP 205 to MP 207.6). 

 New second mainline: A second main track is contemplated from South Santa 

Margarita toward the Cuesta Grade (MP 233 to MP 235), terminating just north of the 

first tunnel between Cuesta Grade and San Luis Obispo. At present, average train 

speeds through this portion are some of the slowest for the entire alignment - ranging 

between 25 and 35 mph. Slow speeds here are to the result of track curvature and 

deficient train control systems. Moreover, this area is where northbound and 

southbound Coast Starlight passenger trains typically meet and must pass each other (as 

one train dwells in a siding). Accordingly, a second mainline here would significantly 

expand mobility. For the purposes of the Program EIS/EIR, it is assumed that the second 

mainline would consist of a standard track running within a 60 foot new ROW

immediately adjacent to the existing rail alignment. 

 Curve or other track realignments: The existing Coast Corridor alignment includes 

some sharp curves that require trains to slow down to reduce the risk of derailment. 

The Build Alternative contemplated several curve realignments intended to reduce track 

curvature. If constructed, curve realignments would allow for increased speeds, 

enhanced safety, and reduced trip times. Such realignments typically result in less wear 

and tear to tracks, reducing the frequency of repair or maintenance. 

Most of the curve realignments were initially identified as part of the Amtrak 20-Year 

Plan, which also contemplated raising top speeds through this segment of the Coast 

Corridor to 135 miles per hour. (Subsequently, the 2013 SDP assumed that 

improvements and maintenance was needed to maintain the Coast Corridor as an FRA 

Class IV railroad, which allows top speeds of no more than 80 mph for passenger 

service). The Amtrak 20-Year Plan identified milepost-to-milepost starts and stops of 

curve realignment areas. For the purposes of the Program EIS/EIR, highly generalized 

and spatially generous curve realignment areas were identified to enable a better 

understanding of the type and magnitude of any environmental effects that may result 

from their construction. 
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

11

Curve realignments would in effect relocate the entire railroad ROW some distance 

from the existing ROW. The average width of the railroad ROW is about 60 feet. For the 

purposes of this evaluation, a curve realignment area width of 100 feet has been 

assumed along with surrounding buffer areas of 200 feet on each side. Given the 

relative narrowness of the existing ROW, every curve realignment considered would 

require the acquisition of land not currently in the railroad ROW or in transportation 

use. In many cases, a single named curve realignment consisted of multiple, 

discontinuous sections of realigned track but were collectively considered part of the 

same curve realignment.6 

 Passenger Stations: The Build Alternative contemplates two new passenger stations in 

Soledad and King City. The existing Coast Corridor alignment passes through the 

downtowns of each city. Currently, Coast Starlight passenger trains travel through the 

downtown areas of each city but do not stop. The proposed Coast Daylight train service 

may include stops in one or both of these cities. In anticipation of the possible future 

Coast Daylight service, both Soledad and King City have set forth conceptual station area 

plans as elements of larger plans related to the revitalization of their downtown areas.7 

 Grade Crossing and Mobility Improvements: There are numerous existing at-grade 

railroad crossings of public, paved roads between Salinas and San Luis Obispo, plus 

several dozen additional crossings of private dirt roads/driveways. Safety provisions at 

existing crossings of public, paved roads range from passive warning devices (static 

wood/metal signage) to more active warning devices (e.g., flashing lights and gates). The 

Build Alternative would install as-yet undefined signal, signage, and other related 

improvements at as-yet unspecified existing at-grade crossings (potentially public and 

private). 

 Coast Daylight Service and new rolling stock: The SDP proposed the reinstitution of 

Coast Daylight passenger rail service, which was discontinued in 1971. The SDP 

proposed initial service of 1 daily southbound and 1 daily northbound train between San 

Francisco and Los Angeles, requiring 2 full trainsets for 2020 service and 2 additional 

trainsets for 2040 service. Preliminary proposed schedules would have trains leaving 

San Francisco and Los Angeles in the early morning (approximately 7 a.m.), and arriving 

at their respective destinations between 6:30 p.m. and 7 p.m. Future expanded service 

would see the addition of one additional daily southbound and northbound departure. 

This expanded service would be overnight, leaving San Francisco or Los Angeles in the 

early evening and arriving at the respective destination early the following morning. 

Coast Daylight trains would stop at existing Amtrak stations in the Coast Corridor and 

potentially also at proposed new stations identified in the Build Alternative (Soledad and 

King City). The proposed Coast Daylight service would require the acquisition of 

locomotives and passenger railcars. 

 

6

As discussed below, the Preferred Alternative does not include four curve realignments that were identified as 

part of the Build Alternative. 

7

As discussed below, the Preferred Alternative includes a modified site for the City of King station area, based on 

plans provided to FRA and SLOCOG subsequent to publication of the Draft EIS/EIR. 
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

12

5.2.3 Preferred Program Alternative – Modified Build Alternative

Based upon the analysis conducted in the Draft Program EIS/EIR and public comments received, 

FRA, SLOCOG, TAMC, and Caltrans DOR have identified the Build Alternative (with modifications) 

as the Preferred Alternative for potential future implementation on the Coast Corridor between 

Salinas and San Luis Obispo. 

The Preferred Alternative modifies the Build Alternative as follows: 

 Modifications requested by the City of King to siding extension and station area

 Exclusion of four curve realignments in San Luis Obispo County

 Inclusion of “island” Centralized Traffic Control (CTC) between McKay and Santa 

Margarita

5.2.3.1 Changes Requested by City of King

The City of King provided extensive written comments on the Draft Program EIS/EIR, advising 

that the City had updated its draft plans for the City of King siding extension and passenger 

station. These updates were not known to FRA, SLOCOG, Caltrans DOR, or TAMC until the City 

of King provided its comments on the Draft Program EIS/EIR. 

Siding Extension

Draft Program EIS/EIR Analysis: Precise plans for new sidings or siding were not available prior 

to publication of the Draft Program EIS/EIR. Accordingly, the analysis in the Draft Program 

EIS/EIR made reasonable assumptions regarding the extension of the existing sidings. It was 

assumed that the sidings extensions would result in sidings of about 10,000 feet in length 

(generally, enough to accommodate a typical freight train) and that this length could potentially 

be achieved by adding all additional track to either the northern or southern end of each siding. 

As a result, the Draft Program EIS/EIR examined a larger total area for the sidings than would 

have been necessary to achieve the desired 10,000 foot length. 

The existing City of King siding extends from mile post (MP) 159.19 to MP 160.64 and is about 

1.45 miles in length (7,650 feet). The Draft Program EIS/EIR analyzed two siding extensions 

(between MP 158.5 and 159.19 to the north and MP 160.64 and 161.19 to the south). Either 

the northern or southern extension would have been sufficient to provide a minimum 10,000 

foot-long siding.

Revised Draft Plans from City of King: Since publication of the Draft Program EIS/EIR and as 

noted in the City’s comments, the City of King engaged a railroad engineer (RailPros) to consider 

modifications to rail facilities in the area. The RailPros study (prepared for and endorsed by the 

City of King in its comment letter) proposed that the siding extension be greater than 10,000 

feet in length and that the extension would most feasibly be achieved by extending the siding on 

the north side exclusively. The RailPros study considered extending the siding from MP 156.38 

to 159.19, resulting in a siding 2.81 miles or about 14,800 feet in length. 

Passenger Station

Draft Program EIS/EIR: The analysis in the Draft Program EIS/EIR used conceptual plans from 

adopted City documents that proposed a station site near the intersection of First Street and 

Broadway. Operating details were assumed to include a station building, parking, and bus pull 

out areas. 
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

13

Revised Draft Plans from City of King: However, as noted in the City’s comments, the RailPros 

plan shows a slightly smaller passenger station in generally the same part of downtown, with 

similar features, and an area set aside for military personnel transfers. The RailPros plan also 

calls for the relocation of an existing at-grade crossing (at Pearl Street) to move about one block 

northwest towards Broadway Street.8 

Analysis

Using the analysis included in this Final Program EIS/EIR, FRA has considered the City’s revised 

draft siding extension and station area plans. 

After review, FRA, SLOCOG, TAMC, and Caltrans DOR concur that the City’s proposed revision to 

the siding extension would avoid or reduce the intensity of several potential environmental 

effects of the previously identified siding extension discussed in the Draft Program EIS/EIR. The 

revised siding extension would avoid the need for a new creek crossing and would also avoid 

including any portion of the siding extension within a 100-year flood plain. The revised siding 

would also be located outside of populated areas, so would have reduced potential for any 

community effects compared to the previously identified siding extension. Because the City’s 

proposed modification to the siding extension is reasonable and is likely to reduce the impacts 

of the project, FRA, SLOCOG, TAMC, and Caltrans DOR agree that it should be included and 

analyzed in the Final Program EIS/EIR.

