Appendix A – Draft Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR 

Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail 

Corridor Service Program – Combined Final Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR and ROD 

June 2022 
This page is intentionally blank.
Tier 1/Program 

Environmental Impact 

Statement/Environmental 

Impact Report 

Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor 

Service Program

May 2021
This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program 

Draft Tier 1 /Program Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report 

Pursuant to: 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321 et seq); Federal Railroad Administration Procedures for 

Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999); Council on Environmental Quality's 

Regulations Implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508); National Historic Preservation Act (54 USC 

300101 et seq.); Clean Air Act as amended ( 42 USC 7401 et seq. and 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93); the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 USC 1531-1544); and the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1251-1387); 

California Environmental Quality Act (PRC 21000 et seq); and State of California CEQA Guidelines 

Prepared by the: 

Federal Railroad Administration 

California Department of Transportation Division of Rail and Mass Transportation 

and the 

Riverside County Transportation Commission 

Paul Nissenbaum Date 

Associate Administrator, Office of Railroad Policy & Development 

May 13, 2021 

~Ra~=~ 

Kyle Gradinger Date 

Chief 

California Department ofTransportation Division of Rail and Mass Transportation 

April 28, 2021

Executive Director 

Riverside County Transportation Commission 

The following individuals may be contacted for additional information concerning this document: 

April 27, 2021

Date 

Amanda Ciampolillo Andrew Cook Sheldon Peterson 

Environmental Protection Office of Planning and Rail Manager 

Specialist Operations Chief Riverside County Transportation 

Federal Railroad Adrrinistration Caltrans Division of Rail and Commission 

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Mass Transportation 4080 Lemon Street 

W36-444 11 20 N Street Riverside, CA 92501 

Washington, D.C. 20590 Sacramento, CA 95814 

Abstract: This document considers, describes, and summarizes the environmental impacts associated with the 

development of a passenger rail system to provide an alternative travel mode that would reduce travel times and 

improve service reliability between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley by providing intercity and commuter rail 

service. The Draft Tier 1 /Program EIS/EIR evaluates thepotential effects ofa passenger rail systsm within the Program 

Corridor on land use and planning, transportation, visual quality and aesthetics, air quality and greenhouse gases, 

noise and vibration, jurisdictional waters and weUand resources, biological resources, floodplains and water quality, 

geological and paleontological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, public utilities and energy, culb.Jral 

resources, parklands and community services, safety and security, socioeconomic conditions. environmental justice, 

and Section 4(~/Section 6(~ resources. 

RPD-210506-001 
This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR 

Table of Contents

May 2021 | i

Table of Contents

ES.1 Executive Summary .................................................................................................................... ES-1 

ES.1.1 Purpose and Need ........................................................................................................... ES-2 

ES.1.2 Program History and Prior Planning Activities ................................................................. ES-3 

ES.1.3 Program Overview............................................................................................................ ES-3 

ES.1.4 Alternatives Considered ................................................................................................... ES-4 

ES.1.4.1 No Build Alternative........................................................................................... ES-11

ES.1.4.2 Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus).............................................. ES-11

ES.1.4.3 Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus) ...................................................... ES-14

ES.1.4.4 Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track)............... ES-15

ES.1.4.5 Recommended Preferred Alternative................................................................ ES-16

ES.1.5 Summary of Effects ........................................................................................................ ES-16

ES.1.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies....................................................... ES-27

ES.1.7 Public Review of Tier 1/Program Draft EIS/EIR............................................................. ES-27

ES.1.7.1 Document Availability........................................................................................ ES-27

ES.1.7.2 Providing Comments on the Tier 1/Program Draft EIS/EIR.............................. ES-29

ES.1.7.3 Public Hearings ................................................................................................. ES-29

1 Program Purpose and Need.......................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.1 Introduction and Lead Agencies............................................................................................. 1-1 

1.1.1 Cooperating and Participating Agencies................................................................ 1-2 

1.2 Intended Uses of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR ....................................................................... 1-2 

1.3 Organization of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR .......................................................................... 1-2 

1.4 Program Background, Location, and Overview...................................................................... 1-3 

1.4.1 Program Background ............................................................................................. 1-3 

1.4.2 Program Location and Alternatives Analysis Study Area....................................... 1-4 

1.4.3 Program Overview.................................................................................................. 1-7 

1.5 Program Purpose and Objectives .......................................................................................... 1-7 

1.6 Program Need ........................................................................................................................ 1-8 

1.6.1 Limited and Constrained Travel Options................................................................ 1-9 

1.6.2 Regional Population and Employment Growth .................................................... 1-27

1.6.3 Disadvantaged Communities ............................................................................... 1-29

2 Program Alternatives..................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1 Alternatives Selection Process............................................................................................... 2-1 

2.1.1 2016 Alternatives Analysis Report Screening and Selection Process................... 2-1 

2.1.2 Scoping Comments Received Regarding Alternatives ........................................ 2-14

2.2 CEQA Proposed Program .................................................................................................... 2-14

2.3 Alternatives Definition........................................................................................................... 2-14

2.3.1 No Build Alternative.............................................................................................. 2-15

2.3.2 Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.................................................................... 2-26

3 Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation .......................................................... 3-1 

3.1 Introduction to Environmental Analysis ...............................................................................3.1-1 

3.1.1 Environmental Topics Included in the Analysis...................................................3.1-1 

3.1.2 Environmental Topics Not Included in the Evaluation.........................................3.1-2 

3.1.3 Format and Content Used in the Evaluation .......................................................3.1-2 

3.2 Land Use and Planning .......................................................................................................3.2-1 

3.2.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................3.2-1 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR 

Table of Contents

May 2021 | ii

3.2.2 Regulatory Framework........................................................................................3.2-1 

3.2.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects ...................................................3.2-4 

3.2.4 Affected Environment..........................................................................................3.2-6 

3.2.5 Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................3.2-25

3.2.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects................................................................. 3.2-31

3.2.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts...............................................................3.2-35

3.2.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies..........................................3.2-47

3.3 Transportation .....................................................................................................................3.3-1 

3.3.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................3.3-1 

3.3.2 Regulatory Framework........................................................................................3.3-1 

3.3.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects ...................................................3.3-3 

3.3.4 Affected Environment..........................................................................................3.3-9 

3.3.5 Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................3.3-25

3.3.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects................................................................. 3.3-50

3.3.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts...............................................................3.3-57

3.3.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies..........................................3.3-65

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources..........................................................................................3.4-1 

Introduction..........................................................................................................3.4-1 

Regulatory Framework........................................................................................3.4-1 

Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects ...................................................3.4-2 

Affected Environment..........................................................................................3.4-5 

Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................3.4-20

NEPA Summary of Potential Effects................................................................. 3.4-24

CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts...............................................................3.4-27

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies..........................................3.4-35

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases.....................................................................................3.5-1 

3.5.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................3.5-1 

3.5.2 Regulatory Framework........................................................................................3.5-1 

3.5.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects ...................................................3.5-6 

3.5.4 Affected Environment..........................................................................................3.5-9 

3.5.5 Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................3.5-16

3.5.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects................................................................. 3.5-29

3.5.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts...............................................................3.5-31

3.5.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies..........................................3.5-43

3.6 Noise and Vibration .............................................................................................................3.6-1 

3.6.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................3.6-1 

3.6.2 Regulatory Framework........................................................................................3.6-1 

3.6.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects ...................................................3.6-5 

3.6.4 Affected Environment........................................................................................3.6-14

3.6.5 Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................3.6-24

3.6.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects................................................................. 3.6-32

3.6.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts...............................................................3.6-34

3.6.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies..........................................3.6-41

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources....................................................................3.7-1 

3.7.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................3.7-1 

3.7.2 Regulatory Framework........................................................................................3.7-1 

3.7.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects ...................................................3.7-4 

3.7.4 Affected Environment..........................................................................................3.7-7 

3.7.5 Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................3.7-23

3.7.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects................................................................. 3.7-27

3.7.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts...............................................................3.7-31

3.7.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies..........................................3.7-35

3.8 Biological Resources ...........................................................................................................3.8-1 

3.8.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................3.8-1 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR 

Table of Contents

May 2021 | iii

3.8.2 Regulatory Framework........................................................................................3.8-1 

3.8.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects ...................................................3.8-5 

3.8.4 Affected Environment..........................................................................................3.8-8 

3.8.5 Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................3.8-65

3.8.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects................................................................. 3.8-77

3.8.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts...............................................................3.8-81

3.8.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies..........................................3.8-91

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality .........................................................................3.9-1 

3.9.1 Introduction..........................................................................................................3.9-1 

3.9.2 Regulatory Framework........................................................................................3.9-1 

3.9.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects ...................................................3.9-6 

3.9.4 Affected Environment..........................................................................................3.9-7 

3.9.5 Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................3.9-33

3.9.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects................................................................. 3.9-38

3.9.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts...............................................................3.9-40

3.9.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies..........................................3.9-52

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources .............................................3.10-1 

3.10.1 Introduction........................................................................................................3.10-1 

3.10.2 Regulatory Framework......................................................................................3.10-1 

3.10.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects .................................................3.10-5 

3.10.4 Affected Environment........................................................................................3.10-7 

3.10.5 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................3.10-54

3.10.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects...............................................................3.10-60

3.10.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts.............................................................3.10-62

3.10.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies........................................3.10-79

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................3.11-1 

3.11.1 Introduction........................................................................................................3.11-1 

3.11.2 Regulatory Framework......................................................................................3.11-1 

3.11.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects .................................................3.11-6 

3.11.4 Affected Environment........................................................................................3.11-8 

3.11.5 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................3.11-44

3.11.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects...............................................................3.11-50

3.11.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts.............................................................3.11-54

3.11.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies........................................3.11-71

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy................................................................................................. 3.12-1 

3.12.1 Introduction........................................................................................................3.12-1 

3.12.2 Regulatory Framework......................................................................................3.12-1 

3.12.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects .................................................3.12-6 

3.12.4 Affected Environment........................................................................................3.12-8 

3.12.5 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................3.12-30

3.12.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects...............................................................3.12-39

3.12.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts.............................................................3.12-41

3.12.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies........................................3.12-53

3.13 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................3.13-1 

3.13.1 Introduction........................................................................................................3.13-1 

3.13.2 Regulatory Framework......................................................................................3.13-1 

3.13.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects .................................................3.13-6 

3.13.4 Affected Environment......................................................................................3.13-10

3.13.5 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................3.13-47

3.13.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects...............................................................3.13-52

3.13.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts.............................................................3.13-56

3.13.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies........................................3.13-63

3.14 Parklands and Community Services .................................................................................3.14-1 

3.14.1 Introduction........................................................................................................3.14-1 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR 

Table of Contents

May 2021 | iv

3.14.2 Regulatory Framework......................................................................................3.14-1 

3.14.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects .................................................3.14-3 

3.14.4 Affected Environment........................................................................................3.14-4 

3.14.5 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................3.14-19

3.14.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects...............................................................3.14-21

3.14.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts.............................................................3.14-25

3.14.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies........................................3.14-31

3.15 Safety and Security ...........................................................................................................3.15-1 

3.15.1 Introduction........................................................................................................3.15-1 

3.15.2 Regulatory Framework......................................................................................3.15-1 

3.15.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects .................................................3.15-5 

3.15.4 Affected Environment........................................................................................3.15-6 

3.15.5 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................3.15-15

3.15.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects...............................................................3.15-23

3.15.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts.............................................................3.15-24

3.15.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies........................................3.15-25

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected.....................................................................3.16-1 

3.16.1 Introduction........................................................................................................3.16-1 

3.16.2 Regulatory Framework......................................................................................3.16-1 

3.16.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects .................................................3.16-2 

3.16.4 Affected Environment........................................................................................3.16-5 

3.16.5 Environmental Consequences ........................................................................3.16-11

3.16.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects...............................................................3.16-17

3.16.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts.............................................................3.16-18

3.16.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies........................................3.16-23

3.17 Cumulative Effects.............................................................................................................3.17-1 

3.17.1 Introduction........................................................................................................3.17-1 

3.17.2 Regulatory Framework......................................................................................3.17-1 

3.17.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects .................................................3.17-2 

3.17.4 Affected Environment........................................................................................3.17-3 

3.17.5 Environmental Consequences ..........................................................................3.17-3 

4 Environmental Justice................................................................................................................... 4-1 

4.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 4-1 

4.2 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................................... 4-1 

4.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects....................................................................... 4-3 

4.4 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................. 4-5 

4.5 Environmental Consequences.............................................................................................. 4-15

4.6 Outreach to Environmental Justice Communities ................................................................ 4-23

4.7 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies............................................................. 4-24

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion ................................................................................................... 5-1 

5.1 Introduction............................................................................................................................. 5-1 

5.2 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................................... 5-1 

5.2.1 Federal ................................................................................................................... 5-1 

5.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................................... 5-3 

5.3.1 Data Sources.......................................................................................................... 5-3 

5.4 Affected Environment ............................................................................................................. 5-4 

5.4.1 Section 4(f)/6(f) Properties ..................................................................................... 5-4 

5.5 Potential Impacts on Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources................................................................. 5-22

5.5.1 No Build Alternative.............................................................................................. 5-22

5.5.2 Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.................................................................... 5-22
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR 

Table of Contents

May 2021 | v

5.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies............................................................. 5-24

6 Other Statutory Considerations.................................................................................................... 6-1 

6.1 Growth-Inducing Impacts........................................................................................................ 6-1 

6.1.1 Western Section..................................................................................................... 6-2 

6.1.2 Eastern Section...................................................................................................... 6-2 

6.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources....................................................... 6-3 

6.3 Relationship between Short-Term Use of the Environment and the Maintenance and 

Enhancement of Long-Term Productivity ............................................................................... 6-5 

6.4 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Effects............................................................... 6-6 

7 Evaluation of Alternatives ............................................................................................................. 7-1 

7.1 Preferred Alternative............................................................................................................. 7-13

7.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative ................................................................................... 7-13

8 Public and Agency Outreach ........................................................................................................ 8-1 

8.1 Environmental Justice Outreach ............................................................................................ 8-1 

8.1.1 Limited English Proficiency Outreach .................................................................... 8-2 

8.1.2 Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance .......................................................... 8-3 

8.2 Section 106 Consultation........................................................................................................ 8-3 

8.2.1 National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106 .................................................... 8-3 

8.2.2 Tribal Consultation ................................................................................................. 8-5 

8.2.3 Assembly Bill 52 Tribal Consultation...................................................................... 8-6 

8.3 Outreach Prior to Scoping ...................................................................................................... 8-8 

8.4 Public and Agency Scoping.................................................................................................. 8-11

8.4.1 Notice of Intent, Notice of Preparation, and Public Information Materials ........... 8-11

8.4.2 Agency and Public Outreach................................................................................ 8-12

8.4.3 Public Scoping Meetings...................................................................................... 8-15

8.4.4 Agency and Public Scoping Comments............................................................... 8-16

8.5 Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR........................................................................................................ 8-18

8.5.1 Outreach, Involvement, and Communications ..................................................... 8-18

8.5.2 Agency Meetings and Consultation...................................................................... 8-18

8.6 Publication and Review of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR ....................................................... 8-19

8.6.1 Notification and Circulation of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR ................................. 8-19

8.6.2 Providing Comments on the Tier 1/Program Draft EIS/EIR................................. 8-21

8.6.3 Public Information Meetings and Hearings .......................................................... 8-21

9 References ...................................................................................................................................... 9-1 

10 List of Preparers and Organizations and Persons Consulted.................................................10-1 

10.1 EIS/EIR Preparers ................................................................................................................10-1 

10.1.1 Riverside County Transportation Commission.....................................................10-1 

10.1.2 Federal Railroad Administration...........................................................................10-1 

10.1.3 California Department of Transportation Division of Rail and Mass 

Transportation ......................................................................................................10-1 

10.1.4 Best Best and Krieger ..........................................................................................10-1 

10.1.5 HDR......................................................................................................................10-2 

10.1.6 Subconsultants.....................................................................................................10-2 

10.2 Organizations and Persons Consulted.................................................................................10-3 

10.2.1 Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians...............................................................10-3 

10.2.2 Amtrak ..................................................................................................................10-3 

10.2.3 Bureau of Land Management...............................................................................10-4 

10.2.4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife...........................................................10-4 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR 

Table of Contents

May 2021 | vi

10.2.5 California Department of Transportation, District 8..............................................10-4 

10.2.6 California Office of Historic Preservation .............................................................10-4 

10.2.7 City of Coachella ..................................................................................................10-4 

10.2.8 City of Desert Hot Springs....................................................................................10-4 

10.2.9 City of Palm Desert ..............................................................................................10-4 

10.2.10 City of Indio ..........................................................................................................10-4 

10.2.11 Coachella Valley Association of Governments ....................................................10-5 

10.2.12 Federal Transit Administration, Region IX ...........................................................10-5 

10.2.13 Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation..............................................10-5 

10.2.14 La Posta Band of Mission Indians........................................................................10-5 

10.2.15 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)....................10-5 

10.2.16 Morongo Band of Mission Indians........................................................................10-5 

10.2.17 National Park Service...........................................................................................10-5 

10.2.18 San Bernardino County Transportation Authority ................................................ 10-5 

10.2.19 San Manuel Band of Mission Indians...................................................................10-5 

10.2.20 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians .........................................................................10-6 

10.2.21 South Coast Air Quality Management District......................................................10-6 

10.2.22 Southern California Association of Governments ................................................10-6 

10.2.23 Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink).......................................10-6 

10.2.24 United States Fish and Wildlife Service ...............................................................10-6 

10.2.25 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX ...............................10-6 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR 

Table of Contents

May 2021 | vii

Tables

Table ES-1.Summary of Resource Effects by Build Alternative Option ............................................... ES-17

Table 1-1. Existing Typical Driving Times for Selected Trips within Program Corridor........................... 1-23

Table 1-2. Existing Travel Times Using Rail and Transit Connecting the Los Angeles Basin and 

Coachella Valley ......................................................................................................................... 1-25

Table 1-3. Major Events in Coachella Valley ........................................................................................... 1-29

Table 2-1. Route Alternatives Studied in the 2016 Alternatives Analysis Report...................................... 2-5 

Table 2-2. Existing and Potential Station Areas Studied in the 2016 Alternatives Analysis Report.......... 2-7 

Table 2-3. Route Alternative Reasonability and Feasibility Summary..................................................... 2-11

Table 2-4. Western Section Existing Year (2018) Daily Train Operations in the Program Corridor 

(Average One-Way Trips)........................................................................................................... 2-16

Table 2-5. Eastern Section Existing Year (2018) Daily Train Operations in the Program Corridor 

(Average One-Way Trips)........................................................................................................... 2-18

Table 2-6. Current Passenger Rail and Transit Services ........................................................................ 2-20

Table 2-7. Programmed and Planned Capacity Improvement Projects Within the Western Section 

of the Program Corridor .............................................................................................................. 2-21

Table 2-8. Western Section No Build Alternative Opening Year (2024) Daily Train Operations in 

the Program Corridor (Average One-Way Trips)........................................................................ 2-23

Table 2-9. Western Section No Build Alternative Future Year (2044) Daily Train Operations in the 

Program Corridor (Average One-Way Trips).............................................................................. 2-24

Table 2-10. Eastern Section No Build Alternative Opening Year (2024) Daily Train Operations in 

the Program Corridor (Average One-Way Trips)........................................................................ 2-25

Table 2-11. Eastern Section No Build Alternative Opening Year (2044) Daily Train Operations in 

the Program Corridor (Average One-Way Trips)........................................................................ 2-26

Table 2-12. Summary of Build Alternative Options.................................................................................. 2-27

Table 3.2-1. Related Resource Inputs for Land Use Resources ............................................................3.2-6 

Table 3.2-2. Western Section Existing and Planned Land Uses (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, 

and 3).........................................................................................................................................3.2-7 

Table 3.2-3. Eastern Section Existing and Planned Land Uses (Build Alternative Option 1).................3.2-8 

Table 3.2-4. Eastern Section Existing and Planned Land Uses (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3).....3.2-9 

Table 3.2-5. Summary of Agricultural Resources (Build Alternative Option 1).....................................3.2-23

Table 3.2-6. Summary of Agricultural Resources (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3).........................3.2-24

Table 3.2-7. NEPA Summary of Effects on Land Use..........................................................................3.2-31

Table 3.2-8. NEPA Summary of Effects on Agricultural Resources .....................................................3.2-33

Table 3.2-9. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Land Use and Planning and Agriculture and Forestry 

Resources ................................................................................................................................3.2-37

Table 3.3-1. Transportation Impact Methodology Framework................................................................3.3-5 

Table 3.3-2. Related Resource Inputs for Transportation.......................................................................3.3-8 

Table 3.3-3. Summary of Transportation Networks and Services (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, 

and 3).......................................................................................................................................3.3-11

Table 3.3-4. Existing Year (2018) Daily Train Operations in the Coachella Valley Rail Corridor 

(Average One-Way Trips)........................................................................................................3.3-21

Table 3.3-5. Existing Station Access and Amenities within the Program Corridor ...............................3.3-23

Table 3.3-6. Train Schedule and Estimate of Vehicle Traffic Generation for each Station for 

Future Year (2044)...................................................................................................................3.3-33

Table 3.3-7. Potential Roadway Impacts by Stations for Future Year (2044) ......................................3.3-35

Table 3.3-8. Auto Trip and Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction by Horizon Year (Build Alternative 

Option 1) ..................................................................................................................................3.3-36
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR 

Table of Contents

May 2021 | viii

Table 3.3-9. Auto Trip and Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction by Horizon Year (Build Alternative 

Options 2 and 3).......................................................................................................................3.3-36

Table 3.3-10. Proposed Ridership Metrics by Horizon Year (Build Alternative Option 1) ....................3.3-41

Table 3.3-11. Proposed Ridership Metrics by Horizon Year (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) ........3.3-42

Table 3.3-12. Annual Boardings and Alightings at Proposed Station Options by Horizon Year 

(Build Alternative Option 1)......................................................................................................3.3-43

Table 3.3-13. Annual Boardings and Alightings at Proposed Station Options by Horizon Year 

(Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) ..........................................................................................3.3-44

Table 3.3-14. Rail/Bus Travel Time by Horizon Year (Build Alternative Option 1) ...............................3.3-46

Table 3.3-15. Rail/Bus Travel Time by Horizon Year (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) ...................3.3-46

Table 3.3-16. Annual Number of Accidents Eliminated by Horizon Year (Build Alternative Option 

1) ..............................................................................................................................................3.3-49

Table 3.3-17. Annual Number of Accidents Eliminated by Horizon Year (Build Alternative Options 

2 and 3)....................................................................................................................................3.3-49

Table 3.3-18. NEPA Summary of Effects on Rail Operation ................................................................3.3-51

Table 3.3-19. NEPA Summary of Effects on Roadways/Vehicular Traffic ...........................................3.3-51

Table 3.3-20. NEPA Summary of Effects on Railroad/Roadway Crossings.........................................3.3-52

Table 3.3-21. NEPA Summary of Effects on Traveler Safety ...............................................................3.3-53

Table 3.3-22. NEPA Summary of Effects on Ridership Forecast and Travel Time..............................3.3-55

Table 3.3-23. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Transportation..............................................................3.3-59

Table 3.4-1. Related Resource Inputs for Visual and Aesthetic Resources...........................................3.4-4 

Table 3.4-2. Summary of Visual Resources (Build Alternative Option 1).............................................3.4-19

Table 3.4-3. Summary of Visual Resources (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) ................................. 3.4-19

Table 3.4-4. NEPA Summary of Effects on Visual and Aesthetic Resources ......................................3.4-25

Table 3.4-5. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Visual Quality and Aesthetics Resources ......................3.4-29

Table 3.5-1. General Conformity De Minimis Thresholds.......................................................................3.5-7 

Table 3.5-2. Related Resource Inputs for Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment.....................3.5-9 

Table 3.5-3. Federal and State Attainment Status of the South Coast Air Basin and Salton Sea Air 

Basin ..........................................................................................................................................3.5-9 

Table 3.5-4. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory ..............................................................................3.5-15

Table 3.5-5. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled Estimates (No Build Alternative) .....................................3.5-17

Table 3.5-6. Locomotive Emission Estimates (Build Alternative Option 1)...........................................3.5-20

Table 3.5-7. Locomotive Emission Estimates (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3)...............................3.5-20

Table 3.5-8. Annual Ridership and Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled by Horizon Year (Build 

Alternative Option 1) ................................................................................................................3.5-21

Table 3.5-9. Annual Ridership and Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled by Horizon Year (Build 

Alternative Options 2 and 3) ....................................................................................................3.5-21

Table 3.5-10. Regional Air Quality Criteria Pollutant Estimates by Horizon Year (Build Alternative 

Option 1) ..................................................................................................................................3.5-22

Table 3.5-11. Regional Air Quality Criteria Pollutant Estimates by Horizon Year (Build Alternative 

Options 2 and 3).......................................................................................................................3.5-23

Table 3.5-12. Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates (Build Alternative Option 1)................................3.5-27

Table 3.5-13. Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3)....................3.5-28

Table 3.5-14. NEPA Summary of Effects on Air Quality Emissions .....................................................3.5-30

Table 3.5-15. NEPA Summary of Effects on Regional Haze and Odors..............................................3.5-30

Table 3.5-16. NEPA Summary of Effects on Greenhouse Gases ........................................................3.5-31

Table 3.5-17. CEQA Summary of Impacts on Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases .............................3.5-33

Table 3.6-1. Federal Transit Administration Construction Noise Impact Limit Guidelines .....................3.6-6 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR 

Table of Contents

May 2021 | ix

Table 3.6-2. Ground-borne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment....................................3.6-11

Table 3.6-3. Related Resources Affected by Noise and Vibration .......................................................3.6-13

Table 3.6-4. Existing Year (2018) Daily Train Operations within Program Corridor (One-Way 

Trips)........................................................................................................................................3.6-17

Table 3.6-5. Ambient Noise Levels within Program Corridor from Existing Train Operations..............3.6-21

Table 3.6-6. NEPA Summary of Noise Effects .....................................................................................3.6-32

Table 3.6-7. NEPA Summary of Vibration Effects ................................................................................3.6-33

Table 3.6-8. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Noise and Vibration........................................................3.6-35

Table 3.7-1. Related Resource Inputs for Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources.....................3.7-6 

Table 3.7-2. Summary of Waterbodies (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3)......................................3.7-8 

Table 3.7-3. Summary of Wetland Types (Build Alternative Option 1)...................................................3.7-9 

Table 3.7-4. Summary of Wetland Types (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) .....................................3.7-23

Table 3.7-5. NEPA Summary of Effects on Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources ................3.7-29

Table 3.7-6. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources ..............3.7-33

Table 3.8-1. Related Resource Inputs for Biological Resources ............................................................3.8-7 

Table 3.8-2. Summary of Vegetation Communities (Build Alternative Option 1)..................................3.8-23

Table 3.8-3. Summary of Vegetation Communities (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3)......................3.8-27