5.2.4 Exclusion of Curve Realignments in San Luis Obispo County

During the public hearing on the Coast Corridor Draft Program EIS/EIR at SLOCOG’s board 

meeting on January 7, 2015, many of the comments from members of the public focused on 

several of the curve realignments proposed for various locations in San Luis Obispo County. 

Commenters stated that the curve realignments had the potential to result in property 

acquisitions, split of parcels, and have other adverse environmental and socioeconomic effects. 

In response to public comments, the SLOCOG Board adopted a motion requesting SLOCOG staff 

drop from further consideration the following curve realignments in San Luis Obispo County:

1. McKay/Wellsona

2. Wellsona/Paso Robles 

3. Templeton/Henry 

4. Henry/Santa Margarita 

Excluding these curve realignments would not substantially compromise future on-time 

performance of passenger and freight trains and would reduce the potential impacts identified 

by the public. As documented in the SDP, an acceptably high rate of on-time performance in 

near and long-term horizon years was shown to be achievable with the inclusion of island CTC 

between McKay and Santa Margarita, which corresponds roughly to the same area in which the 

excluded curve realignments were contemplated. 

 

8

Such a relocation would be subject to an approval by the California Public Utilities Commission.
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

14

Excluding the curve realignments would also eliminate or substantially reduce several potential 

adverse environmental effects, including: 

 Land Use: Without these curve realignments, the Preferred Alternative would require 

fewer property acquisitions than the Build Alternative. 

 Agricultural Lands: Without the curve realignments, the Preferred Alternative would 

require substantially less conversion of agricultural lands than the Build Alternative. 

 Air Quality: By foregoing the construction of these curve realignments, constructionrelated emissions (fugitive dust, diesel equipment) for would be lower in the Preferred 

Alternative than in the Build Alternative. 

 Noise and Vibration: By foregoing the construction of these curve realignments, the 

Preferred Alternative would generally retain the existing railroad alignment through San 

Luis Obispo County. In the Build Alternative, the curve realignments would have altered 

the railroad alignment relative to the location of sensitive receptors.

5.2.5 Inclusion of “Island” CTC between McKay and Santa Margarita 

In the Draft Program EIS/EIR, Build Alternative components were carried forward from the SDP. 

As noted above, the Build Alternative specified the extension of CTC from Salinas to Soledad, as 

well as installation of an “island” of CTC from San Lucas to Bradley in southern Monterey 

County. Analysis in the SDP contemplated an additional “island” of CTC between McKay and 

Santa Margarita (between MP 202.3 and MP 229.6). The SDP noted that this 27-mile section of

the corridor currently uses track warrant control (TWC), a non-automated signaling system. The 

four sidings in this section of the corridor using TWC were presumed to contribute substantially 

to delays that impair overall on time performance of both passenger and freight trains. 

However, this particular island CTC was not explicitly referenced in the SDP’s list of Build 

Alternative components. Notwithstanding, SLOCOG and Caltrans DOR have clarified that it was 

each agency’s intent that this island CTC area be included in the Build Alternative. However, 

since the Draft Program EIS/EIR did not specifically include this improvement, this Final Program 

EIS/EIR formally incorporates the island CTC as part of the Preferred Alternative. 

Analysis

The Draft Program EIS/EIR noted that CTC equipment would largely be on trains but that 

physical equipment on the ground would include signals at to-be-determined locations and 

underground wiring to train switches. Signals would be structures of about 10-12 feet in height 

located at periodic intervals. Such equipment would be located within the railroad right-of-way, 

such that signals would be visible by train conductors. 

In contemplating potential program-level effects related to CTC at other locations along the 

corridor, the Draft Program EIS/EIR did not identify any specific substantial adverse 

environmental effects. It was assumed signaling equipment for CTC would be entirely within the 

existing railroad right-of-way, so no land outside the railroad right-of-way would be necessary 

for its installation. The Draft Program EIS/EIR assumed construction-related impacts along the 

entire corridor, associated with track and signal upgrades generally. Moreover, given that the 

existing railroad corridor has long been in transportation use as a railroad, the addition of CTC 

related signaling equipment was not found to cause any substantial adverse visual effects 
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

15

between Salinas and Soledad and also between San Lucas and Bradley. Accordingly, FRA finds 

that island CTC between McKay and Santa Margarita would similarly not result in any substantial 

adverse visual effects. Therefore, no further analysis is necessary and no supplemental or 

recirculated environmental documentation would be required. 

5.3 SELECTED ALTERNATIVE

The Selected Alternative is the alternative that FRA finds would most closely align with FRA’s 

statutory mission and responsibilities, giving consideration to economic, environmental, 

technical and other relevant factors. FRA has selected the Preferred Alternative.

FRA rejected the No Build Alternative because it would not meet the project purpose and need, 

Coast Daylight service would not be re-established and rail, and highway congestion would not 

be reduced. 

FRA selects the Preferred Alternative over the Build Alternative because the Preferred 

Alternative reduces potential environmental effects by incorporating project modifications 

suggested during the public comment process. Additionally, the Build Alternative would not 

offer project benefits that would be achieved by the Selected Alternative.

5.4 ENVIRONMENTALLY PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE

CEQ regulations implementing NEPA require that a ROD specify the alternative or alternatives 

considered to be environmentally preferable. “Environmentally preferable” is defined as “the 

alternative that will promote the national environmental policy as expressed in the NEPA, 

Section 101.” In most cases this means the alternative that causes the least damage to the 

biological and physical environment, but it can also mean the alternative that best protects, 

preserves, and enhances historic, cultural, and natural resources. 

The Build and Selected Alternatives offer similar rail operation components that would result in 

similar levels of reduced regional VMT and reduced emissions of air pollutants. Both would also 

collectively enhance rail safety and improve overall rail service reliability through a program of 

corridor-wide track and signal components. Both would foster connectivity with the CA HSR 

system. The main difference between the Build and Selected Alternatives is that the Selected 

Alternative excludes four curve realignment areas in San Luis Obispo County. These curve 

realignments were not found to offer substantial speed or travel time improvements, but the 

curve realignments had the potential to result in several unique and substantial physical 

environmental effects. These curve realignments would have resulted in the need to potentially 

require acquisition of agricultural land, residential property, and potentially biologically sensitive 

land. Removal of these curve realignments reduces the overall potential of the Selected 

Alternative to result in significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the Selected Alternative is 

the environmentally preferable alternative. 

Although the No Build Alternative would have no potential to result in any substantial 

construction period effects or acquisition/incorporation of any agricultural or biologically 

valuable land into the railroad corridor, it does not offer the same potential air quality and 

transportation benefits as the action alternatives.
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

16

6.0 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL BENEFICIAL EFFECTS

The Selected Alternative would result in all of the same beneficial environmental effects 

identified in the Draft Program EIS/EIR for the Build Alternative. These include a decrease in 

regional vehicle miles traveled (VMT) particularly on the US 101 corridor, resulting in an 

associated decrease in the emissions of air pollutants and reduced regional transportation 

energy consumption. Improvements to the rail system were also projected to result in 

decreased train idling times, which in turn can reduce localized air pollutant emissions and 

energy consumption. 

 Coast Daylight Passenger Rail Service: The Selected Alternative would provide an 

increase in intercity passenger rail service with the reinstitution of the Coast Daylight 

passenger rail service. This service would help to create an interconnected, multimodal 

solution allowing for better mobility throughout the Coast Corridor region, providing 

added capacity in response to increased travel demand between Los Angeles and San 

Francisco. With the reinstitution of Coast Daylight trains, rail ridership would be

anticipated to increase, and would also allow flexibility for people who may prefer or 

require alternatives to automobile transportation. This an increase in service would 

provide additional transportation system capacity that could relieve some of the 

projected near- and long-term demand on the highway system, potentially slowing the 

need to further expand highways and airports in this portion of the corridor, or reduce 

the scale of those expansions, including their associated cost and impacts on 

communities and the environment. Rail improvements would complement the highway 

and local transit systems, creating an interconnected, multimodal solution, allowing for 

better mobility throughout the corridor. .