Table 3.8-4. Sensitive Natural Communities with Potential to Occur within the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Study Area..................................................................................................................3.8-31

Table 3.8-5. Special-Status Plant with Potential to Occur within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study 

Area..........................................................................................................................................3.8-35

Table 3.8-6. Special-Status Wildlife with Potential to Occur within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Study Area ...............................................................................................................................3.8-53

Table 3.8-7. Number of Special-Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur within the Eastern 

Section .....................................................................................................................................3.8-68

Table 3.8-8. Number of Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur within the Eastern 

Section .....................................................................................................................................3.8-70

Table 3.8-9. NEPA Summary of Effects on Biological Resources........................................................3.8-79

Table 3.8-10. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Biological Resources....................................................3.8-83

Table 3.9-1. Related Resource Inputs for Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality ..........................3.9-7 

Table 3.9-2. Summary of Floodplains (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3)......................................3.9-21

Table 3.9-3. Subbasins and Watersheds (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3)................................. 3.9-22

Table 3.9-4. Water Resource Beneficial Use Definitions......................................................................3.9-26

Table 3.9-5. Beneficial Uses of Potentially Affected Surface Waters within the Program Corridor......3.9-29

Table 3.9-6. Named Surface Waters with Pollutant Impairments (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, 

and 3).......................................................................................................................................3.9-31

Table 3.9-7. Groundwater Basins (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3)............................................3.9-32

Table 3.9-8. NEPA Summary of Effects on Flooding............................................................................3.9-39

Table 3.9-9. NEPA Summary of Effects on Water Quality....................................................................3.9-39

Table 3.9-10. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Hydrology and Water Quality .......................................3.9-41

Table 3.10-1. Summary of Earthquake Faults and Zones (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3).....3.10-21

Table 3.10-2. Seismic and Geologic Hazards Definitions...................................................................3.10-22

Table 3.10-3. Paleontological Sensitivity Ratings...............................................................................3.10-25

Table 3.10-4. Summary of Paleontological Sensitivity Zones (Build Alternative Option 1) ................3.10-39

Table 3.10-5. Summary of Paleontological Sensitivity Zones (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) ....3.10-39

Table 3.10-6. Mineral Resource Zone Ratings ...................................................................................3.10-40

Table 3.10-7. Summary of Mineral Resource Zones (Build Alternative Option 1)..............................3.10-53
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR 

Table of Contents

May 2021 | x

Table 3.10-8. Summary of Mineral Resource Zones (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3)..................3.10-54

Table 3.10-9. NEPA Summary of Effects on Seismic and Geologic Hazards ....................................3.10-60

Table 3.10-10. NEPA Summary of Effects on Paleontological Resources.........................................3.10-61

Table 3.10-11. NEPA Summary of Effects on Mineral Resources .....................................................3.10-61

Table 3.10-12. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources...................3.10-63

Table 3.11-1. Summary of Regulatory Database Listings (Build Alternative Option 1)......................3.11-23

Table 3.11-2. Summary of Regulatory Database Listings (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3)..........3.11-24

Table 3.11-3. Summary of Fire Hazard Severity Zones (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3) ........3.11-41

Table 3.11-4. Summary of School Facilities (Build Alternative Option 1)...........................................3.11-43

Table 3.11-5. Summary of School Facilities (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) ...............................3.11-44

Table 3.11-6. NEPA Summary of Effects on Hazardous Wastes and Material Sites.........................3.11-51

Table 3.11-7. NEPA Summary of Effects on Fire Hazard Zones........................................................3.11-53

Table 3.11-8. NEPA Summary of Effects on Airport Areas ................................................................3.11-53

Table 3.11-9. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Wildfires.......3.11-55

Table 3.12-1. Estimate of Build Alternative Ridership and Vehicle Miles Traveled Reductions per 

Day...........................................................................................................................................3.12-7 

Table 3.12-2. Related Resource Inputs for Public Utilities and Energy Assessment ...........................3.12-8 

Table 3.12-3. Summary of Known Utility Facilities (Build Alternative Option 1) ................................. 3.12-23

Table 3.12-4. Summary of Known Utility Facilities (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) .....................3.12-24

Table 3.12-5. Summary of Landfill Facilities (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3)..........................3.12-25

Table 3.12-6. 2015 United States Passenger Travel Mode and Energy Use.....................................3.12-29

Table 3.12-7. Net Operational Energy Effects (Build Alternative Option 1)........................................3.12-37

Table 3.12-8. Net Operational Energy Effects (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3)............................3.12-37

Table 3.12-9. NEPA Summary of Effects on Public Utilities ...............................................................3.12-39

Table 3.12-10. NEPA Summary of Effects on Solid Waste ................................................................3.12-40

Table 3.12-11. NEPA Summary of Effects on Energy ........................................................................3.12-40

Table 3.12-12. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Utilities and Service Systems and Energy ...............3.12-43

Table 3.13-1. Related Resource Inputs to Cultural Resources Assessment......................................3.13-10

Table 3.13-2. Summary of Known Cultural Resources Within the Eastern Section of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area (Build Alternative Option 1)....................................3.13-26

Table 3.13-3. Section 106 Consulting Party Consultation Summary ..................................................3.13-29

Table 3.13-4. Summary of Known Cultural Resources Within the Eastern Section of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3)........................3.13-35

Table 3.13-5. Section 106 Native American Consultation Summary..................................................3.13-39

Table 3.13-6. Assembly Bill 52 Native American Consultation Summary ..........................................3.13-45

Table 3.13-7. NEPA Summary of Effects on Historic Properties........................................................3.13-53

Table 3.13-8. NEPA Summary of Effects on Human Remains...........................................................3.13-55

Table 3.13-9. NEPA Summary of Effects on Tribal Cultural Resources.............................................3.13-55

Table 3.13-10. CEQA Summary of Impacts on Cultural Resources...................................................3.13-57

Table 3.14-1. Related Resource Inputs for Parklands and Community Facilities ................................3.14-4 

Table 3.14-2. Summary of Parklands and Community Facilities (Build Alternative Option 1)..............3.14-5 

Table 3.14-3. Summary of Parklands and Community Facilities (Build Alternative Options 2 and 

3) ..............................................................................................................................................3.14-6 

Table 3.14-4. NEPA Summary of Effects on Parklands and Community Facilities............................3.14-23

Table 3.14-5. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Parklands and Community Services..........................3.14-27

Table 3.15-1. Related Resource Inputs for Safety and Security Assessment......................................3.15-6 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR 

Table of Contents

May 2021 | xi

Table 3.15-2. Number of Train Accidents and Incidents by County, 2013–2017 ................................. 3.15-9 

Table 3.15-3. Number of Train Highway-Rail Incidents by County, 2013–2017 (Build Alternative 

Options 1, 2, and 3)................................................................................................................3.15-11

Table 3.15-4. Number of At-Grade Incidents by City for All Railroads, 2013–2017 (Build 

Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3) .............................................................................................3.15-12

Table 3.15-5. NEPA Summary of Effects on Safety and Security ......................................................3.15-24

Table 3.16-1. Related Resource Inputs to Socioeconomic Assessment..............................................3.16-4 

Table 3.16-2. NEPA Summary of Socioeconomic Effects ..................................................................3.16-18

Table 3.16-3. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Population and Housing.............................................3.16-19

Table 3.17-1. Cumulative Projects........................................................................................................3.17-5 

Table 4-1. Related Resource Inputs for Environmental Justice Assessment............................................ 4-5 

Table 4-2. Minority Population and Population below Poverty by County ................................................. 4-6 

Table 5-1. Related Resource Inputs for Section 4(f)/6(f) Resource Assessment...................................... 5-4 

Table 5-2. Section 4(f) Criteria................................................................................................................... 5-4 

Table 5-3. Potential Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Properties within the Program Corridor....................... 5-5 

Table 5-4. Section 4(f)/6(f) Properties by Type (Build Alternative Option 1) ............................................. 5-8 

Table 5-5. Section 4(f)/6(f) Properties by Type (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3)................................ 5-21

Table 5-6. Use of Section 4(f) Resource Summary ................................................................................. 5-22

Table 7-1.Summary of Resource Effects by the No Build Alternative and Build Alternative Options........ 7-3 

Table 8-1. Summary of Pre-NEPA/CEQA Public Outreach....................................................................... 8-9 

Table 8-2. Agency Points of Contact ....................................................................................................... 8-12

Table 8-3. Public Scoping Meetings ........................................................................................................ 8-15

Table 8-4. Total Number of Public Scoping Comment Submissions....................................................... 8-16
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR 

Table of Contents

May 2021 | xii

Figures

Figure ES-1. Western Section of the Program Corridor (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3) ............ ES-5 

Figure ES-2. Eastern Section of the Program Corridor (Build Alternative Option 1) .............................. ES-7 

Figure ES-3. Eastern Section of the Program Corridor (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) .................. ES-9 

Figure 1-1. Alternatives Analysis Study Area (Western and Eastern Sections) ........................................ 1-5 

Figure 1-2. Existing Intercity Rail and Regional Bus Services Connecting the Los Angeles Basin 

and Coachella Valley .................................................................................................................. 1-11

Figure 1-3. Existing Intercity Bus Service Connecting the Los Angeles Basin and Coachella 

Valley........................................................................................................................................... 1-13

Figure 1-4. Existing Key Program Corridor Highways Connecting the Los Angeles Basin and 

Coachella Valley ......................................................................................................................... 1-17

Figure 1-5. Existing Areas of Recurring Weekday Road Congestion within Program Corridor............... 1-21

Figure 1-6. Interstate 10 Corridor San Gorgonio Pass Detour Alternatives ............................................ 1-27

Figure 2-1. Alternatives Analysis Process ................................................................................................. 2-2 

Figure 2-2. Program Corridor Route Alternatives Considered in the Alternatives Analysis ...................... 2-3 

Figure 2-3. Alternatives Selection Process Flow Chart ............................................................................. 2-9 

Figure 2-4. Western Section of the Program Corridor (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3)................ 2-29

Figure 2-5. Eastern Section of the Program Corridor (Build Alternative Option 1).................................. 2-31

Figure 2-6. Eastern Section of the Program Corridor (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3)...................... 2-33

Figure 3.2-1. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Classifications within the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR...................................................................................................................3.2-11

Figure 3.3-1. Existing Key Corridor Highways within the Program Corridor.........................................3.3-13

Figure 3.3-2. Existing Intercity Rail and Regional Bus Service within the Program Corridor ...............3.3-15

Figure 3.3-3. Host Railroads and Additional Operators within the Program Corridor...........................3.3-19

Figure 3.4-1. Visual Resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area ....................................3.4-7 

Figure 3.5-1. Air Basins Traversed by the Program Corridor ...............................................................3.5-13

Figure 3.6-1. Federal Transit Administration Noise Impact Criteria........................................................3.6-8 

Figure 3.6-2. Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed by Criteria .................................................3.6-9 

Figure 3.7-1. National Wetland Inventory-Mapped Wetlands within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Study Area ...............................................................................................................................3.7-11

Figure 3.8-1. Vegetation Communities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area .........................3.8-9 

Figure 3.8-2. Critical Habitat within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area.......................................3.8-39

Figure 3.9-1. Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Areas within the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Study Area....................................................................................................................3.9-9 

Figure 3.9-2. Subbasins and Watersheds within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area ..................3.9-23

Figure 3.10-1. Potential Seismic and Geologic Hazard Zones within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Study Area ...............................................................................................................................3.10-9 

Figure 3.10-2. Paleontological Sensitivity within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area.................3.10-27

Figure 3.10-3. Mineral Resource Zones within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area ...................3.10-41

Figure 3.11-1. Hazardous Waste and Materials Sites within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study 

Area........................................................................................................................................3.11-11

Figure 3.11-2. Fire Hazard and Airport Zones within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area..........3.11-29

Figure 3.12-1. Known Utilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area...................................3.12-11

Figure 3.13-1. Known Historical Resource Sites within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study 

Area........................................................................................................................................3.13-13

Figure 3.14-1. Parklands and Community Facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area...3.14-7 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR 

Table of Contents

May 2021 | xiii

Figure 4-1. Percentage of Minority Population within Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area Census 

Block Groups................................................................................................................................. 4-7 

Figure 4-2. Environmental Justice Population within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area per 

Minority Threshold......................................................................................................................... 4-9 

Figure 4-3. Percentage of Low-Income Population within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

Census Block Groups ................................................................................................................. 4-11

Figure 4-4. Environmental Justice Populations within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area per 

Income Threshold ....................................................................................................................... 4-13

Figure 5-1. Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area ........................... 5-9 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR 

Table of Contents

May 2021 | xiv

Appendices

Appendix A. Notice of Intent/Notice of Preparation

Appendix B. Land Use and Planning Technical Memorandum

Appendix C. Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum

Appendix D. Visual and Aesthetics Technical Memorandum

Appendix E. Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum

Appendix F. Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum

Appendix G. Biological and Wetland Resources Technical Memorandum

Appendix H. Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

Appendix I. Socioeconomics Technical Memorandum
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR 

Table of Contents

May 2021 | xv

Abbreviations/Acronyms

AA alternatives analysis

AB Assembly Bill

ACS American Community Survey

AGR agriculture supply

ALUC Airport Land Use Commission

ALUCP Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan

AP Alquist-Priolo

ARB Air Resources Board

ASTM ASTM International

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP best management practice

BTU British thermal unit

CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards

CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency

Caltrans California Department of Transportation

CCAA California Clean Air Act

CCR California Code of Regulations

CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife

CEC California Energy Commission

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Act

CESA California Endangered Species Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CGS California Geological Survey

CO carbon monoxide

COLD cold freshwater habitats

CPUC California Public Utilities Commission

CRHR California Register of Historical Resources

CRPR California Rare Plant Rank

CWA Clean Water Act

dB decibel
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR 

Table of Contents

May 2021 | xvi

dBA A weighted decibel

EIA Energy Information Administration

EIR Environmental Impact Report

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EJ environmental justice 

EO Executive Order

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

FCAA Federal Clean Air Act

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FESA Federal Endangered Species Act

FHWA Federal Highway Administration

FPS Fully Protected Species

FR Federal Register

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FRSH freshwater replenishment

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GHG greenhouse gas

GIS geographic information system

GPSCVB Greater Palm Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau

GWR groundwater recharge

HCP Housing and Urban Development Consolidated Plan

I Interstate

IND industrial service supply

LAUS Los Angeles Union Station

Ldn day-night average noise level

Leq equivalent sound level

LOSSAN Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo

LRA local responsibility area

LUST leaking underground storage tank

LWCF Land and Water Conservation Fund

Metro Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation 

Authority

MMBTU million British thermal unit

MPO metropolitan planning organization
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR 

Table of Contents

May 2021 | xvii

MRZ Mineral Resource Zone

MS4 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System

MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan

MUN municipal and domestic water supply

MUTCD Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NAC noise abatement criteria

NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Planning

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOA Notice of Availability

NOC Notice of Completion

NOI Notice of Intent

NOP Notice of Preparation

NOx nitrogen oxide

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

NPL National Priorities List

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NWI National Wetland Inventory

O3 ozone

OHP Office of Historic Preservation

Pb lead

PeMS Performance Measurement System

PM10 particulate matter 10 microns or less

PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns or less

POW hydropower generation

PPV peak particle velocity

PRC Public Resource Code

PROC industrial process supply

Program Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor 

Service Program

Program Corridor Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor

PTC positive train control
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR 

Table of Contents

May 2021 | xviii

RARE rare, threatened, or endangered species

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976

RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission

REC1 water contact recreation

REC2 noncontact water recreation

ROW right-of-way

RSIA Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008

RTP Regional Transportation Plan

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board

SB Senate Bill

SBCTA San Bernardino County Transportation Authority

SCAB South Coast Air Basin

SCAG Southern California Association of Governments

SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District

SCRRA Southern California Regional Rail Authority

SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy

SDP Service Development Plan

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SOx sulfur oxide

SR State Route

SRA State Responsibility Area

SSAB Salton Sea Air Basin

SSC Species of Special Concern

STRACNET Strategic Rail Corridor Network

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

TCR tribal cultural resource

THPO Tribal Heritage Preservation Officer

TMDL total maximum daily load

TSCA Toxic Substance Control Act

U.S. United States

UBC Uniform Building Code

Uniform Act Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property 

Acquisition Policies Act of 1970
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR 

Table of Contents

May 2021 | xix

UP Union Pacific Railroad

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USDOT United States Department of Transportation

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

USGS United States Geological Survey

UST underground storage tank

VdB velocity in decibels

VMT vehicle miles traveled

VOC volatile organic compound

WARM warm freshwater habitat

WET wetland habitat

WILD wildlife habitat
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR 

Table of Contents

May 2021 | xx

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-1

ES.1 Executive Summary

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

Act (CEQA); the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans) Division of Rail and Mass Transportation, and Riverside County Transportation 

Commission (RCTC) prepared this joint Draft Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to evaluate and disclose the potential environmental 

consequences of the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program 

(Program). The Program is proposing the implementation of passenger rail service options between 

Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) in Los Angeles County, California and the City of Coachella in 

Riverside County, California. This corridor-level conceptual study evaluates alternatives along the 

144-mile-long Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (Program Corridor). 

For this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, FRA and Caltrans are the joint lead agencies for the environmental 

review under NEPA, and RCTC is the lead agency under CEQA.

This Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR represents the first step within a tiered approach to NEPA analyses in 

accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality’s (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing NEPA 

(40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500–1508), FRA’s Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts (64 Federal Register [FR] 28545, May 26, 1999), and CEQA Guidelines 

Sections 15168 and 15170. Tiering under NEPA and CEQA involves the evaluation of broad-level 

programs and issues in an initial Tier 1/Program-level analysis followed by more detailed evaluation 

of specific improvements in subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analyses.

This Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluates potential environmental impacts of the No Build Alternative 

and the three Build Alternative Options broadly within the Program Corridor. The Program Corridor 

provides a flexible regional context for the best location of an enhanced passenger rail system while 

providing opportunities for the Build Alternative Options within the Program Corridor to account for 

engineering and environmental constraints, as well as public input. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-2

This Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is the basis for a Tier 2/Project-level analysis by identifying the Build 

Alternative Option to be advanced for further study and analysis. As such, no construction would be 

authorized as a result of the Tier 1/Program evaluation. During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, the 

selected Build Alternative Option identified in the Tier 1/Program-level analysis would be further 

developed and the environmental effects of the site-specific rail infrastructure and station facilities 

evaluated prior to final design and construction. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would include

refined engineering design; additional public involvement; site-specific quantitative analyses of 

environmental effects; and the identification of site-specific avoidance, minimization, and mitigation 

measures. 

ES.1.1 Purpose and Need

The Program’s Purpose is to implement a safe, reliable, and convenient intercity passenger rail 

service in the Program Corridor with the capability to meet the future mobility needs of residents, 

businesses, and visitors and meet the following objectives: 

1. Provides travelers between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley with a public 

transportation service that offers more convenient, reliable, and competitive trip times; better 

station access; and more frequency than currently available public transportation services

2. Provides travelers between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley with an 

alternative to driving that offers reliable travel schedules

3. Provides travelers between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley with an 

affordable transportation service

4. Serves a range of trip purposes traveling between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella 

Valley, particularly including business and personal trips

5. Improves regional travel opportunities between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella 

Valley for individuals without private vehicles 

6. Serves the expected population growth in the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley 

7. Assists regional agencies in meeting air pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission 

reduction targets as mandated in state and federal regulations

The Program’s Need is to address the absence of effective transportation alternatives to personal 

automobile travel between coastal regions of Southern California (e.g., Los Angeles and Orange 

Counties) and cities in the Inland Empire (e.g., City of Riverside) and the Coachella Valley (e.g., 

Cities of Coachella, Indio, Palm Springs); the projected increase in travel demand in the Program 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-3

Corridor resulting from population and employment growth; and the increasing unreliability of 

existing transportation systems within the Program Corridor. 

ES.1.2 Program History and Prior Planning Activities 

This Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is preceded by several years of preliminary Program development 

activities. In 1991, RCTC completed the first in a series of studies evaluating the feasibility of 

operating one or two daily intercity passenger rail round trips between Los Angeles and Indio. From 

1991 to 2013, RCTC completed additional feasibility studies on the Program Corridor. In July 

2016, RCTC, in coordination with Caltrans and FRA, prepared and completed the 2016 Alternatives 

Analysis (AA) Report (summarized in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, of this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR) that evaluated a reasonable range of alternatives for implementation of daily intercity 

passenger rail service between Los Angeles and Indio. The purpose of the 2016 AA Report was to 

identify a reasonable range of preliminary alternative(s) that could be evaluated in a subsequent 

Service Development Plan (SDP) and Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 

ES.1.3 Program Overview

The Program Corridor, which connects the Los Angeles metropolitan area with the Coachella Valley 

through the San Gorgonio Pass, currently has no daily intercity passenger rail service that services 

the Coachella Valley. While the Program Corridor contains existing rail lines and rail infrastructure, 

these existing rail systems currently support freight rail and the occasional Amtrak rail service. The 

proposed implementation of intercity passenger rail service in the Program Corridor, including the 

planning and construction of rail infrastructure improvements required to establish the service, are 

collectively known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program.

The Program Corridor runs west-to-east, extending from a western terminus at LAUS to an eastern 

terminus in either the City of Indio or City of Coachella and consists of two sections: the Western 

Section and the Eastern Section. The boundary between the Western and Eastern Sections is in the 

City of Colton, at the intersection of existing railroad lines owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and 

BNSF. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the Program would consist of two daily round-trip 

intercity passenger trains operating the entire length of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles 

and the Cities of Indio or Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the Program Corridor. Both proposed eastern terminus options would require 

construction of a new station, as neither the City of Indio nor the City of Coachella has existing 

stations to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-4

ES.1.4 Alternatives Considered

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluates the No Build Alternative and three Build Alternative Options 

in the two geographic sections, as shown on Figure ES-1 through Figure ES-3. The Build Alternative 

Options have been developed to a level of detail appropriate for a Tier 1/Program service-level 

evaluation. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area represents the potential area where rail 

infrastructure improvements and station facilities could be implemented and constructed but does

not represent the precise location or footprint of the improvement or facility. If a Build Alternative 

Option is selected, the Tier 2/Project-level analysis will consider further refinements to the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area to optimize performance, reduce cost, and avoid or reduce impacts 

on properties and environmental resources. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-5

Figure ES-1. Western Section of the Program Corridor (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-6

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-7

Figure ES-2. Eastern Section of the Program Corridor (Build Alternative Option 1) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-8

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-9

Figure ES-3. Eastern Section of the Program Corridor (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-10

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-11

ES.1.4.1 No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would not fulfill the Program’s Purpose and Need but is carried forward as a 

baseline alternative against which the Build Alternative Options are compared. The No Build 

Alternative assumes no new passenger rail service is implemented in the Program Corridor except 

for existing and committed transportation improvements (Table 2-7 and Table 2-8 in 

Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR include a full list of programmed 

and planned capacity improvements projects). 

ES.1.4.2 Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Build Alternative Option 1 includes a total Program Corridor distance of 144 miles and consists of a 

Western Section, terminating at LAUS, and an Eastern Section, terminating in the City of Coachella, 

the details of which are as follows:

Western Section. Under Build Alternative Option 1, existing rail infrastructure would be used in the 

Western Section of the Program Corridor, and no additional railroad infrastructure improvements 

would be required. LAUS would serve as the western terminus, while existing stations in the Cities of 

Fullerton and Riverside would be utilized to support the proposed passenger rail service. No new 

stations or improvements to existing stations would be required to accommodate the proposed 

service within the Western Section of the Program Corridor. 

Eastern Section. Under Build Alternative Option 1, potential new infrastructure improvements on the 

Eastern Section of the Program Corridor could include sidings, additional main line track, wayside 

signals, drainage, grade-separation structures, and station facilities to accommodate the proposed 

passenger rail service. As part of the SDP and Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, rail operations 

simulation modeling is being conducted to identify potential infrastructure needs. Upon completion of 

the SDP and the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, the specific infrastructure improvements would be 

determined and refined through coordination and additional consultations with UP, RCTC, Caltrans, 

and FRA prior to Tier 2/Project-level analysis.1 Potential rail infrastructure improvements and station 

facilities could include:

• Up to five new stations;

1 The Tier 2/Project-level process does not automatically follow the Tier 1/Program process, rather a 

project would be defined based on the Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/ 

Environmental Impact Report (EIR) broad project scope and funded at that time. The Tier 2/Project-level 

process would be a separate environmental document and could be funded and led by an agency other 

than the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Riverside County Transportation Commission

(RCTC), depending upon the source of funding.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-12

• A third main line track to augment the existing two-track main line along the Eastern Section 

of the Program Corridor to Coachella; 

• Various crossovers connecting the existing main line tracks to the new third main line track; 

• A new second Mt. Vernon connector track in Colton;

• A new siding at Loma Linda to allow passenger trains to meet, reducing delay; 

• A new railroad bridge across the Santa Ana River; and

• Additional infrastructure components throughout the Program Corridor including, but not 

limited to, wayside signals, drainage structures, and grade-separation structures. 

Under Build Alternative Option 1, the proposed passenger rail services within the Eastern Section of 

the Program Corridor would use the existing station in the City of Palm Springs. Additionally, up to 

five new potential stations could be constructed in the following areas: 1) Loma Linda/Redlands Area 

(serving the Cities of Loma Linda and Redlands), 2) the Pass Area (serving the communities of 

Beaumont, Banning, and Cabazon), 3) the Mid-Valley Area (serving the communities of Cathedral 

City, Thousand Palms, the Agua Caliente Casino area, Rancho Mirage, and Palm Desert), 4) the 

City of Indio, and 5) the City of Coachella as the eastern terminus of the Program Corridor. 

As shown on Figure ES-2, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area for the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor identifies station catchment areas where future station facilities could be 

constructed in addition to other rail infrastructure improvements along the existing rail right-of-way 

(ROW). The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR service-level evaluation does not clear these potential future 

station facilities or rail infrastructure improvements for construction. Completion of Tier 

2/Project-level environmental review would be required prior to implementation of site-specific 

infrastructure improvements, including station locations. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-13

As part of Build Alternative Option 1, additional rail infrastructure improvements for the Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor have been considered. These potential infrastructure improvements 

include the addition of station tracks and a third main line track, as follows:

• Station tracks: The station tracks improvements would consist of construction of new 

controlled track sidings that augment operational flexibility by creating a location off of the 

existing main line tracks that would allow passenger trains to stop for the boarding and 

alighting of passengers at station platforms, thereby reducing rail traffic congestion on the 

main line tracks. Station tracks would be approximately 1 mile or less in length and located at 

or near proposed station locations. The station tracks could include, but not be limited to, the 

following components and/or construction requirements: 

o Components and/or construction requirements of the station tracks may include grading 

for the additional track, turnout construction pads, and signal berms. 

o Drainage improvements may include culvert extensions and new standalone bridge 

structures or modifications to existing bridges. 

o Other structural components of station tracks would include roadway overpass 

modifications or reconstruction, as well as pier protection for existing structures. 

o Retaining walls may be required at certain locations to contain the improvements within 

the UP ROW. 

o Existing at-grade crossings would require modification to allow for the placement of an 

additional crossing surface for the new tracks and relocation or replacement of automatic 

warning devices. 

o Track construction would consist of UP-standard track sections, with track centers of 

20 feet or more, using new continuously welded rail. Signal and communication 

infrastructure would be upgraded and augmented, as required.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-14

• Third main track: A third main line track would augment the existing two main tracks along 

the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor to Coachella. The third main line track would be 

constructed primarily within the existing UP ROW; however, possible slopes could extend

outside the existing UP ROW in certain locations. Many of the features described above for 

the station track scenario would also be constructed under this scenario, but the construction 

activities would not be restricted to railroad segments near the proposed stations. To 

facilitate operation, additional universal crossovers would be constructed, and existing 

crossover locations may be relocated due to topographic constraints. The third main line 

track scenario is consistent with the infrastructure improvements proposed through the rail 

operations modeling work to achieve 90 percent on-time performance of passenger rail 

service without adding delay to freight rail service in the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor.

ES.1.4.3 Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Build Alternative Option 2 includes a total Program Corridor distance of 140.25 miles and consists of 

a Western Section, terminating at LAUS, and an Eastern Section, terminating at the City of Indio, the 

details of which are as follows:

Western Section. The Western Section under Build Alternative Option 2 would be the same as that 

described above under Build Alternative Option 1.

Eastern Section. Build Alternative Option 2 would require potential new rail infrastructure 

improvements on the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor and could include sidings, additional 

main line track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation structures, and station facilities to 

accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Potential rail infrastructure improvements and 

station facilities under Build Alternative Option 2 could include:

• Up to four new stations;

• A third main line track to augment the existing two track main line along the Eastern Section 

of the Program Corridor to Indio; 

• Various crossovers connecting the existing main line tracks to the new third main line track;

• A new second Mt. Vernon connector track in Colton;

• A new siding at Loma Linda to allow passenger trains to meet, reducing delay; 

• A new railroad bridge across the Santa Ana River; and

• Additional infrastructure components throughout the Program Corridor including, but not 

limited to, wayside signals, drainage structures, and grade-separation structures. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-15

Under Build Alternative Option 2, passenger rail services within the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor would use the existing station in the City of Palm Springs. Additionally, up to four new 

potential stations could be constructed in the following areas: 1) Loma Linda/Redlands Area (serving 

the Cities of Loma Linda and Redlands), 2) the Pass Area (serving the communities of Beaumont, 

Banning, and Cabazon), 3) the Mid-Valley Area (serving the communities of Cathedral City, 

Thousand Palms, the Agua Caliente Casino area, Rancho Mirage, and Palm Desert), and 4) the City 

of Indio as the eastern terminus of the Program Corridor. 

As shown on Figure ES-3, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area for the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor identifies station catchment areas where future station facilities could be 

constructed in addition to other rail infrastructure improvements along the existing rail ROW. The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR service-level evaluation does not clear these potential future station facilities 

or rail infrastructure improvements for construction. Completion of Tier 2/Project-level environmental 

review would be required prior to implementation of site-specific infrastructure improvements, 

including station locations. 

As part of Build Alternative Option 2, additional infrastructure improvements for the Eastern Section 

of the Program Corridor have been considered. These potential infrastructure improvements include 

the addition of station tracks and a third main line track. The addition of station tracks would be the 

same as described under Build Alternative Option 1; however, the third track under Build Alternative 

Option 2 would augment the existing two main tracks along the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor to the proposed Indio Station Area.

ES.1.4.4 Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third 

Track)

Build Alternative Option 3 includes a total Program Corridor distance of 140.25 miles and consists of 

a Western Section, terminating at LAUS, and an Eastern Section, terminating at the City of Indio, the 

details of which are as follows:

Western Section. The Western Section under Build Alternative Option 3 would be the same as that 

described above under Build Alternative Options 1 and 2.

Eastern Section. The Eastern Section under Build Alternative Option 3 would be the same as that 

described above under Build Alternative Option 2, except for the following differences: 

As part of Build Alternative Option 3, additional infrastructure improvements for the Eastern Section 

of the Program Corridor have been considered. These potential infrastructure improvements include 

the addition of station tracks and a third main line track. The addition of station tracks would be the 

same as described under Build Alternative Options 1 and 2; however, the addition of the third main 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-16

track would be limited under Build Alternative Option 3 when compared with Build Alternative 

Options 1 and 2. The limited third track under Build Alternative Option 3 would augment the existing 

two main tracks along the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor to the proposed Mid-Valley 

Station Area.

ES.1.4.5 Recommended Preferred Alternative 

The No Build Alternative does not meet the Program Purpose and Need and would not shift highway 

trips within the Program Corridor, reduce congestion, increase access to employment and activity 

centers, or provide reliable travel times and a level of safety comparable to that offered by 

passenger rail travel. The No Build Alternative would not connect the suburban and rural areas 

between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley with a high-capacity travel option, facilitate continued 

development of a multimodal transportation network, or provide mobility choices for existing and 

future needs.

Considering the projected ridership, agency and public input, and potential environmental impacts 

associated with implementing passenger rail within the Program Corridor, Build Alternative Option 

1 is considered to be better performing than Build Alternative Option 2 or 3, with similar potential 

impacts on the environment. Based on the analysis contained in this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

service-level evaluation and as summarized in Chapter 7, Evaluation of Alternatives, Build 

Alternative Option 1 is identified as the recommended preferred alternative for purposes of NEPA 

and CEQA. 

ES.1.5 Summary of Effects 

This section summarizes the potential effects of implementation of the Build Alternative Options

based on the analysis of the social, economic, and environmental resources documented in Chapter 

3, Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation. The No Build Alternative is carried 

forward as a baseline against which the Build Alternative Options are compared. The potential 

effects, and differences in effects among Build Alternative Options, are described in each resource 

section and summarized in Table ES-1, respectively. Station locations have not yet been selected, 

but general considerations regarding station effects are discussed.

The potential for effects and comparison of effects among Build Alternative Options are based on an 

initial survey of resources within Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area for each Build Alternative 

Option. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-17

Table ES-1.Summary of Resource Effects by Build Alternative Option

Environmental Topic No Build Alternative Build Alternative Option 1 Build Alternative Option 2 Build Alternative Option 3

Land Use and Planning Land Use Compatibility

Under the No Build Alternative, passenger rail 

service between Coachella and Los Angeles 

would not be established, and land would not 

be allocated for rail infrastructure or station 

facilities. Although this may prevent potential 

displacements of existing and planned land 

uses, it would increase the likelihood for 

displacing land uses adjacent to existing 

highways, such as I-10, SR 60, and SR 111, 

which would likely need to be widened to 

accommodate the projected demands for 

capacity as population in the region 

increases. In addition, the No Build 

Alternative would be inconsistent with federal, 

state, and regional plans and policies that 

promote expansion of existing transportation 

options, as well as multimodal connectivity 

throughout the region.

Agricultural Resources

No effects on agricultural resources are 

anticipated under the No Build Alternative. 

Land Use Compatibility

Construction: Negligible effects within Western Section as 

no construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects could occur within the Eastern Section due to 

temporary construction effects and permanent ROW 

acquisitions beyond the extent of the existing railroad 

ROW.

Operation: Negligible effects within Western Section as no 

additional stations or rail infrastructure are required or land 

use changes anticipated. Potentially moderate effects 

could occur within the Eastern Section due to the land use 

changes associated with the addition of new stations and 

track infrastructure. 

Agricultural Resources

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial effects could 

occur within the Eastern Section associated with 

conversion of designated agricultural land to 

non-agricultural use.

• Prime farmland: 560.40 acres

• Unique farmland: 96.70 acres

• Farmland of statewide importance: 22.60 acres

• Farmland of local importance: 2,623.90 acres

• Grazing land: 1,923.20 acres

• Agricultural preserve: 760.82 acres

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section and 

Eastern Section once construction activities are completed. 

Land Use Compatibility

Construction: Negligible effects within Western Section as 

no construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects could occur within the Eastern Section due to 

temporary construction effects and permanent ROW 

acquisitions beyond the extent of the existing railroad 

ROW. 

Operation: Negligible effects within Western Section as no 

additional stations or rail infrastructure are required or land 

use changes anticipated. Potentially moderate effects 

could occur within the Eastern Section due to the land use 

changes associated with the addition of new stations and 

track infrastructure. 

Agricultural Resources

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial effects could 

occur within the Eastern Section associated with 

conversion of designated agricultural land to 

non-agricultural use. 

• Prime farmland: 362.50 acres

• Unique farmland: 96.70 acres

• Farmland of statewide importance: 22.60 acres

• Farmland of local importance: 2,549.90 acres

• Grazing land: 1,923.20 acres

• Agricultural preserve: 760.82 acres

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section and 

Eastern Section once construction activities are completed.

Land Use Compatibility

Construction: Negligible effects within Western Section as 

no construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects could occur within the Eastern Section due to 

temporary construction effects and permanent ROW 

acquisitions beyond the extent of the existing railroad 

ROW. 

Operation: Negligible effects within Western Section as no 

additional stations or rail infrastructure are required or land 

use changes anticipated. Potentially moderate effects 

could occur within the Eastern Section due to the land use 

changes associated with the addition of new stations and 

track infrastructure. 

Agricultural Resources

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial effects could 

occur within the Eastern Section associated with 

conversion of designated agricultural land to 

non-agricultural use. 

• Prime farmland: 362.50 acres

• Unique farmland: 96.70 acres

• Farmland of statewide importance: 22.60 acres

• Farmland of local importance: 2,549.90 acres

• Grazing land: 1,923.20 acres

• Agricultural preserve: 760.82 acres

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section and 

Eastern Section once construction activities are completed.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-18

Environmental Topic No Build Alternative Build Alternative Option 1 Build Alternative Option 2 Build Alternative Option 3

Transportation Under the No Build Alternative, longer travel 

times and increased VMT would be 

anticipated as regional growth within the 

Program Corridor continues and roadway 

congestion increases. Therefore, the No Build 

Alternative could result in air quality effects 

and potential additional noise effects on the 

surrounding land uses, which could affect 

sensitive receptors adjacent to existing 

transportation corridors.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Moderate to substantial 

effects in Eastern Section associated with rail operations, 

railroad/roadway crossings, and traffic due to potential 

temporary closure of lanes, sidewalks, bicycle lanes and 

routes, driveways, streets, and freeway lanes.

Operation: Build Alternative Option 1 is anticipated to shift 

auto trips to intercity rail passenger trips, thereby reducing 

vehicle trips and VMT on the regional highways.

Annual Auto Trips and VMT Reduction by Horizon Year:

Opening Year (2024) auto trip reduction: 107,344 trips

Opening Year (2024) VMT reduction: 10,498,246 miles

Future Year (2044) auto trip reduction: 178,045 trips

Future Year (2044) VMT reduction: 17,412,809 miles

Ridership: Expected to increase by 66 percent from 

204,107 one-way trips in Opening Year (2024) to 338,540 

one-way trips in Future Year (2044).

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Moderate to substantial 

effects in Eastern Section associated with rail operations, 

railroad/roadway crossings, and traffic due to potential 

temporary closure of lanes, sidewalks, bicycle lanes and 

routes, driveways, streets, and freeway lanes.

Operation: Build Alternative Option 2 is anticipated to shift 

auto trips to intercity rail passenger trips, thereby reducing 

vehicle trips and VMT on the regional highways.

Annual Auto Trips and VMT Reduction by Horizon Year:

Opening Year (2024) auto trip reduction: 99,026 trips

Opening Year (2024) VMT reduction: 9,682,718 miles

Future Year (2044) auto trip reduction: 164,248 trips

Future Year (2044) VMT reduction: 16,060,152 miles

Ridership: Expected to increase by 66 percent from 

188,290 one-way trips in Opening Year (2024) to 312,306 

one-way trips in Future Year (2044).

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Moderate to substantial 

effects in Eastern Section associated with rail operations, 

railroad/roadway crossings, and traffic due to potential 

temporary closure of lanes, sidewalks, bicycle lanes and 

routes, driveways, streets, and freeway lanes.

Operation: Build Alternative Option 3 is anticipated to shift 

auto trips to intercity rail passenger trips, thereby reducing 

vehicle trips and VMT on the regional highways.

Annual Auto Trips and VMT Reduction by Horizon Year:

Opening Year (2024) auto trip reduction: 99,026 trips

Opening Year (2024) VMT reduction: 9,682,718 miles

Future Year (2044) auto trip reduction: 164,248 trips

Future Year (2044) VMT reduction: 16,060,152 miles

Ridership: Expected to increase by 66 percent from 

188,290 one-way trips in Opening Year (2024) to 312,306 

one-way trips in Future Year (2044).
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-19

Environmental Topic No Build Alternative Build Alternative Option 1 Build Alternative Option 2 Build Alternative Option 3

Visual Quality and Aesthetics Because no physical changes would occur, 

no effects on views of visual resources, visual 

character or quality, or light and glare 

conditions are anticipated under the No Build 

Alternative.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Negligible effects on visual 

quality and aesthetics within the Eastern Section as 

construction activities would not permanently obstruct 

views of the landscape, change the visual character, result 

in degradation of visual quality, or add significant new 

sources of light or glare.

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section as trains 

would operate within existing ROW and the addition of two 

daily roundtrips would not result in notable changes to 

visual quality and aesthetics. Potentially moderate effects 

could occur in the Eastern Section if the improvements 

would remove structures, remove landscaping, or 

introduce visual elements that are out of scale or otherwise 

visually incompatible with the existing visual character, 

and/or add increased light levels or spillover lighting into 

adjacent areas. 

Visual Resources:

Park/trail: 27

Designated scenic highway: 0

NRHP site: 7

NRHP district: 1

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Negligible effects on visual 

quality and aesthetics within the Eastern Section as 

construction activities would not permanently obstruct 

views of the landscape, change the visual character, result 

in degradation of visual quality, or add significant new 

sources of light or glare. 

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section as trains 

would operate within existing ROW and the addition of two 

daily roundtrips would not result in notable changes to 

visual quality and aesthetics. Potentially moderate effects 

could occur in the Eastern Section if the improvements 

would remove structures, remove landscaping, or 

introduce visual elements that are out of scale or otherwise 

visually incompatible with the existing visual character, 

and/or add increased light levels or spillover lighting into 

adjacent areas. 

Visual Resources:

Park/trail: 25

Designated scenic highway: 0

NRHP site: 7

NRHP district: 1

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Negligible effects on visual 

quality and aesthetics within the Eastern Section as 

construction activities would not permanently obstruct 

views of the landscape, change the visual character, result 

in degradation of visual quality, or add significant new 

sources of light or glare. 

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section as trains 

would operate within existing ROW and the addition of two 

daily roundtrips would not result in notable changes to 

visual quality and aesthetics. Potentially moderate effects 

could occur in the Eastern Section if the improvements 

would remove structures, remove landscaping, or 

introduce visual elements that are out of scale or otherwise 

visually incompatible with the existing visual character, 

and/or add increased light levels or spillover lighting into 

adjacent areas. 

Visual Resources:

Park/trail: 25

Designated scenic highway: 0

NRHP site: 7

NRHP district: 1
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-20

Environmental Topic No Build Alternative Build Alternative Option 1 Build Alternative Option 2 Build Alternative Option 3

Air Quality and Greenhouse 

Gases

Projected future growth in the Program 

Corridor would result in a corresponding 

increase in traffic and VMT as more cars 

would be on the roadways. Therefore, traffic 

congestion is likely to worsen with the No 

Build Alternative, resulting in air quality 

effects. Similarly, with the continued trend in 

increases of VMT within the Program 

Corridor, fossil fuel consumption and 

associated GHG emissions would likely 

increase under the No Build Alternative. 

Similarly, while no Program-related 

construction or increase in service would 

occur, freight and intercity rails trips from 

other planned and future projects would result 

in air quality effects within the Program 

Corridor under the No Build Alternative.

Construction: Negligible air quality and GHG effects in the 

Western Section as no construction activities are 

proposed. Substantial air quality effects in the Eastern 

Section could occur due to construction air quality 

emissions exceeding localized air quality standards. 

Operation: Localized air quality effects could be 

substantial; however, operation of the Program would 

generally result in long-term net benefits to air quality 

through reduction of criteria pollutants through a decrease 

in regional VMT. Substantial GHG benefits are anticipated 

as operation would reduce regional vehicle trips and VMT, 

resulting in a reduction of GHG emissions. 

Construction: Negligible air quality and GHG effects in the 

Western Section as no construction activities are 

proposed. Substantial air quality effects in the Eastern 

Section could occur due to construction air quality 

emissions exceeding localized air quality standards. 

Operation: Localized air quality effects could be 

substantial; however, operation of the Program would 

generally result in long-term net benefits to air quality 

through reduction of criteria pollutants through a decrease 

in regional VMT. Substantial GHG benefits are anticipated 

as operation would reduce regional vehicle trips and VMT, 

resulting in a reduction of GHG emissions. 

Construction: Negligible air quality and GHG effects in the 

Western Section as no construction activities are 

proposed. Substantial air quality effects in the Eastern 

Section could occur due to construction air quality 

emissions exceeding localized air quality standards. 

Operation: Localized air quality effects could be 

substantial; however, operation of the Program would 

generally result in long-term net benefits to air quality 

through reduction of criteria pollutants through a decrease 

in regional VMT. Substantial GHG benefits are anticipated 

as operation would reduce regional vehicle trips and VMT, 

resulting in a reduction of GHG emissions. 

Noise and Vibration No Program-related construction or increase 

in service would occur; however, freight and 

intercity train trips would increase in 

frequency due to regional growth and 

demand from other projects. Under the No 

Build Alternative, ambient noise and vibration 

levels from existing train operations and local 

traffic would continue. While no 

Program-related construction or increase in 

service would occur, rail noise is anticipated 

to increase within the Program Corridor.

Construction: Negligible noise and vibration effects in the 

Western Section as no construction activities are 

proposed. Substantial noise effects and moderate vibration 

effects in the Eastern Section due to construction noise 

and vibration levels exceeding FTA or local standards at 

sensitive receptors. 

Operation: Negligible noise and vibration effects 

associated with continued operation of trains and stations 

within Western Section. Moderate noise effects within the 

Eastern Section due to addition of new station locations 

and new rail infrastructure, which could have an effect on 

adjacent noise sensitive uses. Negligible vibration effects 

within the Eastern Section. 

Construction: Negligible noise and vibration effects in the 

Western Section as no construction activities are 

proposed. Substantial noise effects and moderate vibration 

effects in the Eastern Section due to construction noise 

and vibration levels exceeding FTA or local standards at 

sensitive receptors. 

Operation: Negligible noise and vibration effects 

associated with continued operation of trains and stations 

within Western Section. Moderate noise effects within the 

Eastern Section due to addition of new station locations 

and new rail infrastructure, which could have an effect on 

adjacent noise sensitive uses. Negligible vibration effects 

within the Eastern Section. 

Construction: Negligible noise and vibration effects in the 

Western Section as no construction activities are 

proposed. Substantial noise effects and moderate vibration 

effects in the Eastern Section due to construction noise 

and vibration levels exceeding FTA or local standards at 

sensitive receptors. 

Operation: Negligible noise and vibration effects 

associated with continued operation of trains and stations 

within Western Section. Moderate noise effects within the 

Eastern Section due to addition of new station locations 

and new rail infrastructure, which could have an effect on 

adjacent noise sensitive uses. Negligible vibration effects 

within the Eastern Section. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-21

Environmental Topic No Build Alternative Build Alternative Option 1 Build Alternative Option 2 Build Alternative Option 3

Jurisdictional Waters and 

Wetland Resources

No effects on jurisdictional waters and 

wetland resources are anticipated under the 

No Build Alternative.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to temporary 

construction activities in proximity to jurisdictional waters 

and wetlands.

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section 

associated with continued operation of trains and stations 

within existing ROW. Potentially moderate effects in the 

Eastern Section associated with maintenance of culverts, 

bridges, embankments, and station areas.

Waterbodies: 38 waterbodies

Wetlands: 355 wetlands (731 acres)

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to temporary 

construction activities in proximity to jurisdictional waters 

and wetlands. 

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section 

associated with continued operation of trains and stations 

within existing ROW. Potentially moderate effects in the 

Eastern Section associated with maintenance of culverts, 

bridges, embankments, and station areas. 

Waterbodies: 38 waterbodies

Wetlands: 353 wetlands (729.78 acres)

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to temporary 

construction activities in proximity to jurisdictional waters 

and wetlands. 

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section

associated with continued operation of trains and stations 

within existing ROW. Potentially moderate effects in the 

Eastern Section associated with maintenance of culverts, 

bridges, embankments, and station areas. 

Waterbodies: 38 waterbodies

Wetlands: 353 wetlands (729.78 acres)

Biological Resources No effects on biological resources are 

anticipated under the No Build Alternative.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial construction 

effects within the Eastern Section due to the numerous 

biological resources within the Program’s potential 

construction footprint.

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section 

associated with continued operation of trains and stations 

within existing ROW. Potentially moderate effects in the 

Eastern Section associated with maintenance activities 

(e.g., application of pesticides and herbicides, addition of 

light sources that could disrupt wildlife habitat/movement 

and increased human activity).

Sensitive Vegetation Communities: 5 sensitive 

communities with potential to occur

Special-Status Plant Species: 22 species with potential to 

occur

Special-Status Wildlife Species: 66 species with potential 

to occur

Wildlife Movement Corridors: 1 (San Bernardino-San 

Jacinto Connection)

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial construction 

effects within the Eastern Section due to the numerous 

biological resources within the Program’s potential 

construction footprint. 

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section 

associated with continued operation of trains and stations 

within existing ROW. Potentially moderate effects in the 

Eastern Section associated with maintenance activities 

(e.g., application of pesticides and herbicides, addition of 

light sources that could disrupt wildlife habitat/movement 

and increased human activity). 

Sensitive Natural Communities: 5 sensitive communities 

with potential to occur

Special-Status Plant Species: 22 species with potential to 

occur

Special-Status Wildlife Species: 66 species with potential 

to occur

Wildlife Movement Corridors: 1 (San Bernardino-San 

Jacinto Connection)

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial construction 

effects within the Eastern Section due to the numerous 

biological resources within the Program’s potential 

construction footprint. 

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section 

associated with continued operation of trains and stations 

within existing ROW. Potentially moderate effects in the 

Eastern Section associated with maintenance activities 

(e.g., application of pesticides and herbicides, addition of 

light sources that could disrupt wildlife habitat/movement 

and increased human activity). 

Sensitive Natural Communities: 5 sensitive communities 

with potential to occur

Special-Status Plant Species: 22 species with potential to 

occur

Special-Status Wildlife Species: 66 species with potential 

to occur

Wildlife Movement Corridors: 1 (San Bernardino-San 

Jacinto Connection)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-22

Environmental Topic No Build Alternative Build Alternative Option 1 Build Alternative Option 2 Build Alternative Option 3

Floodplains, Hydrology, and 

Water Quality

No effects on floodplains, hydrology, or water 

quality are anticipated under the No Build 

Alternative.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects within the Eastern Section on floodplains, 

hydrology, and water quality would occur as a result of 

construction activities in proximity to these water 

resources.

Operation: Negligible effects in both the Western and 

Eastern Sections due to compliance with legislation 

governing impacts on water resources.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects within the Eastern Section on floodplains, 

hydrology, and water quality would occur as a result of 

construction activities in proximity to these water 

resources. 

Operation: Negligible effects in both the Western and 

Eastern Sections due to compliance with legislation 

governing impacts on water resources.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects within the Eastern Section on floodplains, 

hydrology, and water quality would occur as a result of 

construction activities in proximity to these water 

resources. 

Operation: Negligible effects in both the Western and 

Eastern Sections due to compliance with legislation 

governing impacts on water resources.

Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and 

Paleontological Resources

Because no physical changes associated with 

the Program would occur, no effects on 

geology, soils, seismicity, and paleontological 

and mineral resources are anticipated under 

the No Build Alternative. However, due to the 

seismic nature of Southern California, 

geologic hazards such as seismically induced 

fault rupture, ground shaking, landslides, and 

liquefaction may still occur under the No Build 

Alternative.

Seismic and Geologic Hazards

Construction. Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to construction in areas 

within seismic zones and areas geologically ill-suited (e.g., 

prone to landslides, underlain by expansive soils, etc.,) to 

railroad infrastructure.

Operation. Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

additional infrastructure proposed. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to the proposed route 

alternative traversing a seismically active region.

Paleontological Resources

Construction. Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial effects in the 

Eastern Section due to excavation within paleontologically 

sensitive areas.

Operation. Negligible effects as operation in the Western 

and Eastern Sections would not involve sub-surface 

excavations.

Mineral Resources

Construction. Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial effects in the 

Eastern Section as land designated for mineral resource 

extraction could be converted to transportation use.

Operation. Negligible effects in the Western and Eastern 

Sections as operation would not involve sub-surface 

excavations.

Seismic and Geologic Hazards

Construction. Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to construction in areas 

within seismic zones and areas geologically ill-suited (e.g., 

prone to landslides, underlain by expansive soils, etc.,) to 

railroad infrastructure. 

Operation. Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

additional infrastructure proposed. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to the proposed route 

alternative traversing a seismically active region. 

Paleontological Resources

Construction. Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial effects in the 

Eastern Section due to excavation within paleontologically 

sensitive areas. 

Operation. Negligible effects as operation in the Western 

and Eastern Sections would not involve sub-surface 

excavations.

Mineral Resources

Construction. Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial effects in the 

Eastern Section as land designated for mineral resource 

extraction could be converted to transportation use. 

Operation. Negligible effects in the Western and Eastern 

Sections as operation would not involve sub-surface 

excavations.

Seismic and Geologic Hazards

Construction. Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to construction in areas 

within seismic zones and areas geologically ill-suited (e.g., 

prone to landslides, underlain by expansive soils, etc.,) to 

railroad infrastructure. 

Operation. Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

additional infrastructure proposed. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to the proposed route 

alternative traversing a seismically active region.

Paleontological Resources

Construction. Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial effects in the 

Eastern Section due to excavation within paleontologically 

sensitive areas. 

Operation. Negligible effects as operation in the Western 

and Eastern Sections would not involve sub-surface 

excavations.

Mineral Resources

Construction. Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial effects in the 

Eastern Section as land designated for mineral resource 

extraction could be converted to transportation use. 

Operation. Negligible effects in the Western and Eastern 

Sections as operation would not involve sub-surface 

excavations.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-23

Environmental Topic No Build Alternative Build Alternative Option 1 Build Alternative Option 2 Build Alternative Option 3

Hazards and Hazardous 

Materials

Because no physical changes would occur, 

no effects on hazards or hazardous materials 

are anticipated under the No Build 

Alternative.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to construction in areas 

located in proximity to hazardous materials sites, fire 

hazard severity zones, and airport influence areas.

Operation: Negligible effects in both the Western and 

Eastern Sections as any operational use/transport of 

hazardous materials would be in compliance with state and 

federal law.