 Enhanced Safety: Many tracks, signals, and bridges within the corridor have not been 

upgraded or improved in decades – and in some cases are over 100 years old. Aging 

infrastructure – if not properly maintained – can translate to longer travel times and 

decrease the attractiveness of rail as a transportation option. Proposed components of 

the Selected Alternative would maintain/replace aging infrastructure which would

provide the benefit of increased operating safety and allow trains to operate at faster 

speeds. 

 Economic Development: Soledad and King City have developed passenger rail station 

plans as part of larger planning and revitalization efforts in each jurisdiction. Passenger 

stations in these cities would complement and support local planning and revitalization 

plans through the provision of passenger rail service and complementary station area

development. While new passenger rail stations have some potential to introduce new 

employment and growth opportunities, both Soledad and King City planning efforts are 

explicitly intended to foster such growth. 

 Air quality/GHG: The Selected Alternative presents some small potential reductions in 

emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases (GHG). These reductions would be 

achieved through implementation of Coast Daylight rail service and its related potential 

to attract passengers from other travel modes (especially automobile and airplane). The 

SDP projects that the Coast Daylight service would generate about 100,000 annual 

person trips by the year 2020. This averages to about 300 trips per day and translates in 

projected reduction about 11,000 daily VMT for the Central Coast/Monterey Bay region 

as a whole. The projected expansion of Coast Daylight service by the year 2040 would 

further reduce VMT in the Central Coast/Monterey Bay region by an additional 15,000 
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

17

daily miles (26,000 daily miles total). These VMT reductions comprise relatively small 

amounts of total regional VMT and are, thus, expected to translate to small reductions 

in criteria pollutants - well below 1 percent of each of the criteria pollutants generated 

in the Central Coast/Monterey Bay region.9 

Upgrading existing tracks (including replacing wooden rail ties with steel ties) would 

reduce friction and vibration. Improved stabilization would also require less frequent 

maintenance of the railway infrastructure. Less frequent maintenance would reduce 

emissions associated with maintenance vehicle trips and idling, as well as maintenance 

equipment use. The increase in efficiency associated with track upgrades would reduce 

the severity of localized carbon monoxide and particulate matter emissions, as well as 

other pollutants. New powered switches and CTC signals would improve the efficiency 

of train travel and result in better control of the railroad tracks. These features could be 

expected to reduce the amount of time trains spend waiting for dispatching 

instructions, improve train safety, and improve the overall reliability of service. 

Additionally, the proposed realignments would improve train operations by reducing 

inefficiencies in slowing down to approach a curve, thereby incrementally reducing air 

pollutant emissions associated with getting back up to speed.

Energy: The projected expansion of Coast Daylight service has potential to attract 

passengers from other travel modes. Accordingly, it is expected that a portion of these 

passengers would be using the rail service in place of vehicle, bus, or air travel, thus 

reducing transportation-related energy consumption. These VMT reductions comprise 

relatively small amounts of total regional VMT and are, thus, expected to translate to 

small reductions in energy consumption. Additionally, travel by rail is the most energy 

efficient mode of long-distance, intercity transportation. However, an empty train 

would not reduce energy consumption. Overall, the displacement of automobile VMT 

to increased ridership on the railway would result in reduced transportation-related 

energy consumption. 

7.0 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL ADVERSE EFFECTS

The Selected Alternative would result in similar or reduced levels of substantial adverse 

environmental effects relative to what was described as the Build Alternative in the Program

EIS/EIR. Installation of the components comprising the Selected Alternative would result in 

construction-related effects, such as noise, vibration, the localized emission of air pollutants, 

one-time energy consumption effects, and potential temporary disruptions to both rail and 

automobile traffic. Certain components requiring the acquisition of land outside the railroad 

right of way would, if constructed, result in the conversion of agricultural lands as well as other 

lands known to include sensitive biological habitats. Construction activities could also expose 

soils and/or groundwater that are contaminated with hazardous materials. Construction could 

also potentially affect the eligibility of known and unknown archaeological sites and other 

cultural resources. 

 

9

Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b, pp. 13-4 – 13-7
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

18

Operational effects would include increased localized noise and vibration from additional daily 

trains, as well as increased levels of roadway traffic in the vicinity of existing and proposed 

station areas. 

 Traffic and Travel: The Selected Alternative contemplates two new passenger stations in 

King City and Soledad. Buildout of the station areas (which includes the opening of the 

stations themselves, increased passenger rail activity, and buildout of surrounding 

planned land uses) would result in increased traffic on local streets. 

 Land Use and Planning, Communities and Neighborhoods, Property and 

Environmental Justice: Curve realignments and siding extensions that require 

substantial land conversion/acquisition outside of the railroad ROW would commit the 

land uses and natural resources for an expanded and realigned railway in some areas. 

Future implementation of components outside the existing ROW and in populated areas 

would have the largest impact on existing land uses and communities. Some of the 

physical components would convert land uses to be incompatible with the general plan. 

The proposed design and engineering aspects of each component are conceptual at this 

time and if carried forward in the future, could be refined to avoid some or all potential 

impacts on existing land uses and communities. 

 Agricultural and Forest Resources: Components requiring land outside of the existing 

railroad ROW, such as curve realignments, new sidings, and siding extensions associated 

with the Selected Alternative would convert Prime Farmland and other protected types 

of farmland to nonagricultural uses. 

If the proposed second mainline is carried forward for construction and additional ROW 

is needed, some or all of the additional ROW (up to 12 acres in all) could include forest 

land within the Los Padres National Forest, resulting in the conversion of forested land 

to a non-forest use. 

The evaluation in this document is based on a review of conceptual plans for proposed 

project components. Design refinements may result in reduced potential impacts to 

both agricultural and forest land resources.

 Biological and Wetland Resources: Proposed curve realignments, new sidings, and 

siding extensions have the potential to entail the use of lands outside the existing 

railroad ROW that are critical habitat areas for several protected species (including 

California red-legged frog and vernal pool fairy shrimp), habitat of special-status species, 

sensitive vegetation communities, and wetlands. The evaluation in this document is 

based on a review of highly conceptual plans for proposed rail components the project 

components. Design refinements may be able to avoid some or all of the 

aforementioned potential effects. 

 Hydrology and Water Quality: Proposed new sidings and siding extensions, curve 

realignments, and the second mainline have the potential to intersect surface waters, 

potentially resulting in hydrological and/or water quality effects. Design refinements of 

the conceptual plans components used in this evaluation could potentially avoid some 

of all of these hydrology and/or water quality impacts. 

 Cumulative Impacts: The Selected Alternative, in combination with related 

transportation and land development projects, could contribute to cumulative impacts 

to land use, communities, property, and environmental justice. This would be due to 

conversion of agricultural land or established communities to transportation uses. The 
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

19

conversion would permanently alter the affected areas and could contribute to 

agricultural conversion effects from other land development projects in the region. The 

Selected Alternative could also result in a cumulatively significant visual impact if one or 

more of the curve realignments is ultimately constructed and would convert substantial 

areas of residential or agricultural land to a transportation use. Project-level design 

refinements and funding availability will determine if any of the components would 

ultimately result in any cumulative impact.

8.0 SUMMARY OF AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION 

STRATEGIES AND DESIGN PRACTICES

The combined ROD/Final Program EIS/EIR identifies program-level strategies to avoid, minimize, 

or mitigate for potential adverse effects resulting from the construction or operation of any of 

the individual Selected Alternative components. Because FRA is not approving any of the sitespecific components for construction at this stage in the environmental review, FRA has not 

adopted any specific avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures. However, any projectlevel measures would be informed by the measures presented in Table 3.

To minimize potential future harm from implementation of the Selected Alternative, future 

project-level environmental reviews will prescribe project-specific measures informed by the 

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies and design practices identified herein, as well 

as any analysis conducted at the project level of detail. 

Notwithstanding, all practicable strategies to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the 

selected alternative have been identified herein. It is acknowledged that some mitigation 

strategies may cause other adverse environmental impacts at the same time that they avoid or 

minimize impacts addressed in this Program EIS/EIR. Future project-level environmental reviews 

will determine appropriate site-specific mitigation measures.

9.0 COMPLIANCE WITH OTHER FEDERAL REGULATIONS

9.1 SECTION 4(F) AND 6(F) 

To the extent any individual components of the Selected Alternative advance toward 

construction and involve a major action of a DOT administration, project-level evaluations and 

findings under Sections 4(f) [49 U.S.C. § 303(c)] and 6(f) [16 U.S.C. § 4601-8] will be prepared as 

part of project-level environmental reviews. The Program EIS/EIR identifies the potential for 

uses of these resources for the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative, and Preferred 

Alternative. There is no certainty of a Section 4(f) use as the state agencies may not choose to 

move forward with some/any of components of the Selected Alternative. Notwithstanding, the 

Program EIS/EIR outlines future steps to evaluate potential use of Section 4(f) resources. Future 

analysis would include, if necessary, analysis to identify all feasible and prudent alternatives to 

the use of a 4(f) resource.