Number of Hazardous Materials Regulatory Database 

Listings: 2,282

Fire Hazard Severity Zones: 4,048.7 acres

Airports/Airport Influence Areas: 8 

Schools within 0.25 mile: 26

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to construction in areas 

located in proximity to hazardous materials sites, fire 

hazard severity zones, and airport influence areas. 

Operation: Negligible effects in both the Western and 

Eastern Sections as any operational use/transport of 

hazardous materials would be in compliance with state and 

federal law.

Number of Hazardous Materials Regulatory Database 

Listings: 2,203

Fire Hazard Severity Zones: 4,048.7 acres

Airports/Airport Influence Areas: 7 

Schools within 0.25 mile: 23

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to construction in areas 

located in proximity to hazardous materials sites, fire 

hazard severity zones, and airport influence areas. 

Operation: Negligible effects in both the Western and 

Eastern Sections as any operational use/transport of 

hazardous materials would be in compliance with state and 

federal law.

Number of Hazardous Materials Regulatory Database 

Listings: 2,203

Fire Hazard Severity Zones: 4,048.7 acres

Airports/Airport Influence Areas: 7 

Schools within 0.25 mile: 23

Public Utilities and Energy Because no physical changes would occur, 

no effects on public utilities or solid waste 

facilities are anticipated under the No Build 

Alternative.

However, projected future growth in the 

Program Corridor would result in a 

corresponding increase in traffic and VMT as 

more cars would be on the roadways. 

Therefore, traffic congestion is likely to 

worsen with the No Build Alternative, resulting 

in air quality effects. Similarly, with the 

continued trend in increases of VMT within 

the Program Corridor, energy consumption 

would likely increase under the No Build 

Alternative.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to conflicts with existing 

utility infrastructure during construction. Potentially 

moderate effects pertaining to water and energy use during 

construction in the Eastern Section as construction of the 

Program would require consumption of available 

resources; however, existing supplies would be sufficient.

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section as 

existing tracks would be utilized and maintenance 

conducted within the existing ROW. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to increased demand for 

water, energy, wastewater treatment, and solid waste 

disposal. 

Electric transmission lines: 180

Natural gas pipelines: 6 

Oil/petroleum product pipelines: 7

Canals/aqueducts: 1 

Landfills in proximity: 27

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to conflicts with existing 

utility infrastructure during construction. Potentially 

moderate effects pertaining to water and energy use during 

construction in the Eastern Section as construction of the 

Program would require consumption of available 

resources; however, existing supplies would be sufficient. 

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section as 

existing tracks would be utilized and maintenance 

conducted within the existing ROW. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to increased demand for 

water, energy, wastewater treatment, and solid waste 

disposal. 

Electric transmission lines: 174

Natural gas pipelines: 6 

Oil/petroleum product pipelines: 7

Canals/aqueducts: 1 

Landfills in proximity: 27

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to conflicts with existing 

utility infrastructure during construction. Potentially 

moderate effects pertaining to water and energy use during 

construction in the Eastern Section as construction of the 

Program would require consumption of available 

resources; however, existing supplies would be sufficient. 

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section as 

existing tracks would be utilized and maintenance 

conducted within the existing ROW. Potentially moderate

effects in the Eastern Section due to increased demand for 

water, energy, wastewater treatment, and solid waste 

disposal. 

Electric transmission lines: 174

Natural gas pipelines: 6 

Oil/petroleum product pipelines: 7

Canals/aqueducts: 1 

Landfills in proximity: 27
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-24

Environmental Topic No Build Alternative Build Alternative Option 1 Build Alternative Option 2 Build Alternative Option 3

Cultural Resources Because no physical changes would occur, 

no effects on cultural resources are 

anticipated under the No Build Alternative. 

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial effects in the 

Eastern Section as construction activities could result in 

damage and disturbance of cultural resources, including 

previously unknown buried cultural resources and/or 

human remains.

Operation: Negligible effects in both the Western and 

Eastern Sections as operational activities would be 

predominantly located in the railroad ROW with low 

probability of damaging cultural resources and/or human 

remains.

Number of Known Cultural Resources: 384 

(117 archaeological sites and 267 built environment 

resources). Of these 384 known cultural resources, 1 

resource is a listed NRHP property, 41 resources are 

potentially eligible for NRHP or CRHR listing, and 188 

resources have not been evaluated for NRHP or CRHR 

eligibility.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial effects in the 

Eastern Section as construction activities could result in 

damage and disturbance of cultural resources, including 

previously unknown buried cultural resources and/or 

human remains. 

Operation: Negligible effects in both the Western and 

Eastern Sections as operational activities would be 

predominantly located in the railroad ROW with low 

probability of damaging cultural resources and/or human 

remains.

Number of Known Cultural Resources: 361 

(112 archaeological sites and 249 built environment 

resources). Of these 361 known cultural resources, 1 

resource is a listed NRHP property, 36 resources are 

potentially eligible for NRHP or CRHR listing, and 171 

resources have not been evaluated for NRHP or CRHR 

eligibility.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial effects in the 

Eastern Section as construction activities could result in 

damage and disturbance of cultural resources, including 

previously unknown buried cultural resources and/or 

human remains. 

Operation: Negligible effects in both the Western and 

Eastern Sections as operational activities would be 

predominantly located in the railroad ROW with low 

probability of damaging cultural resources and/or human 

remains.

Number of Known Cultural Resources: 361 

(112 archaeological sites and 249 built environment 

resources). Of these 361 known cultural resources, 1 

resource is a listed NRHP property, 36 resources are 

potentially eligible for NRHP or CRHR listing, and 171 

resources have not been evaluated for NRHP or CRHR 

eligibility.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-25

Environmental Topic No Build Alternative Build Alternative Option 1 Build Alternative Option 2 Build Alternative Option 3

Parklands and Community 

Services 

Because no physical changes would occur, 

no effects on parklands or community 

services are anticipated under the No Build 

Alternative. 

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Moderate effects in 

Eastern Section could result on existing parklands and 

community facilities if the resources are near where an 

infrastructure improvement or station is being constructed 

and/or if parklands would be acquired and demolished to 

construct the proposed improvements.

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section as

operation would occur within an existing railroad ROW. 

Potentially moderate effects in the Eastern Section as new 

station areas could encourage transit-oriented 

development and associated increases in population and, 

in turn, increases in the use of existing parks and 

community facilities; however, operation of the new 

railroad infrastructure and stations would not be anticipated 

to require new or physically altered parklands and 

community facilities.

Park/trail: 27

Place of worship: 90

Educational facility: 27

Healthcare facility: 8 

Fire protection facility: 9 

Law enforcement facility: 6

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Moderate effects in 

Eastern Section could result on existing parklands and 

community facilities if the resources are near where an 

infrastructure improvement or station is being constructed 

and/or if parklands would be acquired and demolished to 

construct the proposed improvements. 

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section as

operation would occur within an existing railroad ROW.

Potentially moderate effects in the Eastern Section as new 

station areas could encourage transit-oriented 

development and associated increases in population and, 

in turn, increases in the use of existing parks and 

community facilities; however, operation of the new 

railroad infrastructure and stations would not be anticipated 

to require new or physically altered parklands and 

community facilities.

Park/trail: 25

Place of worship: 85

Educational facility: 23

Healthcare facility: 6

Fire protection facility: 9 

Law enforcement facility: 6

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Moderate effects in 

Eastern Section could result on existing parklands and 

community facilities if the resources are near where an 

infrastructure improvement or station is being constructed 

and/or if parklands would be acquired and demolished to 

construct the proposed improvements. 

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section as

operation would occur within an existing railroad ROW.

Potentially moderate effects in the Eastern Section as new 

station areas could encourage transit-oriented 

development and associated increases in population and, 

in turn, increases in the use of existing parks and 

community facilities; however, operation of the new 

railroad infrastructure and stations would not be anticipated 

to require new or physically altered parklands and 

community facilities.

Park/trail: 25

Place of worship: 85

Educational facility: 23

Healthcare facility: 6

Fire protection facility: 9 

Law enforcement facility: 6
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-26

Environmental Topic No Build Alternative Build Alternative Option 1 Build Alternative Option 2 Build Alternative Option 3

Safety and Security Because no physical changes would occur, 

no effects on safety and security are 

anticipated under the No Build Alternative. 

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate in the 

Eastern Section effects associated with construction as

temporary closure of lanes, sidewalks, bicycle lanes and 

routes, driveways, streets, and freeway lanes could result 

in safety hazards during construction.

Operation: Negligible effects in the Western Section as the 

addition of two daily round trips would not change the 

existing safety and security protocols for passengers, 

transit employees, and the public in or near the existing 

passenger rail system or station facilities. Potentially 

moderate effects in the Eastern Section due to 

implementation of new infrastructure requiring new rail 

safety equipment and protocols.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section associated with construction 

as temporary closure of lanes, sidewalks, bicycle lanes 

and routes, driveways, streets, and freeway lanes could 

result in safety hazards during construction. 

Operation: Negligible effects in the Western Section as the 

addition of two daily round trips would not change the 

existing safety and security protocols for passengers, 

transit employees, and the public in or near the existing 

passenger rail system or station facilities. Potentially 

moderate effects in the Eastern Section due to 

implementation of new infrastructure requiring new rail 

safety equipment and protocols.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section associated with construction 

as temporary closure of lanes, sidewalks, bicycle lanes 

and routes, driveways, streets, and freeway lanes could 

result in safety hazards during construction. 

Operation: Negligible effects in the Western Section as the 

addition of two daily round trips would not change the 

existing safety and security protocols for passengers, 

transit employees, and the public in or near the existing 

passenger rail system or station facilities. Potentially 

moderate effects in the Eastern Section due to 

implementation of new infrastructure requiring new rail 

safety equipment and protocols.

Notes:

CRHR=California Register of Historical Resources; FTA=Federal Transit Administration; GHG=greenhouse gas; I=Interstate; NRHP=National Register of Historic Places; ROW=right-of-way; SR=State Route; VMT=vehicle miles traveled
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-27

ES.1.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies

The avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies described in this Tier 1/Program-level 

EIS/EIR are not intended to be exhaustive for site-specific impacts. Each resource analysis in 

Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation, includes a list of avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation strategies that would be considered and further developed at the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis. Strategies include conceptual avoidance and minimization measures for the 

next phase of design, suggestions for programmatic agreements, and descriptions of options for 

replacing or reestablishing the affected resources.

ES.1.7 Public Review of Tier 1/Program Draft EIS/EIR 

This Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is being made available to the public for review and comment and 

distributed to agencies and stakeholders with jurisdiction, expertise, or interest in the issues involved 

in the Tier 1/Program Draft EIS/EIR document. 

ES.1.7.1 Document Availability 

In accordance with Governor Newsom’s Executive Order (EO) N-54-20 in effect during the 

COVID-19 public health emergency, the requirement to provide general public access to physical 

copies of CEQA notices and public review documents has been suspended until further notice. 

Instead, access to electronic versions of the CEQA notices and documents is required. The Draft 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR with technical appendices is available for review online on RCTC’s website 

(https://www.rctc.org/projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-corridor-service-projec

t/) and FRA’s website

(https://railroads.dot.gov/environment/environmental-reviews/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-cor

ridor-investment-plan). 

Requests for hard copies of the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR with technical appendices may be 

sent to: 

Riverside County Transportation Commission

Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager

P.O. Box 12008

Riverside, California 92502-2208

or via email to cvrail@rctc.org
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-28

Hard copies of the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Executive Summary and CD copies of the entire 

Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR with accompanying technical appendices will also be available for 

public view at the following locations (subject to library location hours and COVID-19 procedures):

Los Angeles Union Station/Metro 

Library and Archive

One Gateway Plaza

15th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90012 

(Hard copy of the Draft EIS/EIR 

and appendices available in 

English and hard copy of Executive 

Summary available in English and 

Spanish)

Fullerton Public Library

353 W Commonwealth Avenue

Fullerton, California 92832

(Hard copy of Executive Summary 

available in English and Spanish)

Arlington Library

9556 Magnolia Avenue

Riverside, California 92503

(Hard copy of Executive Summary 

available in English and Spanish)

Riverside County Transportation 

Commission

4080 Lemon Street

Riverside, California 92501 

(Hard copy of the Draft EIS/EIR 

and appendices available in 

English and hard copy of Executive 

Summary available in English and 

Spanish)

Colton Public Library

656 N 9th Street

Colton, California 92324

(Hard copy of Executive Summary 

available in English and Spanish)

Loma Linda Branch Library

25581 Barton Road

Loma Linda, California 92354

(Hard copy of Executive Summary 

available in English and Spanish)

A.K. Smiley Public Library

125 W. Vine Street

Redlands, California 92373

(Hard copy of Executive Summary 

available in English and Spanish)

Beaumont Library

125 E. Eighth Street

Beaumont, California 92223

(Hard copy of Executive Summary 

available in English and Spanish)

Banning Public Library

21 W. Nicolet Street

Banning, California 92220

(Hard copy of Executive Summary 

available in English and Spanish)

Palm Springs Public Library 

300 S. Sunrise Way

Palm Springs, California 92262

(Hard copy of Executive Summary 

available in English and Spanish)

Riverside County 

Indio Branch Library

200 Civic Center Mall

Indio, California 92201

(Hard copy of Executive Summary 

available in English and Spanish)

Riverside County 

Coachella Branch Library

1500 6th Street

Coachella, California 92236

(Hard copy of Executive Summary 

available in English and Spanish)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-29

ES.1.7.2 Providing Comments on the Tier 1/Program Draft EIS/EIR

Public agencies and the public are invited to comment on the scope and content of the 

environmental information included in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC 

will make the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR available for at least 45 days to allow for public 

review and comment. The comment period for the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR extends from 

May 21, 2021 to July 6, 2021.

Provide your written comments, including specific statutory responsibilities of your agency, as 

applicable. Written comments on the content of the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR should be 

submitted no later than July 6, 2021. The document can be viewed at the websites noted above and 

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FRA-2021-0048. Comments can be shared directly with FRA by 

visiting the regulations.gov link (above) or by searching regulations.gov for Docket Number 

(FRA-2021-0048). All electronic comments should be submitted via regulations.gov. 

Written comments should be sent via United States (U.S.) mail to:

Federal Railroad Administration

Amanda Ciampolillo, Environmental Protection Specialist

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20590

Comments should include “Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service 

Program – Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Comments” in the subject line and the name of a contact 

person in your organization, if applicable.

ES.1.7.3 Public Hearings 

The purpose of the public hearings is to explain the Program and the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation. FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC have scheduled two public hearings as an important 

component of the NEPA and CEQA process. The virtual public hearings for the Program are 

scheduled as follows: 

June 22, 2021, 06:00 p.m. 

June 26, 2021, 09:00 a.m. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

Executive Summary

May 2021 | ES-30

Public hearing materials and information will be available prior to the public hearings on the RCTC 

website:

http://www.rctc.org/projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-corridor-service-project/. 

The format of the public hearing will consist of a Program overview. Following presentation of the 

Program, meeting attendees will be able to virtually participate and are encouraged to provide 

questions and comments on the Program. Comments on the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR from the 

public during the public hearing may be submitted virtually via court reporter. Spanish language 

translators will be present during the public hearings. People requesting Americans with Disabilities 

Act accommodations or additional translator services are encouraged to contact RCTC at (909) 

627-2974 at least 72 hours in advance of the meetings. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-1

1 Program Purpose and Need

1.1 Introduction and Lead Agencies

As part of its mission to provide a safe, efficient, cost-effective transportation system, the Federal 

Railroad Administration (FRA), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Division of Rail 

and Mass Transportation, and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) have been 

studying ways to serve commuter and intercity travel needs and enhance travel opportunities within 

Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties. Statewide and regional 

transportation planning efforts undertaken from 1991 to 2016 have recommended implementing 

passenger rail service to add travel capacity to what highways already provide. For this reason, 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are studying passenger rail service options between Los Angeles Union 

Station (LAUS) in Los Angeles, California and the City of Coachella to provide more travel choices in 

the 144-mile-long Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (Program Corridor). 

The Program Corridor, which connects the Los Angeles metropolitan area with the Coachella Valley 

through the San Gorgonio Pass, currently has no daily intercity passenger rail service. The proposed 

implementation of intercity passenger rail service in the Program Corridor, including the planning and 

construction of rail infrastructure improvements required to establish the service, are collectively 

known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program (Program). 1

FRA and Caltrans are the joint lead agencies for the environmental review under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and RCTC is the lead agency under the California Environmental 

Quality Act (CEQA). FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC have prepared this Tier 1/Program Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) in compliance with: 

• NEPA (42 United States Code [USC] Section 4321, et seq.) and the Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA (40 Code of Federal 

Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500–1508)

• CEQA (California Public Resource Code [PRC], Section 21000, et seq.)

• California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3 Sections 15000-15387

• FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 Federal Register [FR] 28545, 

May 26, 1999), and

1 For California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) purposes, this is the proposed Project.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-2

• 23 USC Section 139.

1.1.1 Cooperating and Participating Agencies

There are no cooperating agencies for the environmental review of the Program. The Federal Transit 

Administration (FTA), Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA), and Southern California 

Association of Governments (SCAG) are participating agencies for the Program. 

1.2 Intended Uses of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered NEPA/CEQA process to complete the environmental 

review of the Program, under 40 CFR Part 1508.28 and CEQA Guideline Sections 15168 and 

15170. Tiering is a staged environmental review process often applied to environmental review for 

complex transportation projects. This Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR complies with NEPA and CEQA, 

which requires that federal and state agencies analyze a range of reasonable alternatives in an EIS 

(42 USC Section 4332(c)(iii)) and EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(a)). 

To meet this requirement, this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluates potential environmental impacts of 

the Build Alternative Options broadly within the Program Corridor, as shown on Figure 2-4 through 

Figure 2-6. The Program Corridor provides a flexible regional context for the best location of a 

passenger rail system while providing opportunities for the Build Alternative Options within the 

Program Corridor to account for engineering and environmental constraints, as well as public input 

when Tier 2/Project-level studies examine the Program Corridor in greater detail. 

Additional public input and more refined engineering studies would be undertaken as part of 

NEPA/CEQA Tier 2/Project-level review. The Tier 2/Project-level NEPA/CEQA review would identify 

and analyze the potential impacts of the Build Alternative Option selected at the end of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR process. 

1.3 Organization of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR

This Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is comprised of ten chapters with supporting appendices. The Program 

Purpose and Need is outlined in this chapter. The definition of alternatives considered, along with 

those not carried forward for further environmental evaluation, and the No Build Alternative and Build 

Alternative Options are discussed in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 provides an environmental evaluation

organized by environmental issue area. Chapter 4 provides an evaluation of potential effects on 

environmental justice (EJ) populations. Chapter 5 provides an evaluation of potential effects on

resources protected by Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act and Section 6(f) of the 

Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). Chapter 6 provides a discussion of the other CEQA 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-3

statutory considerations. Chapter 7 provides a summary and evaluation of the alternatives and 

Chapter 8 outlines the public and agency outreach efforts by FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC. Chapters 9 

and 10 include the references and list of preparers. 

Appendices to the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR include public outreach and notification materials and the 

eight technical studies/memoranda used in support of the environmental evaluation. 

1.4 Program Background, Location, and Overview

1.4.1 Program Background

This Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is preceded by several years of preliminary Program development 

activities. In 1991, RCTC completed the first in a series of studies evaluating the feasibility of 

operating one or two daily intercity passenger rail round trips between Los Angeles and Indio. From 

1991 to 2013, RCTC completed additional feasibility studies on the Corridor. In July 2016, RCTC, in 

coordination with Caltrans and FRA, prepared and completed the 2016 Alternatives Analysis 

(AA) Report (summarized in Chapter 2 of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) that evaluated a reasonable 

range of alternatives for implementation of daily intercity passenger rail service between Los 

Angeles and Indio. The purpose of the 2016 AA Report was to identify a reasonable range of 

preliminary alternative(s) that could be evaluated in a subsequent Service Development Plan (SDP) 

and Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 

On October 11, 2016, the Notice of Intent (NOI)/Notice of Preparation (NOP) was issued for the 

Program (Appendix A of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). The NOI indicated the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR would include a programmatic environmental evaluation for provision of “intercity passenger 

rail service between the Cities of Los Angeles and Indio, California also known as the Coachella 

Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor.” Subsequent to the close of the formal Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

scoping period, comments received from agencies, other stakeholders, and the public were

assessed and incorporated into the SDP and Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Subsequent to issuance of 

the NOI/NOP, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC elected to carry two eastern terminus service options into 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR: one that retained the originally proposed eastern terminus at Indio and 

one that extends the Program Corridor eastward for approximately 3 miles beyond Indio to 

Coachella, with station stops in both cities. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-4

1.4.2 Program Location and Alternatives Analysis Study Area

The Program Corridor extends from a western terminus at LAUS to an eastern terminus in the City 

of Coachella and consists of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The 

boundary between Western and Eastern Sections is in the City of Colton, at the intersection of 

existing railroad lines owned by Union Pacific Railroad (UP) and BNSF. The study areas used to 

identify alternative(s) in the 2016 AA Report are shown on Figure 1-1. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-5

Figure 1-1. Alternatives Analysis Study Area (Western and Eastern Sections) 

Source: RCTC 2016
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-6

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-7

1.4.3 Program Overview

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the Program would consist of two daily round-trip 

intercity passenger trains operating the entire length of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles 

and the Cities of Indio or Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the Program Corridor. 

The proposed western terminus is LAUS, which is located in downtown Los Angeles and is the hub 

station for Amtrak’s intercity and long-distance passenger rail services and much of Los Angeles’s 

Metrolink commuter rail service. The station is also served by Los Angeles County Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority’s (Metro) heavy rail and light rail rapid-transit system, Metro’s bus system, 

other municipal bus operators, and a direct link to Los Angeles International Airport via the FlyAway 

Express Bus. LAUS is also a proposed station for the California high-speed rail system. 

As described in Section 1.4.1, there are two proposed eastern terminus options: one in the City of 

Indio and one in the City of Coachella. Both proposed eastern terminus options would require 

construction of a new station, as neither the City of Indio nor the City of Coachella has existing 

stations to accommodate the proposed service. 

1.5 Program Purpose and Objectives 

The Program’s Purpose is to implement a safe, reliable, and convenient intercity passenger rail 

service in the Program Corridor with the capability to meet the future mobility needs of residents, 

businesses, and visitors and meet the following objectives: 

1. Provides travelers between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley with a public 

transportation service that offers more convenient, reliable, and competitive trip times, better 

station access, and more frequency than currently available public transportation services

2. Provides travelers between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley with an 

alternative to driving that offers reliable travel schedules

3. Provides travelers between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley with an 

affordable transportation service

4. Serves a range of trip purposes traveling between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella 

Valley, particularly including business and personal trips

5. Improves regional travel opportunities between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella 

Valley for individuals without private vehicles 

6. Serves the expected population growth in the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-8

7. Assists regional agencies in meeting air pollution and greenhouse gas (GHG) emission 

reduction targets as mandated in state and federal regulations

The frequency of the Program’s proposed passenger rail service was established as two daily round 

trips based on a ridership forecasting model service optimization analysis, which found that two 

round trips per day would attract the greatest number of riders per train while providing an 

opportunity for passengers to make a limited round trip in 1 day (RCTC 2016). The Program could 

result in scheduled one-way travel times between Los Angeles and Coachella of approximately 

180 to 200 minutes.

The passenger rail service would be designed to achieve an endpoint on-time performance of 

90 percent and an all-stations on time performance of 90 percent, in compliance with on-time 

performance metrics established by FRA under the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement 

Act of 2008, as well as the Uniform Performance Standards for intercity passenger trains established 

by the California State Transportation Agency on July 1, 2014. Under these metrics, intercity 

passenger trains in the Program Corridor would have an endpoint on-time performance variance 

(late tolerance) of 10 minutes and an all-stations on-time performance variance of 15 minutes. 

1.6 Program Need 

The Program is needed to address the absence of effective transportation alternatives to personal 

automobile travel between coastal regions of Southern California (e.g., Los Angeles and Orange 

Counties) and cities in the Inland Empire (e.g., City of Riverside) and the Coachella Valley (e.g., 

Cities of Coachella, Indio, Palm Springs), the projected increase in travel demand in the Program 

Corridor resulting from population and employment growth, and the increasing unreliability of 

existing transportation systems within the Program Corridor. 

Based on a market analysis of the Program Corridor (RCTC 2016), the two primary transportation 

and mobility challenges include the following: 

1. For interregional travel between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley, travelers 

are required to drive through Interstate (I) 10 through the San Gorgonio Pass. There are 

limited public transportation options; therefore, people who cannot afford to own and operate 

a private vehicle, or choose not to, have limited ability to travel between the regions, and 

people who might prefer not to drive do not have a viable alternative. The lack of available 

transportation options leaves the Program Corridor underserved, yet travel demand is 

expected to increase in the future.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-9

2. Congested highway conditions in the Los Angeles Basin cause delays and highway travel 

unreliability for longer-distance corridor driving trips. Emergency closures of I-10 through San 

Gorgonio Pass further undermine the reliability of the Program Corridor’s transportation 

system. Future growth will result in more congestion and even longer travel times, causing 

more highway travel unreliability; thus, driving is an increasingly unattractive and 

inconvenient mode of travel through the Program Corridor.

According to the market analysis, the Program Corridor currently faces substantial mobility 

challenges that are likely to continue. Based on population and travel forecasts, as well as the 

amount of available open land within the Program Corridor, population, employment, and tourism 

activity is expected to continue to grow in the future; however, opportunities to increase the carrying 

capacity of the region’s roadway network are limited. 

1.6.1 Limited and Constrained Travel Options

While the Program Corridor is served by a transportation system that includes air, highway, transit, 

and rail modes, few of these alternatives provide regular intercity transportation within the Program 

Corridor between the Coachella Valley, Inland Empire, and coastal regions of Southern California. In 

addition, the existing transportation system is constrained due to the limited travel alternatives to 

driving a private vehicle. Currently, the only existing passenger rail service in the Program Corridor 

that provides service from Los Angeles to Coachella Valley is Amtrak’s Sunset Limited, a 

long-distance train that operates 3 days per week in each direction, connecting Los Angeles, 

Tucson, San Antonio, and New Orleans. Amtrak makes intermediate stops at Pomona, Ontario, and 

Palm Springs; however, its arrival and departure is scheduled during the middle of the night. Air 

travel access is also a limited option for many residents of the Los Angeles Basin because of the 

distance from residences to major airports and the infrequency and high cost of flights between Los 

Angeles and the Coachella Valley. 

As a result, virtually all of the intercity travel between these regions is by personal automobiles, 

primarily on I-10 through the San Gorgonio Pass. However, even travel by personal automobile is 

constrained by recurring highway congestion and the lack of alternative routes to I-10. 

Limited Alternatives to Personal Automobile Travel

Travel opportunities in the Program Corridor between regions by rail, bus, or air are limited and 

consist of the following services:

• Amtrak Sunset Limited long-distance passenger train, stopping in Los Angeles, Pomona, 

Ontario, and Palm Springs with three trips per week each way in the middle of the night
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-10

• Amtrak Southwest Chief long-distance passenger train, stopping in Los Angeles, Fullerton,

Riverside, and San Bernardino with daily service 

• Amtrak Thruway bus service connects the Coachella Valley to Amtrak Pacific Surfliner trains 

at Fullerton, consisting of one daily trip each way between Fullerton and the Palm Springs 

Airport (making intermediate stops in Riverside, Cabazon, and downtown Palm Springs) and 

one daily trip each way between Fullerton and Indio (making intermediate stops at Riverside, 

Cabazon, downtown Palm Springs, Palm Springs Airport, Palm Desert, and La Quinta) 

• Amtrak Thruway bus service connects Indio to Amtrak San Joaquin trains at Bakersfield, 

consisting of two daily trips each way (making intermediate stops at La Crescenta, 

Pasadena, Claremont, Ontario, Riverside, San Bernardino, Cabazon, downtown Palm 

Springs, Palm Springs Airport, Palm Desert, and La Quinta) 

• SunLine Route 220 commuter bus service with two weekday peak trips each way between 

Riverside and the Coachella Valley

• Beaumont Commuter Link 120 bus service, with seven weekday round trips between the 

San Bernardino Metrolink Station, Loma Linda, and Beaumont

• Greyhound private intercity bus service, with seven daily trips between Los Angeles and the 

Coachella Valley

• Metrolink commuter rail service operating:

o One route daily from Los Angeles to Riverside via Fullerton, with nine weekday one-way 

trips (five eastbound, four westbound) and four weekend one-way trips (two each way)

o One route weekdays from Los Angeles to Riverside via Pomona, with 12 weekday 

one-way trips (six each way)

o One route daily from San Bernardino and Riverside to Laguna Niguel and Oceanside, 

with 8 weekday one-way trips (four each way) to/from San Bernardino and 16 weekday 

one-way trips (eight each way) to/from Riverside, as well as 4 weekend one-way trips 

(two each way) to/from San Bernardino

• Scheduled air passenger service connecting the Los Angeles Basin with the Coachella 

Valley provided through daily flights (ranging from 9 to 13.5 daily flights at different times of 

the year) between Los Angeles International Airport and Palm Springs International Airport

Figure 1-2 and Figure 1-3 illustrate the existing intercity passenger rail and bus services connecting 

the Coachella Valley and Los Angeles Basin, as well as the cities connected by Greyhound service.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-11

Figure 1-2. Existing Intercity Rail and Regional Bus Services Connecting the Los Angeles Basin and Coachella Valley

Source: RCTC 2016 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-12

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-13

Figure 1-3. Existing Intercity Bus Service Connecting the Los Angeles Basin and Coachella Valley

Source: RCTC 2016 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-14

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-15

Existing and Projected Highway Volumes

The Los Angeles Basin and Coachella Valley are separated by major mountain ranges, and virtually 

all travel between these geographic areas flows through the San Gorgonio Pass, the only direct 

route between the two areas. I-10 is the only roadway that traverses the San Gorgonio Pass to 

connect the Los Angeles Basin with the Coachella Valley and is a major artery for transcontinental 

freight and passenger transportation. I-10 is the southernmost transcontinental highway in the United 

States (U.S.) Interstate Highway System and stretches from Santa Monica, California on the Pacific 

Coast to Jacksonville, Florida near the Atlantic Coast. Connecting state highways diverge from 

I-10 on each side of the pass for travel westward to Los Angeles or eastward to the Coachella 

Valley. Other local roads through the mountains only carry a small volume of travelers.

Figure 1-4 shows the key regional highways serving the Program Corridor and the lack of alternate 

highway options to I-10 through the San Gorgonio Pass area.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-16

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-17

Figure 1-4. Existing Key Program Corridor Highways Connecting the Los Angeles Basin and Coachella Valley

Source: RCTC 2016 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-18

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-19

On a typical weekday, 130,000 people travel through the San Gorgonio Pass (SCAG 2016); over 

half (55 percent) of these trips have their eastern terminus in the Coachella Valley. The remaining 

trips have their eastern terminus in the high desert areas of Yucca Valley and Twentynine Palms 

(14 percent) or travel east to Blythe and Phoenix (27 percent) or south to the Imperial Valley 

(4 percent) (Caltrans 2012). The region’s existing travel market is substantial, with more than 

58 million daily person trips (individual travel trips that occur daily) in the four-county area (Los 

Angeles, San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange Counties) with projections to increase 47 percent 

by 2035 (SCAG 2016). 

Personal trips increase these travel flows on weekends, with 45 percent more trips being made 

through the San Gorgonio Pass on a typical Friday than a typical midweek day. This number 

increases when major festivals and events are held. During the highest travel weekend of the year, 

which in 2014 included both Easter and the Coachella Music Festival, 125 percent more trips 

traveled through the San Gorgonio Pass than on a typical midweek day (SCAG 2016). 

Chronic Highway Congestion

Population growth is expected to increase demand on already constrained highways resulting in 

increased congestion. Figure 1-5 illustrates the areas of existing weekday highway congestion (in 

either the eastbound or westbound directions) on I-10 and other regional freeways. Daily traffic 

volumes regularly exceed the design capacity of I-10 in certain locations. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-20

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-21

Figure 1-5. Existing Areas of Recurring Weekday Road Congestion within Program Corridor 

Source: RCTC 2016 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-22

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-23

Congestion primarily occurs in the Western Section of the Program Corridor, while the Eastern 

Section is relatively congestion-free unless an incident closes highway lanes. Data obtained from 

Caltrans Performance Measurement System (PeMS) analyzing highway congestion in the Program 

Corridor for a period from April 20, 2014, through May 14, 2014, indicate that eastbound I-10 has 

congested areas between Alhambra and Pomona during typical weekday afternoons, with longer 

durations and slower speeds on Friday afternoons. The Eastern Section of the Program Corridor has 

minimal areas with reduced speeds throughout the day on typical weekdays and Fridays. Saturdays 

show some congested areas in the Western Section of the Program Corridor and no congestion in 

the Eastern Section. In the Western Section of the Program Corridor, westbound I-10 exhibits typical 

commute congestion between Pomona and Alhambra in the morning hours, as well as periodic 

slowing in several areas at different times throughout the afternoon.

Much of State Route (SR) 60 is congested from East Los Angeles to Rowland Heights, from 

Pomona to East Ontario, and from Rubidoux to Moreno Valley on normal weekday afternoons. On 

normal Fridays, the congestion through these areas intensifies. The eastbound SR 91 is congested 

for much of its length from North Long Beach to Anaheim and from Orange to Riverside during most 

of the afternoon on normal weekdays and Fridays (Caltrans 2014). 

Table 1-1 shows the wide variance in typical driving times between Coachella and four cities in the 

Los Angeles Basin: Los Angeles, Fullerton, Chino, and Claremont. These cities are sample locations 

near the Program Corridor’s three key highways: I-10, SR 60, and SR 91. The data indicate 

substantial variability in travel times depending on day of week, time of day, and direction of travel. 

Data was obtained from three sources: Caltrans PeMS, Google Maps, and TomTom. Caltrans PeMS 

collects traffic data from more than 39,000 detectors across California and archives the information 

for 10 years. Google Maps calculates driving times based on a variety of data including official and 

recommended speed limits, historical average speed data, actual travel times from previous users, 

and real-time traffic information. TomTom operates a database of more than 9 trillion anonymously 

collected data points that allow the software to predict driving behavior across the road network.

Table 1-1. Existing Typical Driving Times for Selected Trips within Program Corridor 

Origin Destination Source

Weekday 

AM Peak 

(7:00 a.m.)

(Minutes)

Weekday 

PM Peak 

(5:00 p.m.)

(Minutes)

Friday AM 

Peak 

(7:00 a.m.)

(Minutes)

Friday PM 

Peak 

(5:00 p.m.)

(Minutes)

Saturday 

Midday 

(Noon)

(Minutes)

Los 

Angeles

Indio PeMS 114 139 112 165 119

Los 

Angeles

Indio Google 

Maps

120-150 120-200 120-150 120-200 120-150
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-24

Origin Destination Source

Weekday 

AM Peak 

(7:00 a.m.)

(Minutes)

Weekday 

PM Peak 

(5:00 p.m.)

(Minutes)

Friday AM 

Peak 

(7:00 a.m.)

(Minutes)

Friday PM 

Peak 

(5:00 p.m.)

(Minutes)

Saturday 

Midday 

(Noon)

(Minutes)

Los 

Angeles

Indio TomTom 120 142 120 146 118

Indio Los 

Angeles

PeMS 141 114 130 119 116

Indio Los 

Angeles

Google 

Maps

120-200 120-150 120-160 120-150 120-160

Indio Los 

Angeles

TomTom 127 120 121 121 117

Fullerton Indio PeMS 89 110 90 116 98

Fullerton Indio Google 

Maps

110-140 110-180 110-130 110-190 110-130

Fullerton Indio TomTom 112 128 112 130 110

Indio Fullerton PeMS 114 94 124 95 103

Indio Fullerton Google 

Maps

110-160 110-130 110-140 110-130 110-140

Indio Fullerton TomTom 116 113 112 113 109

Chino Indio PeMS 75 81 75 85 77

Chino Indio Google 

Maps

85-110 85-150 85-110 85-150 85-110

Chino Indio TomTom 89 100 90 102 88

Indio Chino PeMS 82 76 80 76 76

Indio Chino Google 

Maps

85-120 85-110 85-110 85-110 85-110

Indio Chino TomTom 93 90 91 91 87

Claremont Indio PeMS 85 88 84 96 85
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-25

Origin Destination Source

Weekday 

AM Peak 

(7:00 a.m.)

(Minutes)

Weekday 

PM Peak 

(5:00 p.m.)

(Minutes)

Friday AM 

Peak 

(7:00 a.m.)

(Minutes)

Friday PM 

Peak 

(5:00 p.m.)

(Minutes)

Saturday 

Midday 

(Noon)

(Minutes)

Claremont Indio Google 

Maps

90-110 90-140 90-110 90-150 90-110

Claremont Indio TomTom 92 99 92 104 99

Indio Claremont PeMS 89 86 85 88 84

Indio Claremont Google 

Maps

90-120 90-110 90-110 90-110 90-110

Indio Claremont TomTom 94 93 92 93 99

Source: RCTC 2016 

Notes: 

PeMS=performance measurement system

Existing travel times using rail and transit can be even longer than highway travel because the trip is 

indirect, involves intermediate stops, and may require mode transfers. Table 1-2 illustrates each 

existing service’s current travel time between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley/San Gorgonio 

Pass area. Trip times were calculated assuming that Metrolink service is used for the portion of the 

SunLine and Beaumont trips between downtown Los Angeles and the respective eastern bus route 

terminus.

Table 1-2. Existing Travel Times Using Rail and Transit Connecting the Los Angeles 

Basin and Coachella Valley

Rail/Transit Line Western Terminus Eastern Terminus

Travel Time 

(Minutes)

Sunset Limited Los Angeles Palm Springs 156

Amtrak Thruway Los Angeles Indio 240

SunLine Commuter Link 220 + 

Metrolink

Los Angeles Palm Desert 234

Beaumont Commuter Link 120 + 

Metrolink

Los Angeles Beaumont 145
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-26

Rail/Transit Line Western Terminus Eastern Terminus

Travel Time 

(Minutes)

Greyhound Los Angeles Indio 240

Source: RCTC 2016 

Notes:

The SunLine + Metrolink and Beaumont + Metrolink travel times include transfer and waiting time.

The wide variations of highway travel times and travel unreliability caused by highway congestion 

require travelers to allow for extra travel time to ensure they will arrive at their destinations on time.

Emergency Highway Closures

Since I-10 is the only road through the San Gorgonio Pass, Program Corridor travel is susceptible to 

substantial disruption during an emergency closure. Five separate incidents in the San Gorgonio 

Pass have disrupted travel for several hours or more since 2005, as reported in the Los Angeles 

Times (Los Angeles Times 2014), Banning Patch (Banning Patch 2014), and Desert Sun (Desert 

Sun 2016): 

• June 2005: A high-speed pursuit of a homicide suspect led to gunfire and a 12-hour 

shutdown of the freeway near Cabazon. Stranded drivers slept in their cars while others 

needed medical attention because of the heat (Los Angeles Times 2014). 

• December 2010: A fatal collision involving a big rig and a spill of fertilizer and diesel oil near 

Whitewater closed I-10 for 6 hours (Los Angeles Times 2014). 

• February 2012: A broken computer system led to a delay in concrete slabs needed for lanes 

that were ground up during repaving. Three of the four westbound lanes were closed for 

almost 1 full day, leading to a 25-mile backup in Banning, with traffic spilling into Palm 

Springs (Los Angeles Times 2014). 

• September 2014: A fiery big rig crash shut down westbound I-10 east of Cabazon at 

6:45 a.m. The four westbound affected lanes were closed for almost 12 hours before 

resuming service at 6:00 p.m. (Banning Patch 2014). 

• October 2016: A tour bus slammed into the back of a big rig killing 13 and injuring 31

people. The crash occurred just west of Palm Springs at 5:00 a.m. and shut down all 

westbound lanes of I-10 until 4:00 p.m. (Desert Sun 2016). 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-27

Figure 1-6 illustrates the reliance of drivers on I-10 through the San Gorgonio Pass, as no parallel 

highways exist to I-10 through Beaumont, Banning, and Cabazon; the only alternative routes involve 

lengthy detours and longer travel times. For example, facing an I-10 closure between Banning and 

Cabazon, a driver bound for Indio could detour south to SR 74, through the mountains and reach 

Indio in approximately 2 hours, travelling 80 miles. The direct route via I-10 is typically 46 minutes 

and 50 miles. 

Figure 1-6. Interstate 10 Corridor San Gorgonio Pass Detour Alternatives

Source: RCTC 2016 

1.6.2 Regional Population and Employment Growth

Population and Employment Growth

Between 1970 and 2010, the Program Corridor’s four-county region of Los Angeles, Orange, 

Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties grew by more than 7.4 million people. In 2010, 

approximately 46 percent of the population of California resided in the region (RCTC 2016). Los 

Angeles County has the largest population in the four-county region, followed by Orange County. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-28

Historical growth patterns between 1970 and 2010 show that Riverside and San Bernardino 

Counties grew at a faster rate than Los Angeles and Orange Counties; Riverside County and San 

Bernardino County grew at an average annual rate of 4.0 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively, 

while Los Angeles County and Orange County grew annually by 0.8 percent and 1.9 percent. 

Population projections prepared by the California Department of Finance forecast that the population 

within the four-county region will continue to grow between 2018 and 2050. The annual growth rate 

is anticipated to slow to 0.5 percent annually for the four-county region as a whole, with higher 

annual growth rates forecast for San Bernardino County (1.0 percent) and Riverside County 

(1.1 percent) compared with Los Angeles County (0.3 percent) and Orange County (0.4 percent), 

consistent with historical trends (RCTC 2016). 

In 2016, the Coachella Valley had a full-time population of approximately 376,000, which increases 

substantially during winter months with part-time residents from colder climates (Inland Empire 

Center for Economics and Public Policy 2016). The San Gorgonio Pass area, which is comprised of 

the Cities of Banning, Beaumont, and Calimesa, as well as the unincorporated community of 

Cabazon, had a population of more than 77,600 and employment of more than 14,500 including a 

major resort/casino and outlet mall (SCAG 2016). 

The Coachella Valley is projected to be one of the fastest-growing areas in the state by 2040, with 

the permanent population projected to exceed 595,100 and employment growing by 94 percent to 

more than 253,700 (SCAG 2016). The San Gorgonio Pass area population is projected to almost 

double to 143,000, with employment more than doubling to 38,100 (SCAG 2016). These projected 

increases in population and employment will increase demand for reliable and safe travel options for

people living and working in the Program Corridor.

Tourism Industry

The Coachella Valley is home to a large tourism industry that attracts millions of visitors annually 

from Southern California and around the world. In addition to providing a large base of employment 

in the Coachella Valley, the tourism industry also affects transportation demand in the Program 

Corridor. In 2017, Joshua Tree National Park received 2.8 million visitors, and the Palm Spring 

Aerial Tramway drew 630,000 visitors (Greater Palm Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau 

[GPSCVB] 2017). In addition, the regional economic benefit of the Coachella and Stagecoach 

Festivals alone exceeded the $403 million projected by GPSCVB (GPSCVB 2017). In 

2017, GPSCVB reported nearly 13 million visitors spent a total of $5.5 billion in the Coachella Valley, 

of which overnight visitors accounted for 45 percent of volume and 62.3 percent of total visitor 

spending. A sample of the larger events is listed in Table 1-3. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-29

Table 1-3. Major Events in Coachella Valley

Event Month Location Duration 2017 Attendance

Career Builder Challenge January La Quinta 5 days 50,000

All Nippon Airways

Inspiration Ladies Professional 

Golf Association Tournament

March/April Rancho Mirage 4 days 50,000

Palm Springs International Film 

Festival 

January Palm Desert 12 days 135,000

Palm Springs Modernism Week February Palm Springs 10 days 97,000 

BNP Paribas Open Tennis 

Tournament

March Indian Wells 14 days 439,261

El Paseo Fashion Week March Palm Desert 7 days 13,200

La Quinta Arts Festival April La Quinta 4 days 20,000

The Dinah Shore Weekend 

Festival

April Palm Springs 2 days 20,000 

Coachella Valley Music and Arts 

Festival 

April Indio 6 days 

(2 weekends) 

250,000

Stagecoach Country Music 

Festival 

April Indio 2 days 75,000 

Palm Springs International 

ShortFest 

June Palm Springs 7 days 22,000

Comic Con Palm Springs August Palm Springs 3 days 15,000

Source: GPSCVB 2017 

1.6.3 Disadvantaged Communities 

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area includes a number of communities classified as 

disadvantaged communities by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) per 

Senate Bill (SB) 535. These communities are specifically targeted for investment of proceeds from 

the state’s cap-and-trade program for the purpose of improving public health, quality of life, and 

economic opportunity in California’s most burdened communities while reducing pollution that 

causes climate change. Within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, disadvantaged communities 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

1 Program Purpose and Need

May 2021 | 1-30

are concentrated in the Los Angeles area, San Bernardino County, and parts of the Cities of 

Beaumont, Indio, and Coachella.

Five of the nine incorporated cities in the Coachella Valley, containing over 40 percent of the valley’s 

population, have poverty rates exceeding 15 percent, which is the federal average poverty rate. Two 

of the nine incorporated cities have poverty rates that exceed 25 percent. In addition, two of the 

unincorporated communities of the Coachella Valley have poverty rates approaching 50 percent 

(Mecca and Oasis). Two of the three San Gorgonio Pass area cities (Beaumont and Banning), 

containing 85 percent of the San Gorgonio Pass area population, have poverty rates exceeding 

15 percent; the poverty rate exceeds 21 percent in Beaumont. The unincorporated community of 

Cabazon also has a poverty rate that exceeds 30 percent (U.S. Census Bureau 2016a). 

In addition, a substantial portion within these disadvantaged communities does not own personal 

vehicles and rely on alternative transportation services. East of Colton, the lack of available

alternative transportation options leaves the I-10 corridor underserved for these populations. In 

addition, existing bus service by SunLine and Greyhound operates almost entirely on the freeway 

system with a limited number of intermediate stops; thus, only limited connections to transit are 

available to these communities along the I-10 corridor. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-1 

2 Program Alternatives

This chapter describes the No Build and Build Alternative Options considered in this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR. The No Build and Build Alternative Options are described to a level of detail consistent with 

a Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR and sufficient to evaluate benefits and effects on both the built and natural 

environments. 

In accordance with NEPA (42 USC Section 4321 et seq.), CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR Parts 1501-1508), FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR

28545, May 26, 1999) and CEQA, a reasonable range of alternatives were evaluated in this Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. 

Specifically, the alternatives include the No Build Alternative, which is used as a baseline for 

comparison purposes and describes the impacts if the Program is not implemented, and the Build 

Alternative, which is described with three implementation options (Section 2.3.2). 

This chapter describes the alternatives selection process used to identify and evaluate the No Build 

Alternative and the Build Alternative Options for the Program for purposes of NEPA and CEQA. The 

2016 AA Report included an evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives for implementation of 

daily intercity passenger rail service in the Program Corridor. FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC used this 

process to identify a reasonable range of preliminary alternatives that could be evaluated in the SDP

and this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 

2.1 Alternatives Selection Process

2.1.1 2016 Alternatives Analysis Report Screening and Selection 

Process 

At the outset of the AA process, a comprehensive public outreach plan was developed to serve as 

the blueprint for community engagement and stakeholder input. Stakeholders included cities, 

transportation providers, and other local agencies and entities within the Program Corridor. 

Feedback from stakeholder input and community engagement efforts helped to inform key decisions, 

including defining the Purpose and Need statement, Program termini, route alternatives, and 

potential station area locations. Figure 2-1 illustrates the AA process. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-2 

Figure 2-1. Alternatives Analysis Process

Study Area and Route Alternatives Studied in the Alternatives Analysis Report

The study area used for the 2016 AA Report consists of two sections: the Western Section and 

Eastern Section (Figure 1-1 in Chapter 1, Purpose and Need, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). The 

2016 AA Report identified six potential route alternatives and service options for the Program 

Corridor based on the Purpose and Need statement, review of previous studies, and comments from

agencies and the public. In the Western Section of the Program Corridor, various combinations of 

four existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were evaluated. For the Eastern 

Section, all potential route alternatives utilized UP's Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio. 

The six route alternatives are shown on Figure 2-2 and in Table 2-1. 

During preparation of the 2016 AA Report, the City of Indio was proposed to be the eastern terminus

of the Program Corridor. Therefore, the City of Coachella was not included in the 2016 AA Report. 

However, the City of Coachella is located within the 15-mile Indio station catchment area studied in 

the 2016 AA Report. Based on comments received during the formal scoping period, FRA, Caltrans, 

and RCTC extended the eastern terminus of the Program Corridor beyond Indio to include the 

adjoining City of Coachella. The extension of the eastern terminus of the Program Corridor would not 

affect the conclusions reached in the 2016 AA Report, as only one route alternative in the Eastern 

Section (between Colton and Indio) was evaluated in the 2016 AA Report: the existing UP rail line.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-3 

Figure 2-2. Program Corridor Route Alternatives Considered in the Alternatives Analysis

Source: RCTC 2016

Notes: 

Alternative 4 has two variations between Los Angeles and San Bernardino (Route Alternative 4-A and Route Alternative 4-B), resulting in a total of six route 

alternatives. During preparation of the 2016 AA Report, Indio was anticipated to be the eastern terminus of the Program Corridor. 

Notes:

AA=Alternatives Analysis
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-4 

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-5 

Table 2-1. Route Alternatives Studied in the 2016 Alternatives Analysis Report

Route 

Alternative Alignment Description

Eastern 

Terminusa

Western 

Terminus Mode Rail Lines

1 Los Angeles-Indio Rail 

Service via 

Fullerton/Riverside

Indio LAUS Intercity rail BNSF San Bernardino 

Subdivision + UP 

Yuma Subdivision

2 Los Angeles-Indio Rail 

Service via 

Pomona/Riverside

Indio LAUS Intercity rail UP Los Angeles 

Subdivision + UP 

Yuma Subdivision

3 Los Angeles-Indio Rail 

Service via 

Pomona/Ontario Airport

Indio LAUS Intercity rail UP Alhambra 

Subdivision + UP 

Yuma Subdivision

4-A Los Angeles-Indio Rail 

Service via 

Montclair/Rialto

Indio LAUS Intercity rail SCRRA San Gabriel 

Subdivision + UP 

Yuma Subdivision

4-B Los Angeles-Indio Rail 

Service via 

Montclair/San 

Bernardino

Indio LAUS Intercity rail SCRRA San Gabriel 

Subdivision + UP 

Yuma Subdivision

5 Los Angeles-Indio Rail 

Service via 

Montclair/San 

Bernardino

Indio LAUS Intercity rail UP Alhambra + 

SCRRA San Gabriel 

Subdivision + UP 

Yuma Subdivision

Source: RCTC 2016 

Notes:

a During preparation of the 2016 AA Report, Indio was anticipated to be the eastern terminus of the Program 

Corridor. 

AA=Alternatives Analysis; LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; SCRRA=Southern California Regional Rail Authority; 

UP=Union Pacific Railroad

Route Alternatives 1 through 3 proposed the use of the existing UP Yuma Subdivision between 

Colton and Indio and existing rail lines west of Colton, as described below: 

• Route Alternative 1 proposed the use of the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from LAUS 

through Fullerton and Riverside to reach Colton. 

• Route Alternative 2 proposed the use of the UP Los Angeles Subdivision from LAUS 

through Pomona and Riverside to reach Colton. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-6 

• Route Alternative 3 proposed the use of the UP Alhambra Subdivision from LAUS through 

Pomona and Ontario to reach Colton.

Route Alternative 4 proposed the use of the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision (owned by Metro) and 

the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority1 (SBCTA) from LAUS to San Bernardino, the 

SCRRA Short Way Subdivision from San Bernardino to Colton, and the UP Yuma Subdivision from

Colton to Indio. Route Alternative 4 had two variations between Los Angeles and San Bernardino, as 

described below: 

• Route Alternative 4-A proposed the use of the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision from LAUS, 

traveling eastward through Montclair and Rialto to reach a new eastward connection in San 

Bernardino with the Short Way Subdivision. This route alternative would not travel farther 

east along the San Gabriel Subdivision to serve the new San Bernardino Transit Center in 

downtown San Bernardino, making its length approximately 4 miles shorter than Route 

Alternative 4-B. 

• Route Alternative 4-B also proposed the use of the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision from 

LAUS but continues east to serve the new San Bernardino Transit Center in San Bernardino. 

Once reaching San Bernardino, trains utilizing Route Alternative 4-B would reverse direction 

to reach the existing southward connection to the Short Way Subdivision. Route Alternative 

4-B is approximately 4 miles longer than Route Alternative 4-A.

Route Alternative 5 also proposed the use of the UP Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio

and a combination of rail lines west of Colton, as described below: 

• Route Alternative 5 proposed the use of the UP Alhambra Subdivision between Los 

Angeles and El Monte, the SCRRA San Gabriel Subdivision between El Monte and San 

Bernardino, and the SCRRA Short Way Subdivision between San Bernardino and Colton. 

Similar to Route Alternative 4-B, Route Alternative 5 travels east to serve the new San 

Bernardino Transit Center in San Bernardino. 

Existing and Potential Station Locations Considered

During preparation of the 2016 AA Report, the Program termini for proposed passenger rail service 

were Los Angeles and Indio in the west and east, respectively. As depicted on Figure 2-2, up to six 

station locations were planned within station catchment areas throughout the Program Corridor. 

Intermediate station stops were located on each route alternative at the largest intermediate cities, or 

1 The San Bernardino County Transportation Authority (SBCTA) was formerly known as the San 

Bernardino Associated Governments. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-7 

as close as possible to the largest intermediate cities2, to attract and serve the largest possible 

ridership. A station stop was assumed within each of the existing and potential station areas shown 

on Figure 2-2. Table 2-2 provides the existing and potential station areas considered for each route 

alternative considered in the 2016 AA Report.