The Program EIS/EIR analyzed the California State Parks Land and Water Conservation Fund 

grants list for Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties and did not identify any Section 6(f) 

resources that would be impacted by the Selected Alternative. Similar to Section 4(f), to the 
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

20

extent any individual components of the Selected Alternative are advanced for project-level 

evaluations and findings under Section 6(f) would be prepared as part of project-level 

environmental reviews. Although not anticipated, if the project-level environmental analysis 

finds a conversion of a 6(f) resource, the Project component would engage in the required 

consultations and identify appropriate mitigation.

9.2 SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT

As detailed plans for specific components have not yet been identified, no formal consultation 

with the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) was been undertaken to consider 

potential effects to waters of the US and wetlands. Future project level environmental review 

may include consultation with USACE and potentially also the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) regarding applications for permits under Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act. 

9.3 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988 

Prior to implementing physical components that would introduce new structures in the study 

area, such as curve realignments, further evaluation of potential 100-year flood risk areas would 

be conducted. The Program EIS/EIR determined that some components of the Selected 

Alternative would be located within a flood zone. To the extent any individual components of 

the Selected Alternative advance toward construction, project-level environmental review 

would evaluate whether the design would be located within a flood risk area. Construction of 

facilities within floodplains would be avoided where feasible, and floodplains temporarily 

impacted by construction activities would be restored as much as possible so they can function 

as before. 

9.4 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990

When federal lands are proposed for lease or sale to nonfederal parties, EO 11990 requires that 

the lease or conveyance contain restrictions to protect and enhance the wetlands on the 

property. The restrictions of this executive order apply to wetlands on military installations 

proposed for closure. In this capacity, EO 11990 can affect the sale of federal lands with 

wetlands. Compliance with Section 404 permit requirements may constitute compliance with 

EO 11990. The Program EIS/EIR identified wetland resources within or near proposed 

components of the Selected Alternative. Delineation of jurisdictional waters and wetlands 

would be conducted during project-level environmental review if any components of the 

Selected Alternative advance toward construction. The delineation determination would 

identify the extent of USACE and CDFW jurisdiction. Accordingly, consultation with these 

agencies to determine appropriate mitigation would occur. 

9.5 EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 12898

Executive Order No. 12898 requires all federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, 

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

policies, and activities, on minority populations and low-income populations (environmental 
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

21

justice communities) in the United States. Compliance with EO 12898 involves outreach to the 

potentially affected minority and/or low-income population to identify issues of importance that 

may not otherwise be considered. The Program EIS/EIR identified where environmental justice 

communities are located within or near proposed components of the Selected Alternative. To 

the extent any individual components of the Selected Alternative advance to construction and 

involve funding decision or other approval, project-level environmental review would evaluate 

impacts to environmental justice communities. The Program EIS/EIR outlines future steps to 

evaluate project-level impacts to environmental justice communities. Future analysis would 

include outreach to affected communities and identification of any necessary mitigation 

measures. 

9.6 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

The Program EIS/EIR identified sensitive biological resources located within or near proposed 

components of the Selected Alternative. To the extent any individual components of the 

Selected Alternative advance toward construction, project-level environmental review would 

involve formal and/or informal consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) if potential impacts to federally listed plant or wildlife species are anticipated. This 

may include the preparation of a biological assessment or assessments, and biological opinions 

for specific components moving forward into construction. The lead agency of a component will 

prepare one or more biological assessments to evaluate the impacts on protected species. 

10.0 CONCLUSION

This Project is needed to serve both better serve existing users, as well as expected growth in

population and resulting increases in regional intercity travel demand over the next 20 years 

and beyond. The existing rail corridor is constrained in terms of capacity and includes outdated 

infrastructure, collectively resulting in travel delays, safety, and reliability issues. These 

problems will increase as travel demand in the region continues to grow. The intercity highway 

system, commercial airports, and passenger rail serving the regional market are currently 

operating at or near capacity, and cannot be feasibly expanded without large public investments 

for maintenance and expansion to meet existing and projected travel demands. 

The evaluation and findings indicate that the Selected Alternative would help meet projected 

needs for intercity travel in 2020 and 2040, while improving safety, reducing travel time, and

improving regional air quality. The evaluation and findings of the Program EIS/EIR also indicate 

that taking no action under the No Build Alternative would not meet the future intercity travel 

needs nearly as well as the Selected Alternative, because the rail corridor will continue to be 

experience delays and reliability issues associated with existing infrastructure, which could in 

the long term discourage the traveling public from using the rail service. Moreover, the No Build

Alternative would result in adverse environmental impacts, but would not offer any of the 

beneficial travel and environmental effects of the Selected Alternative.

FRA, in accordance with CEQ regulations implementing NEPA and FRA’s NEPA Procedures, find 

that the requirements for NEPA have been satisfied for the Program EIS/EIR for the Coast 

Corridor Improvements Program. FRA is issuing this ROD for the Coast Corridor Improvements 

Program based on the analysis included in the Draft Program EIS/EIR dated November 2014, the 

Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

23

Table 3 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies

Environmental Impacts Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies Timing

Traffic and Travel

Potential construction interference to 

traffic and travel (Increased traffic, delays 

and detours)

MIN-TRA-1. During the construction of any railway components selected for design, disruption to existing 

rail operations would be minimized to the maximum extent feasible by scheduling construction at times to 

minimize interference. Appropriate construction and operational strategies would be developed for 

project-level reviews through coordination between FRA, Amtrak, UPRR, Caltrans DOR, and other 

interested agencies.

MIN-TRA-2. Transportation System Management (TSM)/Signal Optimization (including retiming, rephasing, and signal optimization) may would be implemented, as well as other measures including turn 

prohibitions, use of one-way streets, and traffic diversion to alternate routes, to reduce impacts to 

roadways and intercity travel.

During 

construction

Potential operational effects MIN-TRA-3. Local spot widening of existing curved areas of the railroad would be implemented to allow 

for geometric improvements that would allow for increased rail speeds without significant right-of-way 

acquisition. Spot widening could would avoid or minimize some of the effects associated with full 

implementation of curve realignments. 

MM-TRA-4. Project-level environmental review would include consultation and coordination with public 

transit services in order to encourage the provision of adequate bus feeder routes to serve proposed 

station areas, which could would mitigate potential transit impacts.

A-TRA-5. Further develop project design to avoid the need for a new at-grade crossing. The one identified 

new at-grade crossing is associated with potential track realignment (MP 172, Cattlemen Road). The 

primary strategy for avoiding the creation of the new at-grade crossing at Cattlemen Road would be to 

omit the MP 172 Track Realignment all together, or at least any portion that would result in the creation 

of a new at-grade crossing at Cattlemen Road. No specific layout for that track realignment has been 

defined to date.

MIN-TRA-6. If the MP 172 Track Realignment is carried forward for further design and the design cannot 

feasibly avoid the creation of a new at-grade crossing, the development process would include a detailed 

Traffic Study, consultation, and approval from the CPUC, and implementation would be required to follow 

all pertinent federal, state, and local policies regarding new at-grade crossings. 

During 

project 

design
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

24

Environmental Impacts Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies Timing

MM-TRA-7. In the event that any of the Build Alternative or Preferred Alternative components are carried 

forward for funding, design, and construction, and the above measures cannot be successfully employed 

to avoid or minimize roadway traffic effects, major or minor intersection improvements would be 

employed to reduce any potential adverse traffic effects. This would likely require significant right-of-way 

acquisition to accommodate additional left-turn and/or through lanes. Adverse effects from such 

improvements would be assessed during future project-level review.

Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

Potential effects associated with 

construction

a. MIN-AQ-1. Apply water suppression at least twice a day to all active construction areas to minimize dust.

b. MIN-AQ-2. Tarp all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require that all trucks maintain 

at least two feet of freeboard. 

c. MIN-AQ-3. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access 

roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. 

d. MIN-AQ-4. Use water sweepers to sweep all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at 

construction sites daily. 

e. MIN-AQ-5. Use water sweepers to sweep all streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent 

public streets. 

f. MIN-AQ-6. Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded 

areas inactive for ten days or more). 

g. MIN-AQ-7. Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, 

sand, etc.).

h. MIN-AQ-8. Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. 

i. MIN-AQ-9. Introduce appropriate erosion control measures to reduce silt runoff to public roadways. 

j. MIN-AQ-10. Replant vegetation as quickly as possible to minimize erosion in disturbed areas. 

k. MIN-AQ-11. Use alternative fuels for construction equipment when feasible. 

l. MIN-AQ-12. Minimize equipment idling time. 

MIN-AQ-13. Maintain properly tuned equipment.

During 

construction
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

25

Environmental Impacts Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies Timing

Potential effects associated with 

operation of the project components

MIN-AQ-14. Require filters for diesel particulate on locomotives. 

MIN-AQ-15. Require liquefied natural gas for engines. 

MIN-AQ-16. Reduce idling time to reduce DPM and other emissions. 

MIN-AQ-17. Where possible, install anti-idling devices on all locomotives. These devices automatically 

shut-off the main diesel internal combustion engine that is used for locomotive motive power after a set 

amount of time when specified parameters (e.g., engine water temperature, ambient temperature, 

battery charge, railcar brake pressure, etc.) are at acceptable levels. The device can automatically restart 

the engine when parameters are determined to no longer be at acceptable levels. These can reduce 

emissions at sidings and while trains dwell at stations.

MIN-AQ-18. Retrofit head-end power sources (HEPs) in passenger locomotives with after-treatment 

technologies to reduce emissions. 

MIN-AQ-19. Use a combination of lean-NOx catalyst and diesel particulate filter. 

MIN-AQ-20. Design stations and associated ingress/egress to provide efficient vehicle movements, to 

reduce idling time and congestion.

Prior to, 

during, and 

post 

construction

Noise and Vibration

Potential effects associated with 

construction noise and vibration

A-NO-1. Avoid nighttime construction in residential neighborhoods.

MIN-NO-2. Use specially quieted equipment with enclosed engines and/or high-performance mufflers. 

MIN-NO-3. Locate stationary construction equipment as far as possible from noise-sensitive sites. 

MIN-NO-4. Construct noise barriers, such as temporary walls or piles of excavated material, between 

noisy activities and noise-sensitive receivers. 

MIN-NO-5. Re-route construction-related truck traffic along roadways that will cause the least disturbance 

to residents. 

MIN-NO-6. Where construction of components requires deep foundations, avoid impact pile driving near 

noise-sensitive areas, where possible. Drilled piles or the use of a sonic or vibratory pile driver are quieter 

alternatives where the geological conditions permit their use. If impact pile drivers must be used, their 

use will be limited to the periods between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on weekdays.

During

construction
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

26

Environmental Impacts Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies Timing

Potential effects associated with 

increased operational noise and vibration

MIN-NO-7. Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies for operational noise and vibration impacts 

would generally be applied to the trains and the path between the train and the receiver or property. 

 Noise barriers are a common approach to reducing noise impacts from surface transportation 

sources. Noise walls constructed near the railroad ROW would shield sensitive receptors from train 

noise as well. Building sound insulation would also be an effective mitigation strategy. 

 Noise impacts from surface transportation sources. Noise walls constructed near the railroad ROW 

would shield sensitive receptors from train noise as well. Building sound insulation would also be an 

effective mitigation strategy. 

 Sound insulation to improve the outdoor-to-indoor noise reduction has been widely applied around 

airports and has seen limited application for rail projects. Although this approach has no effect on 

noise in exterior areas, it may be the best choice for sites where noise barriers are not feasible or 

desirable, and for buildings where indoor sensitivity is of most concern. Substantial improvements in 

building sound insulation (on the order of 5 to 10 dBA) can often be achieved by adding an extra layer 

of glazing to the windows, by sealing any holes in exterior surfaces that act as sound leaks, and by 

providing forced ventilation and air-conditioning so that windows do not need to be opened.

 Localities wishing to reduce train horn noise may take the steps needed to establish a new quiet zone. 

This would cease the use of train horns at public highway-rail grade crossings. The locality would be 

required to mitigate the increased risk associated with the absence of a horn before receiving 

approval of the quiet zone.

 Vibration impacts would generally be reduced by vehicle wheel and track maintenance efforts. 

Additional track work and materials such as rail fasteners with soft and resilient elements would 

provide greater vibration isolation than standard fasteners. Ballast mats made of rubber-like material 

can be placed on asphalt or concrete base with the normal ballast, ties, and rail on top. The reduction 

in ground-borne vibration provided by a ballast mat is strongly dependent on the frequency content 

of the vibration and design and support of the mat. 

During 

project 

design, 

during 

construction
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

27

Environmental Impacts Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies Timing

Energy

Potential increases in energy 

consumption associated with 

construction activities 

MIN-ENG-1. Develop and implement a construction energy conservation plan.

MIN-ENG-2. Explore the opportunity to use newer, more energy efficient construction equipment and 

materials.

MIN-ENG-3. Consider, as feasible, acquisition of energy-efficient rolling stock to provide new passenger 

service.

MIN-ENG-4. Implement a program to encourage construction workers to carpool or use public 

transportation to get to and from active work sites.

During 

construction

Potential increases in energy 

consumption associated with the 

operation 

MIN-ENG-5. As feasible, minimize grade changes in steep terrain areas to reduce the use of diesel fuel.

MIN-ENG-6. Encourage the development of intermodal transit connections to reduce automobile VMT 

associated with the railway.

During 

project 

design 

Land Use and Planning

Potential effects to the community 

resulting from property acquisition 

within the vicinity of environmental 

justice groups

 A-LU-1. As only schematic plans have been developed to date, the level of detailed design that would 

normally precede construction would avoid or minimize the potential for land use displacement and 

property acquisition, whether temporary and/or permanent, residential or non-residential. 

 A-LU-2. Design strategies would be implemented to avoid or minimize the temporary or permanent 

acquisition of properties to the extent feasible. 

MM-LU-3. In addition, to the extent displacement of any residence or business occurs, relocation 

assistance procedures in accordance with the Federal Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition 

Policies Act of 1970 would be implemented. MIN-LU-4. Efforts would be made during design to minimize 

any barriers to community and neighborhood interaction. 

MIN-LU-4. Efforts would be made during design to minimize any barriers to community and 

neighborhood interaction.

MIN-LU-5. Consultation with local governments and planning agencies throughout the design effort would 

be conducted in order to maintain or enhance neighborhood integrity. 

During 

project 

design, 

during 

construction
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

28

Environmental Impacts Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies Timing

MIN-LU-6. If the MP 172 curve realignment is constructed and includes a new at-grade crossing at 

Cattlemen Road, potential strategies to reduce community effects could would include additional grade 

separation of rail lines and streets, new pedestrian crossings, new cross-connection points, improved 

visual quality of project facilities, and traffic management plans that maintain access during and after 

construction.

MIN-LU-7. Temporary construction-period related impacts on neighborhoods and communities would be 

addressed through site-specific measures. Potential strategies to alleviate or minimize impact to 

community during construction may include, but would not be limited to, the following:

 Provide opportunities for community involvement early in future environmental studies;

 Facilitate design workshops within affected neighborhoods to learn from the community which 

circulation elements (automobile, bicycle, pedestrian) in the impacted area are most critical so that 

those elements can be preserved;

 Develop design standards for facilities, landscape, and public art associated with the project that 

reflect the character of adjacent affected neighborhoods;

 Ensure that key connections (pedestrian/bicycle and vehicular crossings) across the rail corridor are 

maintained where necessary to maintain neighborhood integrity;

 Complete a construction logistics analysis to determine approximate durations, impacts and localized 

mitigation measures to reduce disruption to communities, activities, traffic and circulation;

 Develop traffic management plans that reduce barriers during construction;

 Where feasible, maintain connectivity during construction;

 Implement measures to maintain high level of visual quality in the neighborhood. Such measures can 

include visual buffers, trees and other landscaping, architectural design and public artwork; and

 Implement procurement specifications and incentives for construction contractors designed to reduce 

the duration and disruption of construction. Potential requirements include restrictions on 

construction vehicle traffic and routes, haul routes, hours of permitted construction activity, and 

advance public notification of all closures or expected travel delays.
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

29

Environmental Impacts Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies Timing

A-LU-8. In selecting components of the Preferred Alternative to carry forward for design and potential 

construction and operation, examine whether the selected components are disproportionately located 

within environmental justice communities. Environmental justice effects could potentially be avoided if 

the components carried forward are not disproportionately located within environmental justice 

communities. 