The intermediate station stops were different for each route alternative, as the route alternatives 

were geographically separated in the areas between LAUS and Colton and only shared a common 

alignment east of Colton. The number of station stops was determined with recognition that too 

many stops would make the overall travel time unacceptably long and less competitive with 

automobile travel times, thus reducing ridership. Dwell times of 1 to 2 minutes at intermediate 

stations were also factored into trip time estimates, which align with scheduled dwell times on similar 

state-supported intercity passenger rail services (such as the Pacific Surfliner). 

Table 2-2. Existing and Potential Station Areas Studied in the 2016 Alternatives Analysis

Report 

Route 

Alternative Existing Stations Potential New Station Areas

1 LAUS, Fullerton, Riverside, Palm Springs Loma Linda, Rancho Mirage, Cabazon, and 

Indioa

2 LAUS, Pomona, Riverside, Palm Springs Loma Linda, Rancho Mirage, Cabazon, and 

Indioa

3 LAUS, Pomona, Palm Springs Ontario Airport, Loma Linda, Rancho Mirage, 

Cabazon, and Indioa

4-A LAUS, Montclair, Rialto, Palm Springs Loma Linda, Rancho Mirage, Cabazon, and 

Indioa

4-B LAUS, Montclair, San Bernardino, Palm Springs Loma Linda, Rancho Mirage, Cabazon, and 

Indioa

2 Intermediate cities are cities with a population between 50,000 and 1,000,000 people that generally play 

a primary role in connecting important rural and urban areas to basic facilities and services. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-8 

Route 

Alternative Existing Stations Potential New Station Areas

5 LAUS, Montclair, San Bernardino, Palm Springs Loma Linda, Rancho Mirage, Cabazon, and 

Indioa

Source: RCTC 2016

Notes:

a During preparation of the 2016 AA Report, Indio was anticipated to be the eastern terminus of the Program 

Corridor. 

AA=Alternatives Analysis; LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station

Screening Criteria 

The following four screening criteria were relied on during the process of evaluating and selecting 

reasonable and feasible route alternatives to carry forward in the SDP and Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR:

• Achieving the Program’s Purpose and Need

• Environmental constraints

• Technical feasibility

• Economic feasibility

These screening criteria were used to compare each route alternative during a two-step screening 

process: an initial coarse-level screening and, in greater detail, a subsequent fine-level screening. 

The initial coarse-level screening identified whether any route alternative was hindered by major 

challenges (and would, thus, be eliminated from subsequent fine-level screening). The fine-level 

screening evaluated the remaining route alternatives in greater quantitative and qualitative detail.

The 2016 AA Report provides a detailed discussion of the screening criteria and how the screening 

criteria were applied to each route alternative. 

Screening Process

Figure 2-3 illustrates the overall route alternative screening and selection process.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-9 

Figure 2-3. Alternatives Selection Process Flow Chart

Coarse-Level Route Alternative Screening

For the Western Section of the Program Corridor, route alternatives that did not meet the Purpose 

and Need, had major environmental challenges, or were not technically or economically feasible 

were eliminated during the coarse-level screening process. 

As a result of applying these criteria, the coarse-level screening concluded that Route Alternatives 

2 and 3 were eliminated from further study. Both route alternatives are high-density freight lines, with 

substantial sections of single track that would require costly expansion projects to create the 

additional capacity needed to reliably operate the proposed passenger rail service and mitigate 

impacts on freight rail capacity and reliability. 

Route Alternative 2 could require construction of up to 10 miles of additional second main line track, 

with potentially sections of third main line track to accommodate Metrolink commuter services. In 

addition, Route Alternative 2 could require construction of infrastructure in various locations to hold 

freight trains waiting for space to enter BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision or the Alameda corridor. 

Route Alternative 3 could require construction of up to 39 miles of additional second main line track. 

Both routes also experience freight-train congestion and serve freight terminals where trains enter 

and exit at low speeds, which have the potential to affect passenger-train travel reliability. Given the 

extensive sections of single main line track and presence of heavy unscheduled freight train traffic, 

the potential for introducing travel unreliability, slow projected running time, high technical 

complexity, and high cost for expanding capacity, Route Alternatives 2 and 3 were eliminated from 

further study. 

The remaining four route alternatives for the Western Section of the Program Corridor were carried 

forward for more detailed consideration in the fine-level screening. 

All route alternatives considered using existing freight-passenger routes rather than constructing a 

new rail right-of-way (ROW). Consequently, for the Eastern Section, the coarse-level screening was 

limited to the UP Yuma Subdivision. Based on the results of the coarse-level screening, the UP 

Yuma Subdivision was carried forward into the fine-level screening as the only reasonable and 

feasible route alternative for the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-10

In addition, non-rail alternatives were analyzed in the 2016 AA Report that included analysis of 

potential intercity bus service options. However, the analysis concluded that the bus service options 

would not be able to achieve the identified Purpose and Need and were removed from further 

consideration. 

Fine-Level Route Alternative Screening

Fine-level screening was conducted to further evaluate the reasonable and feasible route 

alternatives remaining after the coarse-level screening. The fine-level screening analyzed criteria 

such as environmental impacts, ROW availability, passenger and freight capacity, feasibility of the 

alignment, cost of structures, number of grade crossings, and economic feasibility in terms of capital 

and operations and maintenance costs. Four route alternatives were evaluated: Route Alternatives 

1, 4-A, 4-B, and 5. 

To determine ridership and revenue projections, a service plan consisting of two daily round trips 

between LAUS and Indio was presumed to operate for each of the four route alternatives screened, 

with identical arrival and departure times at LAUS for all route alternatives. As summarized in 

Table 2-3, the fine-level screening concluded that, of the remaining four route alternatives carried 

forward from the coarse-level alternative screening process, three route alternatives were not 

reasonable or feasible based on the technical or economic feasibility. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-11

Table 2-3. Route Alternative Reasonability and Feasibility Summary

Route 

Alternative 

Does the Route 

Alternative Achieve

Program Purpose and 

Need?

Does the Route Alternative 

Meet Technical Criteria?

Does the Route Alternative Meet 

Economic Criteria?

Is the Route Alternative 

Reasonable and Feasible?

Route Alternative 

1 

Yes. Route Alternative 1 

fully achieves the

Program’s Purpose and 

Need by providing a 

competitive travel mode. 

Yes. Route Alternative 1 meets 

technical criteria and does not 

require alignment change right of 

way issues. 

Yes. Although Route Alternative 1 

has higher operations and 

maintenance costs because of its 

longer mileage, Route 

Alternative 1 has the highest 

projected ridership and a 

substantially lower implementation 

cost than the other route 

alternatives. 

Yes. Route Alternative 1 meets the 

technical and economic criteria and 

was determined to be reasonable 

and feasible.

Route Alternative 

4-A 

Partially. Route 

Alternative 4-A partially 

achieves the Program’s 

Purpose and Need by 

providing a competitive 

travel mode. 

No. Route Alternative 4-A would 

require complex connecting 

tracks at San Bernardino and 

Colton, additional main line track, 

and a major new flyover across 

the BNSF San Bernardino 

Subdivision in San Bernardino. 

This flyover would be costly and 

impact adjacent urban areas.

No. Route Alternative 4-A does not 

meet the economic criterion 

because of the excessive capital 

cost requirements. In addition, 

while Route Alternative 4-A has the 

shortest projected travel time, it 

has lower ridership projections than 

Route Alternative 1. 

No. Route Alternative 4-A does not 

meet the identified technical and 

economic criteria and only partially 

achieves the Program’s Purpose 

and Need. Route Alternative 4-A 

was determined to be neither 

reasonable nor feasible. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-12

Route 

Alternative 

Does the Route 

Alternative Achieve

Program Purpose and 

Need?

Does the Route Alternative 

Meet Technical Criteria?

Does the Route Alternative Meet 

Economic Criteria?

Is the Route Alternative 

Reasonable and Feasible?

Route Alternative 

4-B 

No. Route Alternative 

4-B does not achieve the 

Program’s Purpose and 

Need because it would 

not offer a competitive 

travel time due to an 

additional 20 to 30 

minutes required for a 

mid-route station stop at 

San Bernardino. 

No. Route Alternative 4-B does

not meet the technical criteria 

because it would require a 

complex connecting track at 

Colton, additional main line track, 

and a potential new flyover 

across the BNSF San Bernardino 

Subdivision in San Bernardino. 

This flyover would be costly and 

impact adjacent urban areas.

No. Route Alternative 4-B does not 

meet the economic criterion 

because of the excessive capital 

cost requirements. In addition, 

Route Alternative 4-B, along with 

Route Alternative 5, has the lowest 

projected ridership. 

No. Route Alternative 4-B does not 

meet the identified technical and 

economic criteria and does not 

achieve the Program’s Purpose 

and Need. Route Alternative 4-A 

was determined to be neither 

reasonable nor feasible.

Route Alternative 

5 

No. Route Alternative 5

does not achieve the 

Program’s Purpose and 

because it would not 

offer a competitive travel 

time due to an additional 

20 to 30 minutes required 

for a mid-route station 

stop at San Bernardino 

and slower track speed 

at UP’s Alhambra 

Subdivision.

No. Route Alternative 5 would 

require a complex connecting 

track at Colton, including a 

potential new flyover across the 

BNSF San Bernardino 

Subdivision in San Bernardino. 

This flyover would be costly and 

impact adjacent urban areas.

No. Route Alternative 5 does not 

meet the economic criterion 

because of the excessive capital 

cost requirements. Route 

Alternative 5 would cost more than 

Alternative 4-B without providing 

additional ridership benefits. This 

alternative has the longest 

projected travel time of the route 

alternatives, and, along with Route 

Alternative 4-B, has the lowest 

projected ridership.

No. Route Alternative 5 does not 

meet the identified technical and 

economic criteria and does not 

achieve the Program’s Purpose 

and Need. Route Alternative 5 was 

determined to be neither 

reasonable nor feasible.

Source: RCTC 2016 

Notes:

UP=Union Pacific Railroad
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-13

The fine-level screening process resulted in the recommendation that one of the four remaining 

route alternatives in the Western Section be carried forward (Route Alternative 1) in the SDP and the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Although one route alternative is carried forward, this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR includes a reasonable range of alternatives for major Program elements (e.g., speed, 

station stop pattern/service options, and frequency) associated with the Build Alternative Options. 

In addition to meeting the criteria described above, Route Alternative 1 would also allow for the use 

of the existing shared use agreement and memorandum of understanding between RCTC and the 

railroad stakeholders, which provides for available passenger rail capacity along the Program 

Corridor. In the Western Section of the Program Corridor, RCTC has an existing shared use 

agreement with BNSF that pairs staged infrastructure improvement projects to available passenger 

train slots on the route (Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway Company and RCTC 1992). In 

addition, an memorandum of understanding between SBCTA, UP, and BNSF associated with the 

Colton Crossing Railroad Grade Separation Project provides for the conversion of four non-revenue 

passenger train movements to revenue train movements in the segment of the San Bernardino 

Subdivision between Riverside and San Bernardino (SBCTA, UP, and BNSF 2010). Under these 

existing agreements, RCTC has the ability to commit four available train slots between LAUS and 

Colton for the proposed passenger rail service without constructing additional rail capacity 

improvement projects in the Western Section. However, if the proposed passenger rail service does 

not occur, RCTC could commit these slots to other intercity passenger or commuter rail services in 

the Western Section of the Program Corridor. 

Under the existing agreements, passenger/commuter rail frequencies in the busiest part of the 

Western Section of the Program Corridor, between Los Angeles and Fullerton, are currently at 

capacity. However, specific capacity improvement projects (Section 2.3.1) planned or in construction

along Route Alternative 1 in the Western Section of the Program Corridor would create additional 

passenger/train commuter train slots between Los Angeles and Fullerton by 2024 or sooner. RCTC 

has the ability to commit four of these additional slots to the proposed passenger rail service without 

the need to reduce existing passenger/commuter rail services by an equivalent number of 

frequencies between Los Angeles and Fullerton. The additional passenger/commuter slots 

associated with the near-term capacity improvement projects planned or in construction between

Los Angeles and Fullerton would also support other service increases in commuter and intercity 

passenger rail traffic that are anticipated to occur regardless of the proposed passenger rail service 

implementation. The capacity improvement projects that are planned or in construction are 

programmed for completion before the proposed passenger rail service would start. Therefore, 

infrastructure associated with the capacity improvement projects is considered part of baseline 

conditions in the Western Section of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and Colton.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-14

2.1.2 Scoping Comments Received Regarding Alternatives 

On October 11, 2016, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR NOI/NOP was issued. Agencies, stakeholders, 

and the public submitted comments on the scope and content of the Program, which were assessed 

and incorporated into the SDP and Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, including the consideration and 

evaluation of additional Build Alternatives Options. In total, 37 comment letters or submissions were 

received during the scoping period: 13 from federal, state, and local agencies; 23 from individuals

and other organizations; and 1 from a railroad stakeholder. 

Of the 37 comment letters or submissions, 5 comment letters concerned route or alternative 

alignments; 4 of those comment letters expressed general support for the proposed route alternative 

or suggested route alternatives that were assessed during the AA and determined to be technically 

or economically infeasible. 

The fifth comment letter requested that the City of Coachella be considered for a new station 

location. As previously mentioned, the City of Indio was identified as the eastern terminus of the 

Program Corridor in the 2016 AA Report. However, the City of Coachella is within the Indio station 

catchment area studied in the 2016 AA Report. Therefore, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC elected to 

carry two terminus service options for the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor for further study 

in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR: (1) the originally proposed eastern terminus at Indio, and (2) an 

extension 4 miles beyond Indio to Coachella with station stops in both cities. 

2.2 CEQA Proposed Program 

The CEQA lead agency, RCTC, identified Route Alternative 1 as the proposed CEQA Program (also 

known under CEQA as the proposed Project) in this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR to provide an accurate, 

stable, and finite description of the “development proposal for the purpose of environmental analysis” 

pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(d). Identification of the proposed CEQA Program is 

intended to facilitate public comment at the local and state level.

2.3 Alternatives Definition

The No Build Alternative is defined and evaluated in this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR as a comparison 

with the Build Alternative Options. For the purpose of comparison between the Build Alternative 

Options and No Build Alternative, three horizon years were analyzed:

• Existing Year (2018): This scenario includes Program-related transportation effects on the 

surrounding natural and built environment, including roadways and rail (passenger and 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-15

freight) systems under existing conditions. This scenario was analyzed to fulfill CEQA 

requirements for establishing a baseline environmental setting. 

• Opening Year (2024): This scenario includes Program-related transportation effects on the 

surrounding natural and built environment, including roadways and rail (passenger and 

freight) systems on the first day the Program is operational.

• Future Year (2044): This scenario includes Program-related transportation effects on the 

surrounding natural and built environment, including roadways and rail (passenger and 

freight) systems at the conclusion of a 20-year time horizon following the completion of the 

passenger project. 

2.3.1 No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative assumes no new service is implemented in the Program Corridor except for 

existing and committed transportation improvements and represents the baseline condition. 

Western Section

Current Service Frequency 

Under the No Build Alternative, current daily intercity passenger rail service levels in the Western 

Section of the Program Corridor would remain unchanged, and no new infrastructure would be 

constructed. The Western Section of the Program Corridor is comprised primarily of BNSF’s San 

Bernardino Subdivision, a high-density freight train route that also hosts Amtrak passenger and 

Metrolink commuter rail traffic. In addition, UP freight trains operating to and from the UP Los 

Angeles Subdivision at Riverside have trackage rights at BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision 

between Riverside and San Bernardino. Detailed information about BNSF track speeds, gradients, 

terminal locations, mileages, and signaling in the Western Section of the Program Corridor is 

provided in the 2016 AA Report. 

The Western Section of the Program Corridor plays a critical role in the movement of domestic and 

imported consumer goods carried in BNSF intermodal trains between Southern California ports and 

terminals throughout the U.S. Intermodal trains to and from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long 

Beach operate the entire length of the Western Section and use a connection at the Program 

Corridor’s western end with the Alameda corridor rail line serving the ports. BNSF operates 

additional intermodal trains to and from its own intermodal terminals located along the Program 

Corridor at Commerce and Hobart Yards. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-16

The BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision has multiple main line tracks for its entire length, consisting 

of alternating sections of double track and triple track. The current service levels (2018) in the 

Western Section of the Program Corridor are described below:

• Current freight train traffic between Los Angeles and Colton averages 32 to 54 trains per day

for the lowest and highest density sections, respectively (Caltrans 2018). 

• Two daily Amtrak long-distance passenger trains operate the entire length of the Western 

Section, and 24 daily Amtrak Pacific Surfliner passenger trains use the portion of the 

Program Corridor between Los Angeles and Fullerton, as noted in Amtrak’s System 

Timetable (Amtrak 2018). Amtrak station stops in the Western Section are located at LAUS 

(all trains), Fullerton (all trains), and Riverside (long-distance trains only).

• Weekday Metrolink commuter rail traffic varies by segment. Metrolink’s All Lines Timetable 

(Metrolink 2018) indicates that it operates 28 trains per day on weekdays between Los 

Angeles and Fullerton; 9 trains per day between Fullerton and Atwood; 25 trains per day 

between Atwood and Riverside; 20 trains per day between Riverside and Highgrove; and 

8 trains per day from Highgrove to Colton. Weekend Metrolink commuter rail traffic also 

varies, with 12 trains per day between Los Angeles and Fullerton; 4 trains per day between 

Fullerton and Atwood; 8 trains per day between Atwood and Riverside; and 4 trains per day 

between Riverside and Colton.

Table 2-4 summarizes the Existing Year (2018) average daily train frequencies along the Western 

Section of the Program Corridor. 

Table 2-4. Western Section Existing Year (2018) Daily Train Operations in the Program 

Corridor (Average One-Way Trips)

Endpoints

Existing 

Intercity 

Passenger 

One-way Train 

Trips

Existing 

Commuter 

One-way Train 

Trips

Existing Freight 

One-way Train 

Trips

Total Existing

2018 Average 

Daily Volume of 

Trains

Western Section (SCRRA – Host Railroad; Additional Operators – Amtrak, BNSF)

LAUS-Sotoa 26 28 1 55

Western Section (BNSF– Host Railroad; Additional Operators – Amtrak, SCRRA, UP)

Los Angeles (Sotoa)-Fullerton 26 28 32 86

Fullerton-Atwood 2 9 32 43
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-17

Endpoints

Existing 

Intercity 

Passenger 

One-way Train 

Trips

Existing 

Commuter 

One-way Train 

Trips

Existing Freight 

One-way Train 

Trips

Total Existing

2018 Average 

Daily Volume of 

Trains

Atwood-Riverside 2 25 34 61

Riverside-Highgrove 2 20 54 76

Highgrove-Colton 2 8 54 64

Notes:

Daily train counts represent revenue train movements on a weekday (Monday through Friday). Freight train counts 

are based on Base Year (2013) daily freight train totals for the line segments shown above, as published in the 

California State Rail Plan, Appendix A.4, Table 20 (Caltrans 2018). Passenger and commuter train counts are based 

on the following public timetables in effect in September 2018: Metrolink “All Lines” timetable effective May 14, 2018, 

the 2018 LOSSAN Southern California Passenger Rail System Map and Timetables effective April 1, 2018, the 

Amtrak Southwest Chief timetable effective July 31, 2018, and the Amtrak Sunset Limited timetable effective March 

11, 2018. 

a This is the Soto interlocking (Milepost 144.4) in Los Angeles. 

Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; LOSSAN=Los Angeles-San 

Diego-San Luis Obispo; SCRRA=Southern California Regional Rail Authority; UP=Union Pacific Railroad

Current Speed and Reliability

Maximum authorized passenger train speed in the Western Section of the Program Corridor is 

79 miles per hour west of Fullerton and 60 miles per hour east of Fullerton. The maximum 

authorized freight train speed is 50 miles per hour throughout the Western Section; however, grades 

of 1 percent ascending eastward from Fullerton to Colton have the potential to slow or prevent 

freight trains from reaching track speed. The route is equipped with wayside signaling and 

centralized traffic control and positive train control (PTC). At Colton, a low-speed (20 miles per hour) 

connecting track is in operation that enables trains from Indio operating westbound on UP’s Yuma 

Subdivision to directly access and operate westbound on BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision.

Eastern Section

Current Service Frequency

Under the No Build Alternative, current daily intercity passenger rail service levels in the Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor would remain unchanged, and no new infrastructure would be 

constructed. The Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, the UP Yuma Subdivision, is a 

high-density double-track freight train route. This subdivision carries UP’s long-haul intermodal, 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-18

automotive, bulk, and manifest freight traffic destined to and from major terminals in Southern 

California, including the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. The UP Yuma Subdivision is part of 

UP’s Sunset Route between Los Angeles and El Paso, Texas, which links Southern California with 

major population and manufacturing centers in the Midwest, Southwest, and Gulf Coast, as well as 

gateways to the Eastern U.S. and Mexico. The current service levels in the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor are summarized below:

• Current traffic averages 42 freight trains per day (Caltrans 2018). However, freight train 

volumes have substantial variability associated with vessel calls at the ports, customer 

requirements, day of week, and import-export fluctuations.

• One Amtrak long-distance passenger train, the Sunset Limited, operates the entire length of 

the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor 3 days per week in each direction. This train, 

which runs between Los Angeles and New Orleans, makes one station stop within the 

Program Corridor at Palm Springs. 

Table 2-12 summarizes the Existing Year (2018) average daily train frequencies along the Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor. 

Table 2-5. Eastern Section Existing Year (2018) Daily Train Operations in the Program 

Corridor (Average One-Way Trips)

Endpoint

Existing 

Intercity 

Passenger 

One-way Train 

Trips

Existing 

Commuter 

One-way Train 

Trips

Existing Freight 

One-way Train 

Trips

Total Existing

2018 Average 

Daily Volume of 

Trains

Eastern Section (UP – Host Railroad; Additional Operator – Amtrak)

Colton-Coachella 1 0 42 43

Notes:

Daily train counts represent revenue train movements on a weekday (Monday through Friday). Freight train counts 

are based on Base Year (2013) daily freight train totals for the line segments shown above, as published in the 

California State Rail Plan, Appendix A.4, Table 20 (Caltrans 2018). Passenger and commuter train counts are based 

on the following public timetables in effect in September 2018: Metrolink “All Lines” timetable effective May 14, 2018, 

the 2018 LOSSAN Southern California Passenger Rail System Map and Timetables effective April 1, 2018, the 

Amtrak Southwest Chief timetable effective July 31, 2018, and the Amtrak Sunset Limited timetable effective March 

11, 2018. 

Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; LOSSAN=Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo; UP=Union 

Pacific Railroad
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-19

Current Speed and Reliability

In the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, passenger trains have maximum authorized speeds 

ranging between 30 and 70 miles per hour. The average maximum authorized speed is 59 miles per 

hour; however, in many sections, the operating speed that a passenger train could attain is less, 

attributable to the subdivision’s grades and curves, time required for acceleration and braking as 

speed limits change, and time allotted for the station stop at Palm Springs. The lower operating 

speeds primarily result from curves of 3 to 5 degrees and lengthy gradients of up to 2 percent in 

each direction of travel. Reduction of curvature or gradient on much of the subdivision would be 

costly, owing to the adjacent canyon terrain and surrounding urban development. The subdivision’s 

maximum authorized freight train speed is also 70 miles per hour, although most freight trains 

operate at much lower maximum speeds for similar reasons: the rail line’s steep grades and curves 

that limit freight train speeds. The Eastern Section of the Program Corridor is equipped with wayside 

signaling with a centralized traffic control overlay and with PTC. 

Freight trains on the UP Yuma Subdivision experience operating challenges as a result of the steep 

grades on either side of San Gorgonio Pass, the geographic formation through which the UP Yuma 

Subdivision passes between the San Bernardino Mountains to the north and the San Jacinto 

Mountains to the south. Eastbound trains from Colton have a 1.9 percent climb for more than 

20 miles to reach the summit, passing through San Timoteo Canyon. From an elevation of sea level 

near Indio, westbound trains face a 50-mile climb on a ruling grade that increases to 2.12 percent 

before cresting the summit of the pass at an elevation of 2,591 feet just east of Beaumont, 

California. The combination of steep grades on either side of the pass and the sustained upgrade 

climb for westbound trains and resulting lower operating speeds generates a substantial loss of 

capacity compared with a double-track main line without heavy grades.

Freight trains can also experience delays or congestion at Colton, where some trains are held to wait 

for permission to enter BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision. The West Colton Yard, just west of 

Colton on the Alhambra Subdivision, is UP’s principal classification yard for manifest trains in 

Southern California, as well as a crew change point for most freight trains that pass through. On 

days of heavy freight train traffic, one of the two main line tracks on the Yuma Subdivision is 

frequently occupied east of Colton by several parked freight trains waiting for an open track in West 

Colton Yard.

Current Passenger Rail/Transit Service for Western and Eastern Sections

The five intercity passenger rail and bus services that currently provide ground-based intercity (not 

local) public transportation services in the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor are summarized 

in Table 2-6, with descriptions of service frequencies in effect as of January 2018.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-20

Table 2-6. Current Passenger Rail and Transit Services

Service Service Description

Amtrak Sunset 

Limited

Amtrak Sunset Limited provides long-distance passenger rail service with three trips in each 

direction per week between Los Angeles and New Orleans and makes one intermediate 

station stop in the Program Corridor at Palm Springs, with all stops at this station scheduled 

between midnight and 3:00 a.m.

Amtrak Thruway Amtrak Thruway provides two bus trips each way daily between Fullerton and the Coachella 

Valley (one round trip to and from Palm Springs and one round trip to and from Indio) for 

passengers riding on the Amtrak Pacific Surfliner.

SunLine 

Commuter Link 

220

SunLine Commuter Link 220 provides three bus trips each way between the Riverside 

Metrolink station and Palm Desert on weekdays during commute hours.

Beaumont 

Commuter Link 

120

Beaumont Commuter Link 120 provides seven bus trips each way between the San 

Bernardino Metrolink station and Beaumont on weekdays and five bus trips each way on 

Saturday between the same locations.

Greyhound Greyhound provides private intercity bus service that connects various locations throughout 

the Los Angeles Basin with Banning, Palm Springs, and Indio.

Programmed and Planned Infrastructure

Western Section

As discussed above, track capacity in the Western Section of the Program Corridor currently exists 

to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. However, capacity improvement projects 

currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton will provide additional 

passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed Coachella Valley passenger 

trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. Additionally, the increase in 

passenger/commuter train slots realized by these projects will allow other planned 

passenger/commuter service improvements to advance. 

The No Build Alternative would consist of a continuation of existing and programmed passenger rail 

and transit services that currently connect the greater Los Angeles metropolitan area with the San 

Gorgonio Pass area and Coachella Valley. Table 2-7 provides a summary of capacity improvement 

projects that are currently in construction, programmed, or planned, and will occur regardless of 

proposed Program. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-21

Table 2-7. Programmed and Planned Capacity Improvement Projects Within the Western Section of the Program Corridor 

Project Description

Rosecrans/Marquardt 

Grade Separation 

Project 

In construction. This is a grade separation project located in City of Santa Fe Springs that will eliminate the existing at-grade crossing 

of BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision at the Rosecrans and Marquardt Avenues. CEQA clearance (Statutory Exemption) was 

obtained by Metro in February 2016, and NEPA clearance (Environmental Assessment/Finding of No Significant Impact) was obtained 

by FRA in November 2018. The project is currently in construction with construction activities anticipated through 2023 (Metro 2020). 