MIN-LU-9. EO 12898 requires federal agencies to ensure effective public participation and access to 

information. Compliance with EO 12898 involves outreach to the potentially affected minority and/or 

low-income population to identify issues of importance that may not otherwise be considered. Outreach 

to affected communities would be conducted during the decision-making process and identification of any 

necessary mitigation measures.

MIN-LU-10. DOT Order 5610.2 requires DOT agencies to establish opportunities for meaningful public 

involvement by members of minority populations during activities including identification of potential 

mitigation measures. Minority and low-income populations would be provided with access to information 

about health and environmental impacts, measures to avoid, minimize and/or to mitigate any 

disproportionately high and adverse effects and offsetting benefits and opportunities to enhance affected 

communities, neighborhoods, or individuals during an outreach program conducted as part of the 

decision-making process.

MIN-LU-11. As indicated in the Environmental Consequences section above, many of the proposed curve 

realignments associated with the action alternatives involve multiple segments, some near and some 

distant from environmental justice communities. A potential avoidance/minimization strategy would be 

to omit portions of multiple segment curve realignments that include environmental justice communities 

or where such impacts would be deemed to be disproportionately concentrated. 

MIN-LU-12. Special attention would be given to any permanent impact categories that are commonly of 

concern for this type of project and to those that previously have been identified as being of concern. 

These include: Air quality, Noise and vibration, Public health, Visual resources/aesthetics, Parklands, 

Relocation
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

30

Environmental Impacts Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies Timing

Visual Resources

Effects from visual presence of 

construction equipment and with the 

permanent transformation of 

agricultural/residential land into railroad 

along the alignment

MIN-VIS-1. In locations where construction would take place overnight, appropriate light and glare 

screening measure would be used at construction staging areas, including the use of downward cast 

lighting.

MIN-VIS-2. Where physical components pass through or along the edge of residential or heavily traveled 

roadways, landscape treatments such as trees and shrubs, would be installed and continuously 

maintained along the edge of the railroad ROW to provide partial screening of visual changes.

MIN-VIS-3. While new sidings/siding extensions can have low visual impacts as noted above, use of sidings 

for long-term “parking” of train cars can have visual consequences. Mitigation strategies would include 

limits on the use of sidings for longer-term train car storage, with potential priority to areas of greater 

visual sensitivity.

MIN-VIS-4. Night lighting at stations would be the minimum required for operations and safety. All lights 

would be hooded and directed to the area where the lighting is required to be on all the time, sensors and 

timers would be specified. 

MM-VIS-5. Natural land cover removed or disturbed to implement physical components would be 

replaced, as feasible.

During 

project 

design, 

during 

construction

Agricultural and Forest Resources

Potential disruption of agricultural uses 

during construction and operation

A-AG-1. Careful design practices, such as constructing the second mainline to be completely within 

existing railroad ROW, would avoid potential impacts to agricultural and forest resources along the 

Corridor, as feasible. Other Preferred Alternative components would be designed to avoid or minimize 

farmland effects through similar design approaches. 

MM-AG-1. All Farmland impacts would be at least partially offset through purchase of conservation 

easements that would permanently maintain lands in agricultural use. These conservation easements 

would be acquired over agricultural lands of equal quality to those affected.

With regard to Williamson Act contracts, specific conflicts with Williamson Act contracts would need to be 

identified prior to implementation of any Preferred Alternative component.

During 

project 

design, 

during 

construction
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

31

Environmental Impacts Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies Timing

MIN-AG-2. When there is a need to acquire and convert land enrolled in a Williamson Act contract, the 

Department of Conservation would be notified and requirements of Government Code Section 51290-

51295 and 51296.6 would be met.

To the extent the second mainline would require either temporary or permanent use of land outside the 

existing railroad ROW that traverses the Los Padres National Forest, the Forest Service would be consulted 

to identify appropriate and feasible means to avoid, minimize, or compensate for any forest land impacts. 

MM-AG-3. To the extent forest land use could not be fully avoided, potentially feasible mitigation 

measures include land swaps, fee mitigation, or other similar measures that would compensate for loss of 

forest lands. 

Public Utilities and Services

Potential effects to utilities from 

construction and operation

A-PS-1. Adapt rail components to accommodate existing utility facilities and transmission lines.

A-PS-2. During project-level planning and design, refer to each utility owner/provider to best avoid 

potential impacts on existing and planned utilities through adjustments to design features. 

MIN-PS-3. Where avoidance is infeasible, utility transmission lines and facilities would be relocated or 

protected in place throughout all phases of construction and operation, and in compliance with the 

involved utility owners/providers.

MIN-PS-4. Implement solar powered CTC in remote areas where utility connections would be difficult.

During 

project 

design, 

during 

construction

Hazardous Materials and Waste

Potential effects associated with 

construction and operation

MIN-HAZ-1. Detailed investigation of soils for contamination as part of an environmental site assessment 

(ESA), and if appropriate a Phase II ESA, for each component prior to implementation would be 

conducted. Where conditions warrant a Phase II ESA, such ESAs shall include the following:

 A work plan that includes the numbers and locations of proposed soil borings/monitoring wells, 

sampling intervals, drilling and sampling methods, analytical methods, sampling rationale, site 

geohydrology, field screening methods, quality control/quality assurance, and reporting methods. 

 A site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HSP) signed by a Certified Industrial Hygienist.

 Necessary permits for encroachment, boring completion, and well installation.

During 

project 

design, 

during 

construction
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

32

Environmental Impacts Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies Timing

 A traffic safety plan.

 Sampling program (fieldwork) in accordance with the work plan and HSP. Fieldwork shall be 

completed under the supervision of a geologist registered in the State of California, as appropriate.

 Hazardous materials testing through a certified laboratory.

 Documentation to include field procedures, boring logs/well diagrams, tables of analytical results, 

cross-sections, an evaluation of the levels and extent of contaminants found, and conclusions and 

recommendation regarding the environmental condition of the site and the need for further 

assessment. Recommendations may include additional assessment or handling of the contaminants 

found though the contaminated soil contingency plan. If the contaminated soil contingency plan is 

inadequate for the contamination found, a remedial action plan shall be developed. Contaminated 

groundwater shall generally be handled though the NPDES/dewatering process.

 Disposal process including transport by a state-certified hazardous material hauler to a state-certified 

disposal /recycling facility licensed to accept/treat the identified waste.

Where contaminated groundwater is encountered, the project sponsor shall obtain a NPDES permit prior 

to the issuance of a permit to construct. The NPDES permit shall specify site-specific testing and 

monitoring requirements and discharge limitations. 

Additionally, available agency files for moderate and high risk properties should be reviewed prior to 

demolition, grading, or construction. If the file review indicates a low likelihood of contaminants being 

present beneath or adjacent to a project feature (rail alignment, station, etc.), additional 

assessment/mitigation may not be recommended and the property could be reclassified as low risk.

MIN-HAZ-2. Surveys for lead-based paint and asbestos containing materials would be required prior to 

demolition of any buildings or structures. 

MIN-HAZ-3. A Site Management Program/Contingency Plan would be required prior to construction to 

address known or potential hazardous material issues such as contaminated soil or groundwater, health 

and safety plan for construction workers and the public, and procedures to protect workers and the public 

if buried contaminants are encountered. 

MIN-HAZ-4. Construction contractors would dispose of all hazardous or solid wastes and debris 

encountered or generated during construction and demolition activities in accordance with all applicable 

Federal regulations.
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

33

Environmental Impacts Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies Timing

MM-HAZ-5. A Hazardous Materials Management Plan for all facilities that use, store, or dispose of 

hazardous materials should be prepared. Facilities emitting toxic air emissions shall submit inventories 

and plans to the appropriate air quality management district and be subject to permitting and monitoring 

regulations of the district. All necessary local, state and federal permits for the installation and operation 

of any above or below ground chemical or fuel storage tanks prior to installing such tanks would be 

obtained. 

Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Potential effects to historic properties, 

cultural, archaeological and 

paleontological resources from 

construction and operation

MIN-CUL-1. Recordation: The lead agency(s) would ensure that cultural resources adversely affected by 

the Preferred Alternative are recorded and documented in a similar manner to a Historic American 

Building Survey (HABS) or Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) to be coordinated with the SHPO.

MIN-CUL-2. Design Guidelines: The lead agency would ensure that design guidelines are developed for 

appropriate and compatible construction with regard to aesthetics. Design guidelines would meet HABS 

and HAER standards and would be reviewed by SHPO and other agencies. 