Third Main Line Track 

Project 

Partially in construction. This project includes construction of 15 miles of a third main line track between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

within BNSF’s existing railroad ROW. Completion of the project will provide 32 additional passenger/commuter slots between Los 

Angeles and Fullerton, with 10 of the new slots allocated for Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner trains (increasing service availability from 

today’s 24 one-way trips to 34 trips) and 22 of the new slots allocated to Metrolink commuter or RCTC-sponsored passenger service 

(increasing the number of available Metrolink/RCTC frequencies from today’s 28 one-way trips to 50 trips). Metro is currently working 

with funding partners to execute full funding agreements for ROW acquisition and construction (Metro 2017). 

Fullerton Junction 

Interlocking and Third 

Main Track 

Improvements Project

Programmed. This project consists of multiple track and signal improvements, both east and west of the Fullerton train station, 

including constructing a 4.8-mile third main line track at the Fullerton Junction Interlocking and Third Main Track between Control Point

Atwood and Control Point Esperanza on the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision. Improvements will reduce cascading delays to 

Amtrak, Metrolink, and BNSF operations. Up to $30 million in grant funds under the Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety 

Improvements Program were awarded to this project. 

Southern California 

Optimized Rail 

Expansion Program

Programmed. The Southern California Optimized Rail Expansion Program consists of a series of capacity improvement projects

aimed at improving safety and service and building infrastructure that would enable regional passenger rail service frequency to at 

least 30 minutes systemwide with better connections to other transit providers. Improvements include capacity improvements at LAUS 

and on tracks between Los Angeles and Fullerton. The program also includes infrastructure planning funding for projects in El Monte, 

Simi Valley, Burbank, Rancho Cucamonga, Chatsworth, and other areas throughout the region. The program includes up to $91.2 

million in California Transportation Commission funding and additional funding from a Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program grant. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-22

Project Description

Link Union Station 

Project 

Programmed. The project entails the reconstruction of track and station infrastructure at LAUS to meet long-term rail travel needs and 

improve passenger comfort, safety, and ease of navigation through LAUS. The project will increase rail capacity at LAUS by replacing 

the current stub-end station track configuration with new run-through station tracks over U.S. 101 and reconfiguring the station’s throat 

(entry tracks) and rail yard (platform area). The increase in station capacity would allow for more trains to serve LAUS and open new 

opportunities for one-seat rides to more destinations in Southern California. CEQA clearance (EIR/notice of determination) was 

obtained by Metro in June 2019, and NEPA clearance (EIS) by California High-Speed Rail Authority is currently in process. 

City of Santa Fe 

Springs Grade 

Separation Projects

Planned. Three additional grade separation projects on BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision in the City of Santa Fe Springs are in the 

planning stages, but no funding has been committed or programmed; therefore, these projects would not be assumed as part of the 

No Build Alternative for the purposes of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. These include the Norwalk/Los Nietos Grade Separation Project, 

Lakeland Road Grade Separation Project, and the Pioneer Boulevard Grade Separation Project. 

Notes:

CEQA=California Environmental Quality Act; EIR=environmental impact report; EIS=environmental impact statement; FRA=Federal Railroad Administration; 

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; NEPA=National Environmental Policy Act; RCTC=Riverside County Transportation Commission; ROW=right-of-way
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-23

In addition, the No Build Alternative includes forecast growth in freight traffic on BNSF’s San 

Bernardino Subdivision. The California State Rail Plan (Caltrans 2018) anticipates rail intermodal 

traffic in California will increase at a compound annual growth rate of 2.9 percent through 2040, and 

rail carload traffic will increase at a compound annual growth rate of 1.7 percent through 2040, which 

could add approximately 40 additional freight trains to BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision west of 

Riverside and approximately 60 additional freight trains between Riverside and Colton. 

Table 2-8 summarizes the Opening Year (2024) average daily train frequencies along the Western 

Section of the Program Corridor under the No Build Alternative.

Table 2-8. Western Section No Build Alternative Opening Year (2024) Daily Train 

Operations in the Program Corridor (Average One-Way Trips)

Endpoints

Intercity 

Passenger 

One-way 

Train Trips

Commuter 

One-way 

Train Trips

Freight 

One-way 

Train Trips

Total 2024 

Average Daily 

Volume of 

Trains

Western Section (SCRRA – Host Railroad; Additional Operators – Amtrak, BNSF)

LAUS-Sotoa 36 50 1 87

Western Section (BNSF– Host Railroad; Additional Operators – Amtrak, SCRRA, UP)

Los Angeles (Sotoa)-Fullerton 36 50 38 124

Fullerton-Atwood 2 23 38 63

Atwood-Riverside 2 39 40 81

Riverside-Highgrove 2 24 63 89

Highgrove-Colton 2 12 63 77

Notes: 

Daily train counts represent revenue train movements on a weekday (Monday through Friday). Freight train counts 

are 2.7% compound annual growth increases to 2024 from existing 2018 freight train average daily volumes that 

were based on Base Year (2013) daily freight train totals for the line segments shown above, as published in the

California State Rail Plan, Appendix A.4, Table 20 (Caltrans 2018). Passenger and commuter train counts are based 

on train frequency increases associated with completion of the Third Main Line Track Project on BNSF between Los 

Angeles and Fullerton, and existing (2018) or previously programmed frequencies on other line segments. 

a This is the Soto interlocking (Milepost 144.4) in Los Angeles. 

Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; SCRRA=Southern California 

Regional Rail Authority; UP=Union Pacific Railroad
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-24

Table 2-9 summarizes the Future Year (2044) average daily train frequencies along the Western 

Section of the Program Corridor under the No Build Alternative.

Table 2-9. Western Section No Build Alternative Future Year (2044) Daily Train Operations 

in the Program Corridor (Average One-Way Trips)

Endpoints

California 

High-Speed 

Rail Authority

One-way 

Train Trips

Intercity 

Passenger 

One-way 

Train Trips

Commuter 

One-way 

Train Trips

Freight 

One-way 

Train Trips

Total 

Average 

2044 Daily 

Volume of 

Trains

Western Section (SCRRA – Host Railroad; Additional Operators – Amtrak, BNSF)

LAUS-Sotoa 100 40 134 1 275

Western Section (BNSF– Host Railroad; Additional Operators – Amtrak, SCRRA, UP)

Los Angeles

(Sotoa)-Fullerton

100 40 134 74 348

Fullerton-Atwood 0 2 44 74 120

Atwood-Riverside 0 2 88 81 171

Riverside-Highgrove 0 2 124 118 244

Highgrove-Colton 0 2 44 118 164

Notes:

Daily train counts represent revenue train movements on a weekday (Monday through Friday). Freight train counts 

are averages between the minimum and maximum volumes of Proposed Future Year (2040) daily freight train totals 

for the line segments shown above, as published in the California State Rail Plan, Appendix A.4, Table 20 (Caltrans 

2018). Passenger and commuter train counts are preliminary estimates interpreted from Metrolink Southern California 

Optimized Rail Expansion Program projections for service frequencies on various routes and services in the Western 

Section of the Program Corridor. 

a This is the Soto interlocking (Milepost 144.4) in Los Angeles. 

Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; SCRRA=Southern California 

Regional Rail Authority; UP=Union Pacific Railroad

Eastern Section

UP continues to realize capacity benefits from projects it has undertaken in Southern California over 

the past 2 decades, including an initiative to construct a second main line track on 760 miles of its 

Sunset Route between Colton, California, and El Paso, Texas. UP also continues to benefit from the 

2013 completion of the Colton Crossing Railroad Grade Separation Project, which grade-separated 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-25

the crossing of UP’s Yuma Subdivision and BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision in Colton. UP has 

not provided information about any additional programmed or funded capacity expansion projects 

within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. 

The No Build Alternative includes forecast growth in freight traffic on UP’s Yuma Subdivision. The 

California State Rail Plan (Caltrans 2018) anticipates that rail intermodal traffic in California will 

increase at a compound annual growth rate of 2.9 percent through 2040 and that rail carload traffic 

will increase at a compound annual growth rate of 1.7 percent through 2040, which could add 

approximately 50 additional freight trains to UP’s Yuma Subdivision. This growth forecast is 

consistent with growth projections provided by UP for computerized rail operations modeling 

simulations undertaken by RCTC for the Program. 

Table 2-10 summarizes the Opening Year (2024) average daily train frequencies along the Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor under the No Build Alternative. 

Table 2-10. Eastern Section No Build Alternative Opening Year (2024) Daily Train 

Operations in the Program Corridor (Average One-Way Trips)

Endpoints

Intercity 

Passenger 

One-way

Train Trips

Commuter 

One-way 

Train Trips

Freight 

One-way 

Train Trips

Total Average 

2024 Daily 

Volume of 

Trains

Eastern Section (UP – Host Railroad; Additional Operator – Amtrak)

Colton-Coachella 1 0 49 50

Notes: 

Daily train counts represent revenue train movements on a weekday (Monday through Friday). Freight train counts 

are 2.7% compound annual growth increases to Opening Year (2024) from Existing Year (2018) freight train average 

daily volumes that were based on Base Year (2013) daily freight train totals for the line segments shown above, as 

published in the California State Rail Plan, Appendix A.4, Table 20 (Caltrans 2018). Passenger and commuter train 

counts are based on train frequency increases associated with completion of the Third Main Line Track Project on 

BNSF between Los Angeles and Fullerton, and Existing Year (2018) or previously programmed frequencies on other 

line segments.

Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; UP=Union Pacific Railroad

Table 2-11 summarizes the Future Year (2044) average daily train frequencies along the Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor under the No Build Alternative. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-26

Table 2-11. Eastern Section No Build Alternative Opening Year (2044) Daily Train 

Operations in the Program Corridor (Average One-Way Trips)

Endpoints

California 

High-Speed Rail 

Authority

One-way Train 

Trips

Intercity 

Passenger 

One-way 

Train Trips

Commuter 

One-way 

Train Trips

Freight 

One-way 

Train Trips

Total 

Average 

2044 Daily 

Volume of 

Trains

Eastern Section (UP – Host Railroad; Additional Operator – Amtrak)

Colton-Coachella 0 1 0 88 89

Notes: 

Daily train counts represent revenue train movements on a weekday (Monday through Friday). Freight train counts for 

Opening Year (2044) utilized averages between the minimum and maximum volumes of Horizon Year (2040) daily 

freight train totals for the line segments shown above, as published in the California State Rail Plan, Appendix A.4, 

Table 20 (Caltrans 2018). 

Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; UP=Union Pacific Railroad

As described in detail above, under the No Build Alternative, no new growth in existing passenger 

services or new passenger services providing regional linkages in the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor are programmed or funded for implementation at this time.

2.3.2 Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3

As discussed above and summarized in Table 2-3, only Route Alternative 1 in the Western Section

of the Program Corridor was considered reasonable and feasible after evaluation under the 

two-stage alternatives screening process. Therefore, for purposes of analysis in this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR, Route Alternative 1 in the Western Section of the Program Corridor is the route alignment

for all Build Alternative Options. This Western Section route alignment is summarized in 

Table 2-12 and shown on Figure 2-4. 

For the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, three Build Alternative Options are being 

considered for analysis. Build Alternative Option 1 and Build Alternative Option 2 were developed 

based on the findings in the 2016 AA Report. Build Alternative Option 3 was recommended 

for inclusion by FRA during a review of a rail operations sensitivity test conducted in summer 

2019. These Eastern Section Build Alternative Options are summarized in Table 2-12 and shown on 

Figure 2-5 and Figure 2-6. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-27

Table 2-12. Summary of Build Alternative Options 

Build 

Alternative 

Option Western Section Eastern Section

Build Alternative 

Option 1 

(Coachella 

Terminus): 

144-mile 

Program Corridor

The Western Section consists of a 68-mile 

segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between 

LAUS and the City of Colton (Figure 2-4). 

BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision is 

between Colton and Control Point Soto (the 

interlocking Milepost 144.4 in Los Angeles), a 

distance of approximately 63 miles. Metro’s 

River Subdivision, operated by SCRRA, is 

between Control Point Soto and LAUS, a 

distance of approximately 5 miles. 

The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile 

segment along the existing UP Yuma 

Subdivision corridor between the Cities of 

Colton and Coachella (Figure 2-5). Under 

Build Alternative Option 1, five new potential 

station areas are identified (to allow up to six 

stations), and a third track is proposed along 

the entire Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor. 

Build Alternative 

Option 2 (Indio 

Terminus): 

140.25-mile 

Program Corridor

The Western Section consists of a 68-mile 

segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between 

LAUS and the City of Colton (Figure 2-4). 

BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision is 

between Colton and Control Point Soto (the 

interlocking Milepost 144.4 in Los Angeles), a 

distance of approximately 63 miles. Metro’s 

River Subdivision, operated by SCRRA, is 

between Control Point Soto and LAUS, a 

distance of approximately 5 miles. 

The Eastern Section consists of a 72.25-mile 

segment along the existing UP Yuma 

Subdivision corridor between the Cities of 

Colton and Indio (Figure 2-5). Under Build 

Alternative Option 2, four new potential 

station areas are identified (to allow up to five

stations), and a third track is proposed along 

the entire Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-28

Build 

Alternative 

Option Western Section Eastern Section

Build Alternative 

Option 3 (Indio 

Terminus with 

Limited Third 

Track): 

140.25-mile 

Program Corridor

The Western Section consists of a 68-mile 

segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between 

LAUS and the City of Colton (Figure 2-4). 

BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision is 

between Colton and Control Point Soto (the 

interlocking Milepost 144.4 in Los Angeles), a 

distance of approximately 63 miles. Metro’s 

River Subdivision, operated by SCRRA, is 

between Control Point Soto and LAUS, a 

distance of approximately 5 miles. 

The Eastern Section consists of a 72.25-mile 

segment along the existing UP Yuma 

Subdivision corridor between the Cities of 

Colton and Indio (Figure 2-5). Under Build 

Alternative Option 3, four new potential 

station areas are identified (to allow up to five

stations), and a third track is proposed 

between the City of Colton and the northern 

boundary of the potential Mid-Valley Station 

Area.a 

Notes: 

a The third track under Build Alternative Option 3 would stop at the northern boundaries of the potential Mid-Valley 

Station Area. Any improvements that may be required to transition from a third track to a second track would occur 

within the larger footprint of the potential Mid-Valley Station Area. 

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; Metro=Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; 

SCRRA=Southern California Regional Rail Authority; UP=Union Pacific Railroad
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-29

Figure 2-4. Western Section of the Program Corridor (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-30

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-31

Figure 2-5. Eastern Section of the Program Corridor (Build Alternative Option 1) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-32

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-33

Figure 2-6. Eastern Section of the Program Corridor (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-34

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-35

Under all Build Alternative Options, existing rail infrastructure would be used in the Western Section

of the Program Corridor, and no additional railroad infrastructure improvements would be required. 

LAUS would serve as the western terminus, while existing stations in the Cities of Fullerton and 

Riverside would be utilized to support the proposed service. No new stations or improvements to 

existing stations would be required to accommodate the proposed service within the Western 

Section of the Program Corridor. As shown on Figure 2-4, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

for the Western Section of the Program Corridor encompasses a 600-foot buffer from either side of 

the railroad centerline. 

As part of the SDP and Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, rail operations simulation modeling is being 

conducted to identify potential infrastructure needs within the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor. Upon completion of the SDP and the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, the specific 

infrastructure improvements would be determined and refined through coordination and additional 

consultations with UP, RCTC, Caltrans, and FRA prior to Tier 2/Project-level analysis.3 

All three Build Alternative Options propose the following potential new infrastructure improvements 

within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor:

• Station construction. The Build Alternative Options all propose either five or six station 

locations. The 1,500-foot Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area for potential station areas 

facilitates a comprehensive Tier 1/Program-level evaluation that can be utilized to inform the 

future siting of stations along the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. This could 

include, but is not limited to, identification of sensitive resources that should be avoided 

during Tier 2/Project-level environmental review (e.g., avoidance of 4(f) resources or 

wetlands). At the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR level, finalization of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

and lead agency approvals would not clear construction in the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor. Completion of Tier 2/Project-level environmental review would be required 

prior to implementation of site-specific infrastructure improvements, including station 

locations. 

3 The Tier 2 process does not automatically follow the Tier 1 process, rather a project would be defined 

based on the Tier 1/Program Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 

broad project scope and funded at that time. The Tier 2 process would be a separate environmental 

document and could be funded and led by an agency other than the Federal Railroad Administration 

(FRA) and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), depending upon the source of 

funding.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-36

• Station tracks: The station tracks improvements would consist of the construction of new 

controlled track sidings that augment operational flexibility by creating a location off of the 

existing main line tracks that would allow passenger trains to stop for the boarding and 

unloading of passengers at station platforms, thereby reducing rail traffic congestion on the 

main line tracks. Station tracks would be approximately 1 mile or less in length and located at 

or near proposed station locations. The station tracks could include, but not be limited to, the 

following components and/or construction requirements: 

o Grading for the additional track, turnout construction pads, and signal berms 

o Drainage improvements that may include culvert extensions and new standalone bridge 

structures or modifications to existing bridges 

o Roadway overpass modifications or reconstruction, as well as pier protection for existing 

structures 

o Retaining walls at certain locations to contain the improvements within the UP ROW 

o Existing at-grade crossings modifications to allow for the placement of an additional 

crossing surface for the new tracks and relocation or replacement of automatic warning 

devices 

o UP-standard track sections, with track centers of 20 feet or more, using new continuously

welded rail, as well as signal and communication infrastructure upgraded and 

augmented, as required

• Third main track. The Build Alternative Options all propose a third main line track to 

augment the existing two-track main line along the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. 

The extent of the third main line track varies by Build Alternative Option described below. 

The third main line track would be constructed primarily within the existing UP ROW; 

however, possible slopes could extend outside the existing UP ROW in certain locations. 

Many of the features described above for the station track scenario would also be 

constructed under this scenario, but the construction activities would not be restricted to 

railroad segments near the proposed stations. To facilitate operations, additional universal 

crossovers would be constructed, and existing crossover locations may be relocated due to 

topographic constraints. As previously mentioned, rail operations simulation modeling is 

being conducted as part of the SDP and Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process to identify potential 

infrastructure improvement needs (including station tracks and third main line track 

scenarios, number of stations, and station locations). The third main line track scenario is 

consistent with the infrastructure improvements proposed through the rail operations 

modeling work to achieve 90 percent on-time performance of passenger rail service without 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-37

Potential infrastructure improvements could include the following: 

adding delay to freight rail service in the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. Upon 

completion of the SDP and the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, the specific infrastructure 

improvements would be determined and refined through coordination and additional 

consultations with UP, RCTC, Caltrans, and FRA prior to Tier 2/Project-level analysis.4

o Various crossovers connecting the existing main line tracks to the new third main line 

track

o A new second Mt. Vernon connector track in Colton

o A new siding at Loma Linda to allow passenger trains to meet, thereby reducing delay

o A new railroad bridge across the Santa Ana River

o Additional infrastructure components throughout the Program Corridor including, but not 

limited to, wayside signals, drainage structures, and grade-separation structures

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

For purposes of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, Build Alternative Option 1 assumes the following 

infrastructure improvements within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor: 

• Station construction. Build Alternative Option 1 identifies six potential station location areas 

in the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor where passenger rail stations could be 

located. Build Alternative Option 1 would use the existing station in the City of Palm Springs. 

Additionally, up to five new potential stations could be constructed in the following areas: 

1) Loma Linda/Redlands Area (serving the Cities of Loma Linda and Redlands), 2) the Pass 

Area (serving the communities of Beaumont, Banning, and Cabazon), 3) the Mid-Valley Area

(serving the communities of Cathedral City, Thousand Palms, the Agua Caliente Casino 

area, Rancho Mirage, and Palm Desert), 4) the City of Indio, and 5) Coachella as the eastern 

terminus of the Program Corridor. 

• Third main track: A third main line track would augment the existing two main tracks along 

the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor to Coachella. 

4 The Tier 2/Project-level process does not automatically follow the Tier 1/Program process, rather a 

project would be defined based on the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR broad project scope and funded at that 

time. The Tier 2/Project-level process would be a separate environmental document and could be 

funded and led by an agency other than FRA and RCTC, depending upon the source of funding.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-38

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

For purposes of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, Build Alternative Option 2 assumes the following

infrastructure improvements within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor: 

• Station construction. Build Alternative Option 2 identifies five potential station location 

areas in the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor where passenger rail stations could be 

located. Build Alternative Option 2 would use the existing station in the City of Palm Springs. 

Additionally, up to four new potential stations could be constructed in the following areas: 

1) Loma Linda/Redlands Area (serving the Cities of Loma Linda and Redlands), 2) the Pass 

Area (serving the communities of Beaumont, Banning, and Cabazon), 3) the Mid-Valley Area 

(serving the communities of Cathedral City, Thousand Palms, the Agua Caliente Casino 

area, Rancho Mirage, and Palm Desert), and 4) the City of Indio as the eastern terminus of 

the Program Corridor. 

• Third main track: A third main line track would augment the existing two main tracks along 

the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor to Indio. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

For purposes of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, Build Alternative Option 3 assumes the following 

infrastructure improvements within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor: 

• Station construction. Build Alternative Option 3 identifies five potential station location 

areas in the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor where passenger rail stations could be 

located. Build Alternative Option 3 would use the existing station in the City of Palm Springs. 

Additionally, up to four new potential stations could be constructed in the following areas: 

1) Loma Linda/Redlands Area (serving the Cities of Loma Linda and Redlands), 2) the Pass 

Area (serving the communities of Beaumont, Banning, and Cabazon), 3) the Mid-Valley Area 

(serving the communities of Cathedral City, Thousand Palms, the Agua Caliente Casino 

area, Rancho Mirage, and Palm Desert), and 4) the City of Indio as the eastern terminus of 

the Program Corridor. 

• Third main track: A third main line track would augment the existing two main tracks along 

the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor to the proposed Mid-Valley Station Area. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-39

FRA recommended Build Alternative Option 3 after a review of a rail operations sensitivity test 

conducted in summer 2019 that suggested it might be possible, under an operational scenario where 

Indio was the eastern terminus and five station stops were made east of Colton, to achieve the 

Program’s performance thresholds without construction of a third main line track in a segment of the 

Eastern Section of the Program Corridor between the potential Mid-Valley and Indio Station Areas. 

For purposes of identifying the full range of the Program’s potential impacts in this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR, these details have been incorporated as part of Build Alternative Option 3.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

2 Program Alternatives

May 2021 | 2-40

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3 Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

May 2021 | 3-1

3 Environmental Analysis, Consequences, 

and Mitigation

The purpose of this chapter is to describe existing environmental baseline conditions in the areas 

that would be affected by the Build Alternative Options and the No Build Alternative, evaluate 

potential environmental effects or impacts associated with the No Build Alternative and with 

constructing and operating the Build Alternative Options, and present potential Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR mitigation strategies to avoid or reduce those effects or impacts under a Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3 Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation

May 2021 | 3-2

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.1 Introduction to Environmental Analysis

May 2021 | 3.1-1

3.1 Introduction to Environmental Analysis 

This section provides an overview of the environmental analysis and presents the format for the 

environmental analysis in each topical section.

3.1.1 Environmental Topics Included in the Analysis 

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects 

within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of 

services being proposed and identification of major infrastructure components based on conceptual 

engineering and rail operations simulation conducted as part of the SDP process. The Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the first steps in the tiered 

environmental review process. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR provides a service-level evaluation1 and 

identifies areas of effect and resources that could be affected within the context of a resource 

specific study area. Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation, provides an 

analysis of the potential effects of the proposed Program. Sections 3.2 through 3.16 discuss the 

environmental effects that may result with approval and implementation of the proposed Program, 

and where potential effects are identified, present potential Tier-1/Program-level mitigation strategies 

to avoid or reduce those effects under a Tier 2/Project-level analysis (Section 1.2, Intended Uses of 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR).

The following environmental resource area sections are included in Chapter 3: 

• NEPA and CEQA analysis: 

o 3.2, Land Use and Planning (including agricultural and forestry resources)

o 3.3, Transportation

o 3.4, Visual Quality and Aesthetics

o 3.5, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

o 3.6, Noise and Vibration

o 3.7, Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources 

o 3.8, Biological Resources

o 3.9, Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality (including watersheds)

1 A service-level evaluation examines a conceptual level of design without a specific track alignment or station site. 

For purposes of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, the service-level evaluation is needed as the route of the future 

passenger rail system must first be considered in its regional context, as it would influence roadway networks, 

future planning processes, and environmental issues spanning portions of three counties, numerous jurisdictions, 

and multiple independent planning processes. Site-specific effects and impacts would be analyzed during the Tier 

2/Project-level process after design details are known. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.1 Introduction to Environmental Analysis

May 2021 | 3.1-2

o 3.10, Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources (including mineral 

resources)

o 3.11, Hazards and Hazardous Materials

o 3.12, Public Utilities and Energy

o 3.13, Cultural Resources

o 3.14, Parklands and Community Services

• NEPA analysis: 

o 3.15, Safety and Security

o 3.16, Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

Section 3.17 provides the analysis of cumulative effects based on the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

findings and potential effects identified in the preceding sections in Chapter 3. Chapter 4 includes an 

evaluation of potential environmental justice effects, and Chapter 5 includes the Section 4(f)/6(f) 

discussion. Chapter 6 discusses other CEQA statutory considerations, Chapter 7 is the evaluation of 

alternatives, and Chapter 8 includes public and agency outreach efforts. 

3.1.2 Environmental Topics Not Included in the Evaluation

Environmental resource areas not included in this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation include the 

following: 

• NEPA: 

o Coastal zone management: The Program would not be located within a coastal zone; 

therefore, it would not be subject to the Coastal Zone Management Act.

3.1.3 Format and Content Used in the Evaluation 

For each environmental issue area considered in Chapter 3, the basic format and content for the 

environmental evaluation is as follows:

Introduction: This section provides a brief summary of the environmental resource area to be 

analyzed. 

Regulatory Framework: This discussion describes the regulatory context of the environmental 

resource area being analyzed, including federal, state, regional, and local regulations, policies, and 

laws relevant to the Program. 

Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects: This discussion describes the methodology 

and/or assumptions used to characterize existing environmental conditions and evaluate the 

potential for effects on the existing human and natural environment during construction and 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.1 Introduction to Environmental Analysis

May 2021 | 3.1-3

operation of the Program. Information includes data sources used and related environmental issue 

areas.