MIN-CUL-3. Interpretive/Educational Materials: The lead agency may prepare interpretive and/or 

educational materials regarding affected historic properties or resources. The focus of this mitigation 

would be the historic themes of this resource. 

A-CUL-4. Relocation: Historic properties or resources that would be demolished because of the project 

should be relocated and rehabilitated. The lead agency would prepare a removal plan, including site plans 

for the new locations and placing them on new foundations. 

MIN-CUL-5. Monitoring: Project construction documents and new construction would be monitored to 

ensure they confirm to the design guidelines. A professional would monitor construction to identify

conditions that would conflict with the mitigation measures. 

MIN-CUL-6. Minor Repairs and Reconstruction: The lead agency would ensure that inadvertent damage to 

historic properties or resources would be repaired in accordance Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for 

Treatment of Historic Properties.

MIN-CUL-7. Salvage: The lead agency would ensure that selected decorative or architectural elements of 

any adversely affected historic properties or resources should be reviewed for feasibility of salvage to 

During 

project 

design, 

during 

construction, 

post 

construction
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

34

Environmental Impacts Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies Timing

mitigate loss or destruction. Where possible, these elements would be retained and reused in 

construction. Where not possible, selected salvaged elements would be made available for educational 

purposes. 

MIN-CUL-8. Paleontological Resources: Mitigation measures for paleontological resources would be 

identified prior to implementing specific elements of the Preferred Alternative, such as education of 

workers, recovery of fossils found during reconnaissance, monitoring construction. Furthermore, 

mitigation strategies would include establishing protocols for recovering fossils during construction for 

identification, dating, interpreting, and preserving at appropriate facilities.

Geology and Soils

Potential adverse effects from ground 

shaking.

MIN-GEO-1. Infrastructure would be designed to withstand strong ground motion. Designs typically 

include additional ductility in the structure. The design needed to reduce ground shaking would be 

determined upon for structures during subsequent stages of development, when detailed design plans are 

created.

MIN-GEO-2. Liquefaction potential would be reduced through site-specific methods such as soil 

densification or structural design.

During 

project 

design

Potential impacts associated with fault 

crossings.

MIN-GEO-3. Techniques to monitor track alignment as routine maintenance and the installation of ground 

motion warning systems would be used to reduce the effects of fault crossings.

During 

project 

design

Potential Impacts associated with natural 

and constructed slope failure.

A-GEO-4. Geotechnical studies during subsequent site-specific evaluation would assist in determining the 

potential for failure of natural and constructed slopes and identifying temporary and permanent slope 

reinforcement and protection measures where appropriate.

During 

project 

design
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

35

Environmental Impacts Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies Timing

Potential hazards associated with 

shrink/swell, and corrosive soils.

A-GEO-5. A site-specific subsurface evaluation would be performed by a qualified geologist to evaluate 

the extent of soils susceptible to shrink-swell present in the area of the physical component. Where 

expansive soil conditions are found and would be detrimental to physical component, measures 

recommended by the geologist would be implemented in project design. 

 MIN-GEO-6. A subsurface evaluation would be performed prior to design and construction to evaluate the 

potential for corrosive soil and identify recommendations to minimize or avoid any potential effects 

related to the presence of such soils (including but not limited to corrosion of rails or ties).

During 

project 

design

Impacts associated with the potential 

migration of hazardous gases.

A-GEO-7. The use of safe and explosion-proof equipment during construction and testing for gases 

regularly. 

A-GEO-8. Active monitoring systems and alarms would be required in underground construction areas and 

facilities where subsurface gases are present. 

During 

project 

design

Potential proximity related impacts to 

mineral resources.

A-GEO-9. Important mineral sites will be identified as early as possible during detailed project-level 

reviews and avoided where possible.

During 

project 

design

Hydrology and Water Resources

Potential construction and operation 

related impacts to surface waters

A-HYD-1. Where feasible, project-level design would avoid adverse impacts to water resources. For 

example, siding extension impact areas were analyzed assuming one mile extension areas could occur 

entirely on one side or the other. In the event that one end of a siding extension would impact a surface 

water body, the siding extension would be designed on the opposite side and away from the water 

resource area.

MIN-HYD-2. NPDES permits and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans (SWPPP) would be obtained prior 

to implementing components of the Preferred Alternative. NPDES permit requirements would be 

followed and BMPs would be implemented as mandated. These would include measures to provide 

permeable surfaces, where feasible, and to retain and treat stormwater onsite using catch basins and 

treatment wetlands. The SWPPP would include BMPs to minimize potential sediment transport due to 

construction activities, including obligatory erosion control techniques, stormwater management, and 

channel dewatering for all stream/river crossings. The SWPPP would also include measures to control the 

During 

project 

design, 

during 

construction
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

36

Environmental Impacts Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies Timing

overall amount and quality of stormwater runoff to regional systems. Potential BMPs may include the 

following:

 Practices that minimize contact between construction materials, equipment, and maintenance 

supplies with stormwater;

 Practices that reduce soil erosion including watering for dust control, perimeter silt fences, placement 

of rice straw bales, sediment basins, and soil stabilization; and

 Practices that maintain water quality including filtration, detention, and retention systems, 

constructed wetland systems, biofiltration/bioretention systems, grass buffer strips, ponding areas, 

organic mulch layers, planting soil beds, sand beds, or vegetated systems (biofilters) such as 

vegetated swales and grass strips designed to convey and treat either shallow flow (swales) or 

sheerflow (filter strips) runoff.

MM-HYD-3. The project sponsor would obtain permits required under Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA 

and comply with mitigation measures required in the permits. Mitigation measures may include 

compensation for habitat loss involving habitat restoration, reconstruction onsite, or habitat replacement 

offsite, with the ultimate goal of ensuring minimal impact to surface water quality.

MIN-HYD-4. If required, the project sponsor would comply with any permit conditions required under 

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

MIN-HYD-5. If required, the project sponsor would secure a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement for 

any work that would take place along the banks of surface water bodies.

MIN-HYD-6. The project sponsor would manage potential fuel or other spills and a spill prevention and 

emergency response plan would be developed and implemented.

Potential construction and operation

related impacts to floodplains

A-HYD-7. Prior to implementing physical components that would introduce new structures in the study 

area, such as curve realignments, further evaluation of potential 100-year flood risk areas would be 

conducted. Construction of facilities within floodplains would be avoided where feasible, and floodplains 

temporarily impacted by construction activities would be restored as much as possible so they can 

function as before. 

During 

project 

design, 

during 

construction
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

37

Environmental Impacts Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies Timing

MIN-HYD-8. Where avoidance is infeasible, the footprint of facilities within the floodplain would be 

minimized to the extent possible. All opportunities for redesign or modification to minimize flooding risk 

and potential harm to or within the floodplain would be assessed. For instance, siding extensions can be 

designed to either extend from the north or south end of the existing siding, potentially avoiding a floodprone area.

Potential construction and operation

related impacts to groundwater

A-HYD-9. Design facilities that are elevated and/or permeable so as to not affect recharge potential where 

construction is required in areas of potentially substantial groundwater discharge or recharge.

MIN-HYD-10. Minimize development of facilities in areas that have substantial groundwater discharge or 

that would affect recharge.

MM-HYD-11. Obtain waste discharge permits where required.

MIN-HYD-12. Obtain a NPDES permit and implement permit requirements, as well as BMPs that would 

control the release of contaminants near areas of surface water or groundwater recharge.

MIN-HYD-13. Consider use and retention of native materials with high infiltration potential at the ground 

surface in areas that are critical to infiltration for groundwater recharge.

During 

project 

design, 

during 

construction

Biological Resources and Wetlands

Potential construction and operation 

related impacts to biological resources 

MIN-BIO-1. Field surveys would be conducted to determine the extent and type of general and sensitive 

biological resources, including focused surveys following resource agency protocols for special- status 

species. 

MM-BIO-2. Biological Resources Management Plans (BRMP) would be prepared to specify the design and 

implementation of biological resources mitigation measures, including habitat replacement and 

revegetation, protection during construction, performance (growth) standards, maintenance criteria, and 

monitoring requirements. USFWS, CDFW, and USACE would review Draft BRMPs. The primary goal of a 

BRMP is to ensure the long- term perpetuation of the existing diversity of habitats in the study area and 

adjacent urban interface zones. BRMPs will contain the following:

 Specific measures to ensure the protection of sensitive amphibian, mammal, bird, and plant species 

during construction activities. 

 Identification and quantification of habitats that will be removed, as well as the locations where these 

habitats are to be restored or relocated. 

During 

project 

design, 

during 

construction
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

38

Environmental Impacts Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies Timing

 Procedures for vegetation analyses of adjacent protected habitats to estimate their relative 

composition; site preparation (clearing, grading, weed eradication, soil amendment, topsoil storage); 

irrigation, planting (container plantings, seeding); and maintenance (weed control, irrigation system 

checks, replanting). This information would be used to determine the requirements for revegetation 

areas.

 Proposed sources of plant materials and methods of propagation. 

 Specific parameters for the determination of the amount of replacement habitat for temporary 

disturbance areas. 

 Specification of parameters for maintenance and monitoring of re-established habitats, including 

weed control measures, frequency of field checks, and monitoring reports for temporary disturbance 

areas. 

 Specification of performance standards for growth of re-established plant communities and cut-andfill slopes. 

 Remedial measures to be taken if performance standards are not met. 

 Procedures and requirements to monitor all restoration/replacement efforts. 

 Measures to preserve topsoil and control erosion control. 

 Design of protective fencing around Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) and construction staging 

areas.

 Identification of location and quantities of gallinaceous guzzlers (catch basin/artificial watering 

structures, if needed); specification of monitoring of water levels in guzzlers. 

 Location of trees that are designated as protected for wildlife habitat (roosting sites) and locations for 

planting of replacement trees. 

 Identification of the purpose, type, frequency, and extent of chemical use for insect and disease 

control operations as part of vegetative maintenance within sensitive habitat areas. 

 Specific monitoring programs for sensitive species during construction. 

 Specific procedures to ensure the protection of sensitive species identified for preservation. These 

measures may include, but are not limited to, erosion and siltation control measures, protective 
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

39

Environmental Impacts Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies Timing

fencing guidelines, dust control measures, grading techniques, construction area limits, and biological 

monitoring requirements. 

 Provisions for biological monitoring during construction activities that ensure the compliance and 

success of the proposed protective measures. The monitoring procedures would (1) identify specific 

locations of wildlife habitat and sensitive species to be monitored; (2) identify the frequency of 

monitoring, monitoring methodology (for each habitat and sensitive species to be monitored); (3) list 

required qualifications of biological monitor(s); and (4) identify reporting requirements. 

MM-BIO-3. Mitigation techniques to protect plant and wildlife species would include, but would not be 

limited to on- and/or off-site revegetation/restoration of plant species, and purchase of credits from 

existing mitigation banks. Requirements for mitigation ratios would vary depending on the character of 

the impacted plant community and whether or not it provides notable habitat for sensitive plant or 

wildlife species. Regulatory agencies would be consulted to determine appropriate mitigation ratios. 

Relocation of plants, seed collection, plant propagation, out-planting to a suitable mitigation site, and 

participation in an existing HCP would be employed to mitigate for impacted plant species. Restoration of 

suitable breeding and foraging habitat, purchase of credits from an existing mitigation bank, and 

participation in an existing HCP would mitigate for impacted wildlife species. 

Whenever possible, on-site mitigation would be preferred to off-site. Off-site mitigation would be located 

within the same watershed or in close proximity to the impact area, where feasible.

MIN-BIO-4. Minimization measures would include, but not be limited to, pre- construction focused 

surveys and construction monitoring. Prior to construction, focused surveys would be conducted for 

sensitive plant and wildlife species identified as occurring in the study area. Locations of sensitive 

plant/wildlife species observed would be mapped on construction drawings. Research would must be 

conducted on appropriate methods to use on a species-by-species basis (i.e., transplantation, germination 

from seed, greenhouse propagation), and construction could would be phased around the breeding 

season for sensitive wildlife species (See also BRMP information above.) 

MIN-BIO-5. Specific measures would be developed to minimize or avoid the propagation of weeds during 

construction and operation. Potential preventive measures during construction could include 

identification of areas with existing weed problems and measures to control traffic moving out of those 

areas (e.g., cleaning of construction vehicles, limitations on movement of fill). Mitigation for operational 

impacts would be developed similarly.
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

40

Environmental Impacts Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies Timing

MIN-BIO-6. Field studies would identify locally significant wildlife movement/migration corridors beyond 

those discussed in this programmatic document and provide data to assist in the design of bridges and 

wildlife crossings at crucial travel route points. Wildlife crossings would be designed to mimic natural 

corridors and must be sufficiently attractive to encourage wildlife use. Where feasible, overcrossings and 

undercrossings for wildlife would be appropriately vegetated to afford cover and other species 

requirements. Functional corridors would be established to provide connectivity to protected land zoned 

for uses that provide wildlife permeability. Corridors would be designed using the following procedure: 

 Identify the habitat areas the corridor is designed to connect;

 Determine several species of interest from the species present in these areas; 

 Evaluate the relevant needs of each selected species; 

 For each potential corridor, evaluate how the area will accommodate movement according to the 

needs of each species of interest; 

 Map the corridors;

 Design a monitoring program.

MM-BIO-7. Delineation of jurisdictional waters and wetlands would be conducted to determine the extent 

of USACE and CDFW jurisdiction, and consultation with these agencies to determine appropriate 

mitigation would occur. 

 The amount of mitigation required would be assessed on an acreage basis, with ratios depending 

upon the nature and condition of the jurisdictional areas located within the impact areas. Whenever 

appropriate and feasible, on-site mitigation would be preferred. Off-site mitigation should be located

within the same watershed or as close in proximity to the area of impact as possible. Mitigation 

options for unavoidable impacts to state and federal jurisdictional waters would include on- or off-site 

restoration, creation, or enhancement, mitigation banking, or in-lieu fee payments, as described 

below:

 Restoration – Return degraded habitat to a pre-existing condition. 

 Creation – Conversion of a persistent non-wetland habitat into wetland (or other aquatic) 

habitat. The created habitat may be self-sustaining or dependent upon artificial irrigation. 
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

41

Environmental Impacts Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies Timing

 Enhancement – Increase one or more functions of a replacement habitat through activities such 

as plantings or non-native vegetation eradication. 

 Passive Revegetation – Allow a disturbed area to naturally revegetate without intervention or 

plantings. 

 Mitigation Banking – Purchase of units of previously restored or enhanced wetland or waters habitat 

within a larger managed conservation area. These units are often known as “credits” and are typically 

sold by the acre. 

 In-Lieu Fee Program – A monetary payment would be made to an entity approved by an agency that 

provides habitat conservation or restoration. For example, the Nature Conservancy may receive inlieu fee payments for impacts in all watersheds. 

 Current federal and state policy emphasizes a "no net loss" of wetlands habitats policy, which is 

usually achieved through restoration of areas subject to temporary impacts or creation of wetlands to 

offset permanent impacts. However, according to the January 27, 2003, Special Public Notice for

Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines, USACE favors the use of approved mitigation banks or in-lieu 

fee programs in the event that these programs would result in a net increase in regional or watershed 

benefit over on-site compensatory mitigation. Approved mitigation and in-lieu fee programs include 

measures designed to ensure the no net loss of wetlands policy is met.

Growth Inducement

Potential adverse impacts to growth and 

development along the alignment.

MIN-GR-1. New station development would be coordinated early in project-level reviews with local 

jurisdictions. This would ensure that land use plans and controls can be revised and implemented in 

conjunction with any new station development.

During 

project 

design
Coast Corridor

Record of Decision Improvements Program

42

Page intentionally left blank.
 1 Figure Project Location Map

Source: Circlepoint, 2013

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

Monterey County

San Benito County

Monterey C

Obispo C Sa

ounty

n Luis ounty

Salinas River

(!

P a c i f i c

O c e a n

§ ̈¦5

£[101

£[101

UV1

UV58

UV146

UV46

UV146

UV1

UV198

UV68

UV46

UV25

Legend

#I

#I

#I

#I

± 0 5 10

Miles

Coast Corridor Improvements 

>ŽĐĂƟŽŶDĂƉ

Salinas River

Existing Station

Existing Rail Line

Sa

ounty

n Luis ounty

Salinas

Seaside

Gonzales

Soledad

King City

San Lucas

Bradley

San Simeon San Miguel

Paso Robles

Atascadero

 San Luis Obispo

Salinas

Seaside

Gonzales

Soledad

King City

San Lucas

Bradley

San Simeon San Miguel

Paso Robles

Atascadero

 San Luis Obispo
This page intentionally left blank.