Affected Environment: This discussion provides a description of the existing physical environment 

and baseline setting for each environmental issue area, in accordance with NEPA regulations 

(40 CFR Part 1502.10) and 14 CCR Section 15125. For the purpose of this document and pursuant 

to the CEQA Guidelines (Section 15125(a)), the environmental setting is used to determine the 

impacts associated with the Build Alternative Options and is based on the environmental conditions 

that existed at the time the NOP was published. The baseline physical conditions, as required under 

CEQA, are applied similarly under NEPA to establish the affected environment. This approach is 

used to avoid confusion that might result from using different baselines for CEQA and NEPA 

purposes. 

The information contained in the affected environment section uses data sources described in each 

resource section. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area was combined with geographic 

information system (GIS) overlays to identify resources that could be affected by the Program, with 

resources identified on a broad scale using available mapping information. 

For the Western Section, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area extends up to 600 feet from either 

side of the existing railroad centerline. For the Eastern Section, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study 

Area for station-related infrastructure improvements extends up to 1,000 feet from either side of the 

centerline, plus a 500-foot buffer for the assessment of indirect impacts, for a total Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Study Area of 1,500 feet from either side of the centerline at each of the individual station 

location areas. The remaining portion of the Eastern Section Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

encompasses up to 300 feet from the railroad centerline to include non-station-related infrastructure 

improvements, plus a 500-foot buffer for the assessment of indirect impacts, for a total Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area of 800 feet from the railroad centerline. 

For purposes of cultural resources analysis, a Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area was 

developed to identify potential archaeological, historic, and tribal resources within the area. For the 

Western Section, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area extends up to 600 feet from either 

side of the existing railroad centerline. For the Eastern Section, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural 

Study Area extends up to 0.25 mile from either side of the centerline for the entire Eastern Section. 

For the purposes of the socioeconomic and community analysis, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study 

Area for the socioeconomic evaluation encompasses 0.5 mile centered on the railroad centerline 

(0.25 mile on either side).

Environmental Consequences: Changes that would result from the Build Alternative Options were 

evaluated relative to the affected environment and existing environmental conditions within the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, as defined for each environmental issue area. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.1 Introduction to Environmental Analysis

May 2021 | 3.1-4

The discussion of environmental consequences is divided into a Western Section and an Eastern 

Section and further defined to distinguish effects related to construction and operation of the 

Program. Subheadings are used, where appropriate, to transition between major topics or 

sub-issues. 

Each Build Alternative Option is compared with other Build Alternative Options within the same 

geographical sections, as well as with the No Build Alternative. The intensity of an effect as a result 

of the Build Alternative Options are characterized as negligible, moderate, or substantial when 

compared with the No Build Alternative. For comparative analysis, these terms are defined as 

follows:

• Negligible-intensity effects from construction and operation of a Build Alternative Option are 

those that would have no or few effects on resources when compared with existing 

conditions. 

• Moderate-intensity effects from construction and operation of a Build Alternative Option

would have a noticeable effect on resources but would not have a substantial adverse 

permanent effect on resources.

• Substantial-intensity effects would be long term or permanent and would have a noticeable, 

inevitable effect on resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. 

Available information from databases and data sources are used to assess the potential magnitude 

or intensity of the effects and summarized within this section. 

NEPA Summary of Potential Effects: This section summarizes NEPA magnitude of effect 

conclusions for the Build Alternative Options based on the discussion in the environmental 

consequences section. 

CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts: For the purposes of this analysis, Appendix G of the CEQA 

Guidelines serves as the thresholds of significance to evaluate the Program’s impacts. This section 

summarizes CEQA significance conclusions for the Build Alternative Options based on the 

discussion in the environmental consequences section, proposed programmatic mitigation strategies 

to reduce, avoid, or minimize the potential impact, and the significance determination after mitigation

strategies are applied. 

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies: This section identifies proposed 

programmatic mitigation strategies for further consideration in the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-1

3.2 Land Use and Planning

3.2.1 Introduction

This section identifies the land use distribution within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area and 

provides an evaluation of land use-related effects associated with the No Build Alternative and Build 

Alternative Options. Information contained in this section is summarized from the Land Use and 

Planning Technical Memorandum (Appendix B of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR).

3.2.2 Regulatory Framework

In accordance with NEPA (42 USC Section 4321 et seq.), CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR Parts 1501-1508), FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 

28545, May 26, 1999), and CEQA, FRA identified land use resources within the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Study Area and evaluated the potential impacts on those resources from implementation of 

the Build Alternative Options. 

Federal

Federal Land Policy and Management Act

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 CFR Part 35) provides for the proper

management and protection of property and natural and cultural resources within areas under the 

jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), including national monuments, federal 

recreation areas, and conservation areas. It establishes the regulations governing coordination and 

grants for ROWs that cross public lands managed by BLM. 

Farmland Protection Policy Act

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (7 USC Sections 4201–4209 and 7 CFR Part 658) was 

established to minimize the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses as part of a federal 

undertaking. The Farmland Protection Policy Act was intended to assure that federal programs are 

administered in a way that is compatible with state, local, and private programs to protect farmland. 

Farmland subject to the Farmland Protection Policy Act includes prime or unique farmlands or 

farmland that is determined by a state or local agency to be farmland of statewide or local 

importance. Under 7 CFR Part 658.1, prime farmland is defined as “land that has the best 

combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-2

oilseed crops, and is also available for these uses.” Unique farmland is “land other than prime 

farmland that is used for the production of specific high value food and fiber crops.”

State

California Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program

The California Department of Conservation inventories and categorizes farmlands throughout the 

state as part of its Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. The Farmland Mapping and 

Monitoring Program classifications include:

• Prime Farmland (P): Farmland with the best combination of physical and chemical features 

able to sustain long-term agricultural production. This land has the soil quality, growing 

season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields. Land must have been 

used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping 

date.

• Farmland of Statewide Importance (S): Farmland similar to prime farmland but with minor 

shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability to store soil moisture. Land must have 

been used for irrigated agricultural production at some time during the 4 years prior to the 

mapping date.

• Unique Farmland (U): Farmland of lesser quality soils used for the production of the state's 

leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include non-irrigated 

orchards or vineyards as found in some climatic zones in California. Land must have been 

cropped at some time during the 4 years prior to the mapping date.

• Farmland of Local Importance (L): Land of importance to the local agricultural economy as 

determined by each county's board of supervisors and a local advisory committee.

• Grazing Land (G): Land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock.

• Urban and Built-up Land (D): Land occupied by structures with a building density of at least 

1 unit to 1.5 acre or approximately 6 structures to a 10-acre parcel. This land is used for 

residential, industrial, commercial, construction, institutional, public administration, railroad 

and other transportation yards, cemeteries, airports, golf courses, sanitary landfills, sewage 

treatment, water control structures, and other developed purposes.

• Other Land (X): Land not included in any other mapping category.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-3

California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act)

In 1965, the state enacted the California Land Conservation Act, more commonly known as the 

Williamson Act (Government Code Section 51230 et seq.). The Williamson Act provides tax 

incentives for landowners who enter into contracts with the local government for long-term use 

restrictions on agricultural and open space land for qualifying properties. Property owners commit 

their land to farming for a minimum of 10 years and in return receive tax benefits based on their 

agricultural production rather than on the property’s market value. Contracts are automatically 

renewed unless a notice of non-renewal is issued.

Regional

Southern California Association of Governments 2016-2040 Regional Transportation 

Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy

The SCAG 2016-2040 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy

(SCS), adopted in April 2016, presents the long-range transportation and land use plan and 

transportation vision for Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, Imperial, Riverside, and Ventura 

Counties with the overarching goal of integrating strategies for land use and transportation (SCAG 

2016). The following goals and policies from SCAG’s RTP/SCS are applicable to the Program: 

• Maximize mobility and accessibility for all people and goods in the region

• Ensure travel safety and reliability for all people and goods in the region

• Preserve and ensure a sustainable regional transportation system

• Maximize the productivity of our transportation system

• Encourage land use and growth patterns that facilitate transit and active transportation

The RTP/SCS identifies priorities for transportation planning within the Southern California region, 

sets goals and policies, and identifies performance measures for transportation improvements to 

ensure that future projects are consistent with other planning goals for the area. It also presents an 

overall land use concept for the region, with increasing focus on densification of urban areas, as 

applicable in the Western Section of the Program development around transit stations and use of 

transit and active transportation.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-4

County General Plans

Applicable elements of the general plans for the four counties the Build Alternative Options cross 

(Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, and San Bernardino County) are 

summarized in the Land Use and Planning Technical Memorandum (Appendix B of this Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR). 

Local and Tribal Governments

Regulations from cities, local agencies, and tribal governments would be identified in the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis once site-specific rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are 

known.

3.2.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects

The methodology for this evaluation consists of using existing data to identify existing land uses, 

including agricultural and forest resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area for each 

Build Alternative Option and evaluating the potential level of effect that each Build Alternative Option 

could have if constructed. 

For purposes of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, agricultural lands are defined as lands that have been 

officially designated by a federal, state, or local agency for the purpose of farming or other 

agricultural uses. 

For this evaluation, analysis of land use effects focuses on areas where existing land uses could be 

converted to transportation-related land uses. The general plans for Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, 

and San Bernardino counties were reviewed to determine the Program’s general consistency with 

land use and circulation goals and policies. 

In a Tier 2/Project-level analysis, impacts would be analyzed quantitatively using more detailed 

analytical methods, such as field surveys, mapping of land use, and use of GIS overlays of land use 

resources with the defined Project footprint to quantify impacts. In addition, a subsequent Tier 

2/Project-level analysis would include a more detailed impact analysis of potential agricultural land 

use areas, including site specific land evaluation and site assessment documentation. As part of the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis, additional coordination with the applicable jurisdiction would be required 

to determine land resource impacts. 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

This service-level evaluation is limited to a desktop evaluation of the data sources described in 

Section 3.2.3. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area was combined with GIS overlays to identify 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-5

potential land use resources (such as agricultural or forest lands) that could be affected by the 

Program. These potential land use resources were identified on a broad scale using available 

mapping information. A detailed description of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area is provided in 

Section 3.1, Introduction to Environmental Analysis, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 

Data Sources

Land use data was compiled from publicly available electronic GIS data, which relies on local 

jurisdictions updating and inputting land use data into a publicly available GIS database. While some 

of the jurisdictions within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area have more recent existing or 

planned land use information than the SCAG data, others did not, or did not provide it publicly. 

SCAG consolidates and standardizes local land use data during preparation of its RTPs, making its 

land use data the most consistent for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. 

The existing land uses were primarily based on the 2008 SCAG GIS land use dataset, and the 

proposed land uses were primarily based on the 2012 SCAG GIS land use dataset. In addition to 

SCAG 2008 and 2012 land use information, the dataset was supplemented with InfoUSA 

2008 employment data, 2005 to 2008 new construction data, and inputs from local jurisdictions in 

the SCAG region. This dataset was used because it includes the most consistent and 

comprehensive information available for all jurisdictions that was available during preparation of this 

analysis. 

In addition to SCAG data, online GIS data available from the California Department of Conservation, 

the U.S. Department of the Interior, and a variety of other sources were used to identify agricultural 

and forest resources with the potential to occur within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. 

Specifically, the following data sources were reviewed: 

• Farmlands: The California Important Farmland Finder dataset (California Department of 

Conservation 2020) was consulted. 

• Agricultural Preserve Lands: To identify designated agricultural preserve lands or lands 

under the Williamson Act Program, data from the California Department of Conservation was 

consulted. 

• Forest Lands: The U.S. Forest Service Land Ownership database was consulted. 

Related Resources

This service-level evaluation incorporates data and analysis from related resources to contribute to 

the assessment of effects on land use and planning. These related resources are identified in

Table 3.2-1. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-6

Table 3.2-1. Related Resource Inputs for Land Use Resources

Resource Input for Land Use Assessment

Parklands and Community 

Services 

(Section 3.14)

Supplemental information about parklands or recreational facilities including type, 

protection, ownership, and accessibility was used to inform the land use 

assessment.

3.2.4 Affected Environment

Existing and Future Land Uses

The Program Corridor crosses a large geographic area within Southern California, spanning a 

distance of approximately 144 miles from its western terminus in Los Angeles to its eastern terminus 

in Coachella. The Program Corridor occurs within an existing railroad corridor that traverses areas 

that have predominately been heavily modified for urban purposes, especially in the Western 

Section, although some areas occur in, or adjacent to, lands that are in a natural condition. Much of 

the Program Corridor from Los Angeles to Redlands is urbanized. The Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor is less urbanized with vacant land comprising of the largest land use category. 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Table 3.2-2 summarizes the existing and planned land uses within the Western Section of the 

Program Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1. As indicated in Table 3.2-2, the dominant existing 

land uses in the Western Section of the Program Corridor are transportation, communication, and 

utilities (32.5 percent); industrial (29.4 percent); and single-family residential (12.2 percent), which 

equals approximately 74 percent of total existing land uses. Based on anticipated development 

patterns for the area, distribution of future land uses would remain similar to existing conditions with

the same three land use categories (transportation, communication, and utilities; industrial; and 

single-family residential) making up the dominant planned land uses within the Western Section of 

the Program Corridor. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-7

Table 3.2-2. Western Section Existing and Planned Land Uses (Build Alternative 

Options 1, 2, and 3) 

Land Use 

Existing 

(acres)

Percent of 

Existing Total 

(%)

Planned 

(acres)

Percent of 

Planned Total

(%)

Agriculture 61.6 0.6 0.0 0.0

Commercial services 1,169.1 11.6 661.4 6.5

Industrial 2,975.4 29.4 4,093.1 40.5

Mixed commercial and industrial 57.3 0.6 71.7 0.7

Mixed urban 10.1 0.1 0.0 0.0

Open space and recreation 208.2 2.1 733.7 7.3

Public facilities 0.0 0.0 366.3 3.6

Residential – multifamily 304.6 3.0 398.7 3.9

Residential – other 68.1 0.7 258.3 2.3

Residential – single family 1,230.0 12.2 1,228.0 12.1

Transportation, communications, 

utilities

3,283.8 32.5 2,295.8 22.7

Under construction 53.5 0.5 1.9 0.1

Vacant 687.6 6.8 0.0 0.0

Total 10,109.3 — 10,108.9 —

Table 3.2-3 summarizes the existing and planned land uses within the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1. As indicated in Table 3.2-3, the dominant existing 

land uses for the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor are vacant land (40.2 percent); 

transportation, communication, and utilities (27.6 percent); and commercial (8.2 percent), which 

equals approximately 76 percent of total existing land uses. Based on anticipated development 

patterns for the area, future land uses in the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor would shift 

to transportation, communication, and utilities (21.6 percent); open space and recreation 

(19.7 percent); and single-family residential (17.7 percent) uses. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-8

Table 3.2-3. Eastern Section Existing and Planned Land Uses (Build Alternative Option 1)

Land Use 

Existing 

(acres)

Percent of 

Existing Total 

(%)

Planned 

(acres)

Percent of 

Planned Total

(%)

Agriculture 1,460.3 6.7 119.2 0.6

Commercial services 1,773.3 8.2 2,374.2 11.0

Industrial 907.5 4.2 2,585.9 11.9

Mixed commercial and industrial 41.2 0.2 1,246.1 5.8

Mixed urban 0.0 0.0 312.1 0.0

Open space and recreation 748.3 3.5 4,268.2 19.7

Public facilities 0.0 0 403.4 1.9

Residential – multifamily 192.9 0.9 509.7 2.4

Residential – other 399.5 1.8 1,310.3 6.1

Residential – single family 1,193.9 5.5 3,836.2 17.7

Transportation, communications, 

utilities

5,967.7 27.6 4,685.2 21.6

Under construction 268.5 1.2 0.0 0.0

Vacant 8,697.5 40.2 0.2 0.0

Total 21,650.6 — 21,650.7 —

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Distribution of existing and planned land uses within the Western Section of the Program Corridor 

under Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build Alternative Option 1. 

Table 3.2-4 summarizes the existing and planned land uses within the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor under Build Alternative Option 2. There are fewer acres of land within Build 

Alternative Option 2 because of the shorter route alignment and reduced station options. 

As indicated in Table 3.2-4, the dominant existing land uses for the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor are vacant land (41.2 percent); transportation, communication, and utilities (27.6 percent); 

and commercial (8.0 percent), which equals approximately 76 percent of total existing land uses. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-9

Based on anticipated development patterns for the area, the dominant future land uses for the 

Eastern Section of the Program Corridor would shift to transportation, communication, and utilities 

(22.0 percent); open space and recreation (20.6 percent); and single-family residential (17.3 percent) 

uses. 

Table 3.2-4. Eastern Section Existing and Planned Land Uses (Build Alternative 

Options 2 and 3) 

Land Use 

Existing 

(acres)

Percent of 

Existing Total 

(%)

Planned 

(acres)

Percent of 

Planned Total

(%)

Agriculture 1,239.9 6.0 119.2 0.6

Commercial services 1,648.0 8.0 2,186.9 10.6

Industrial 781.7 3.8 2,208.1 10.7

Mixed commercial and 

industrial

41.2 0.2 1,246.1 6.1

Mixed urban 0.0 0.0 312.1 1.5

Open space and recreation 740.9 3.6 4,243.7 20.6

Public facilities 0.0 0.0 376.8 1.8

Residential – multifamily 192.9 0.9 498.3 2.4

Residential – other 397.3 1.9 1,305.2 6.3

Residential – single family 1,100.3 5.3 3,570.1 17.3

Transportation, 

communications, utilities

5,683.4 27.6 4,518.6 22.0

Under construction 268.5 1.3 0.0 0.0

Vacant 8,480.7 41.2 0.2 0.0

Total 20,574.8 — 20,585.3 —
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-10

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Distribution of existing and planned land uses within the Western Section of the Program Corridor 

under Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build Alternative Option 1. Existing and planned 

land uses within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Option 3 are 

the same as Build Alternative Option 2. 

Agricultural Resources 

The Program Corridor occurs within an existing railroad corridor that traverses areas that have 

predominately been heavily modified for urban purposes, especially in the Western Section, 

although some areas occur in, or adjacent to, lands that are in a natural condition and designated for 

agricultural uses. The Eastern Section of the Program Corridor is less urbanized with some

agricultural uses present. Figure 3.2-1 shows the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program

designated land uses and agricultural preserve areas located within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Study Area. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-11

Figure 3.2-1. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Classifications within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR

(Page 1 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-12

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-13

Figure 3.2-1. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Classifications within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 2 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-14

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-15

Figure 3.2-1. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Classifications within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 3 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-16

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-17

Figure 3.2-1. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Classifications within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 4 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-18

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-19

Figure 3.2-1. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Classifications within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 5 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-20

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-21

Figure 3.2-1. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Classifications within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 6 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-22

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-23

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Within the Western Section of Build Alternative Option 1, there are limited areas that are mapped for 

agricultural use. Of the land mapped for agricultural use, the largest is mapped as farmland of local 

importance (61.9 acres). The Western Section also includes other land mapped as prime farmland, 

farmland of statewide importance, and grazing land. The Western Section does not contain land that 

is considered part of an agricultural preserve or under a Williamson Act contract. Within the Eastern 

Section of Build Alternative Option 1, the largest type of agriculturally mapped land is farmland of 

local importance (2,623.9 acres). The Eastern Section also includes other land mapped as prime 

farmland, unique farmland, farmland of statewide importance, and grazing land. Unlike the Western 

Section, the Eastern Section passes through areas identified as part of an agricultural preserve or 

part of a Williamson Act contract. These areas are located in the non-station segment, between the 

Loma Linda Station Area and the Pass Area Station Area, and within a portion of the Pass Area 

Station Area. Table 3.2-5 provides a summary of agricultural resources within Build Alternative 

Option 1.

Table 3.2-5. Summary of Agricultural Resources (Build Alternative Option 1)

Agricultural Resourcea

Area of 

Agricultural 

Resource within 

Western Section

(acres)

Area of 

Agricultural 

Resource within 

Eastern Section

(acres)

Total Area of 

Agricultural 

Resource 

(acres)

Prime farmland 9.30 551.10 560.40

Unique farmland 0.00 96.70 96.70

Farmland of statewide importance 1.30 21.30 22.60

Farmland of local importance 61.90 2,562.00 2,623.90

Grazing land 35.60 1,887.60 1,923.20

Agricultural preserveb 0.00 760.82 760.82

Source: California Department of Conservation 2020

a Farmland designations are identified as part of the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and 

Monitoring Program. 

b Agricultural Preserves are considered Williamson Act area for purposes of CEQA and are a separate designation 

from the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 

CEQA=California Environmental Quality Act
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-24

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

The types of agricultural resources that could be impacted by Build Alternative Option 2 are the 

same as for Build Alternative Option 1; however, there are fewer acres of agricultural resources 

within Build Alternative Option 2 because of the shorter route alignment and reduced station options.

Table 3.2-6 provides a summary of agricultural resources within Build Alternative Option 2. 

Table 3.2-6. Summary of Agricultural Resources (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) 

Agricultural Resourcea

Area of 

Agricultural 

Resource within 

Western Section 

(acres)

Area of 

Agricultural 

Resource within 

Eastern Section 

(acres)

Total Area of 

Agricultural 

Resource 

(acres)

Prime farmland 9.30 353.20 362.50

Unique farmland 0.00 96.70 96.70

Farmland of statewide importance 1.30 21.30 22.60

Farmland of local importance 61.90 2,488.00 2,549.90

Grazing land 35.60 1,887.60 1,923.20

Agricultural preserveb 0.00 760.82 760.82

Source: California Department of Conservation 2020

a Farmland designations are identified as part of the California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and 

Monitoring Program. 

b Agricultural Preserves are considered Williamson Act area for purposes of CEQA and are a separate designation 

from the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 

CEQA=California Environmental Quality Act

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Agricultural resources within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build Alternative Option 2. 

Forestry Resources

Based on a review of the U.S. Forest Service Land Ownership database and Forest Service 

Geodata Clearinghouse (U.S. Department of Agriculture 2020), there are no U.S. Forest Service 

lands within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-25

3.2.5 Environmental Consequences

Overview 

Effects as a result of implementing the Build Alternative Options can be broadly classified into 

construction and operational effects. Long-term or permanent effects and short-term or temporary 

effects on land use and agricultural resources would be anticipated as a result of constructing any of 

the Build Alternative Options. Most effects on land use and agricultural resources would occur during 

construction, when land acquisitions could impact sensitive land uses or agricultural resources. 

Impacts could also result from operation of any of the Build Alternative Options. New station areas 

could result in land use changes, such as transit-oriented development, which would introduce the 

potential for adjacent land to be developed. Changes in land use, such as induced growth from an 

expanded transportation system, are assessed in Section 3.17, Cumulative Effects, of this Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. To accommodate a passenger rail system, areas within the Program Corridor 

may need to be rezoned through the local development process. This would depend on the specific 

locations of stations, current zoning, and the locations and size of rail infrastructure facilities. 

Sensitive land uses and agricultural resources potentially affected by a future passenger rail system 

would be further identified as part of the Tier 2/Project-level environmental review process. Specific 

types and degrees of impacts on individual resources (such as ROW acquisition and impacts on a 

specific resource) would not be known until further design of rail facilities takes place. 

No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, of this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR, is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the 

Program associated with this service-level evaluation. Counties and cities in the Program Corridor 

would continue to grow, which would increase regional transportation demand. Therefore, the No 

Build Alternative assumes completion of those reasonably foreseeable transportation, development, 

and infrastructure projects that are already in progress; are programmed; or are included in the 

fiscally constrained RTP. 

Under the No Build Alternative, passenger rail service between Coachella and Los Angeles would 

not be established and land would not be allocated for rail infrastructure or station facilities. This may 

prevent potential displacements of existing and planned land uses but would increase the likelihood 

for displacing land uses adjacent to existing highways such as I-10, SR 60, and SR 111, which 

would likely need to be widened to accommodate the projected demands for capacity as population 

in the region increases. Land uses adjacent to major highway corridors would likely be affected by 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-26

increased traffic congestion, which may include time delays and increased exposure to noise and 

vehicle emissions. 

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3

Land Use Consistency Effects 

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. No construction activities would be required to implement the Build Alternative 

Options within the Western Section because the existing railroad ROW and station areas from LAUS

to Colton would be utilized. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of new 

stations or construction at existing stations, new track or extensions to existing track, or the addition 

of sidings, wayside signals, drainage, or at-grade separations within the Western Section of the 

Program Corridor. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects would be negligible 

because no additional construction activities would occur within the Western Section under Build 

Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. The Eastern Section of the Build Alternative Options primarily fall within the 

jurisdictions of San Bernardino and Riverside counties and the cities/towns of Loma Linda, 

Redlands, Calimesa Beaumont, Banning, Palm Springs, Palm Desert, Desert Hot Springs, Cathedral 

City, La Quinta, Indio, and Coachella. Land use elements vary greatly among different jurisdictions’ 

general plans. If a passenger rail system is constructed within the existing rail ROW, no ROW 

acquisitions would be required. However, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area allows for rail 

infrastructure and station facilities to be located beyond the limits of the existing rail ROW, which 

would require acquisition of land not designated for transportation. Which land uses would be 

affected by the future construction of a passenger rail system and to what extent cannot be 

determined at this time. 

Since station locations have not yet been selected, land use consistency analyses would be required 

at the Tier 2/Project-level analysis to determine if the planned station facilities are consistent with the 

local general plan and/or municipal code (i.e., zoning). When compared with the No Build 

Alternative, effects would be moderate under the Build Alternative Options. When compared with 

Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have slightly reduced effects due to a 

shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the magnitude of effects would be 

similar for Build Alternative Option 2 and considered moderate when compared with the No Build 

Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may 

have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, 

reduced station options, and reduced third rail track infrastructure. However, the magnitude of 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-27

effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and considered moderate when compared with 

the No Build Alternative. 

OPERATION

Western Section. Operation of the Build Alternative Options would increase activity along existing 

rail tracks by an additional two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains through largely built-out 

urban areas. The Western Section would not require any land acquisition or redesignation/rezoning 

of any parcels, and as such, would be consistent with existing land use designations of the general 

plans. In addition, by increasing service options through the use of existing infrastructure, the 

Program would be consistent with policies that focus on maximizing transit options and encourage 

the use of existing infrastructure. 

While the Build Alternative Options would result in an increase in train operations (up to four trains 

per day) within the Western Section, the existing infrastructure already includes sound barriers and 

other measures to reduce effects on adjacent sensitive uses, such as residential uses. Therefore, 

implementation of the Build Alternative Options in the Western Section of the Program Corridor 

would not conflict with policies related to context-sensitive design and would be consistent with 

existing plans and policies. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects would be 

negligible under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Land use elements vary greatly among different jurisdictions’ general plans. 

Typically, land use goals relate to economic growth that promotes alternative transportation 

methods, infill development, maintaining buffers between urban and rural land uses, and sensitivity 

to the natural environment. In general, transportation elements include goals relating to improving 

circulation, enhancing public transit, supporting commuter rail service, and creating alternatives to 

automobile transportation. Many of the SCAG RTP/SCS and Riverside County and San Bernardino 

County General Plan policies applicable to the Build Alternative Options promote increasing transit 

options and passenger rail in the region, and Coachella Valley, specifically. The Eastern Section of 

the Program Corridor would connect Colton in the west to Coachella Valley in the east, consistent 

with policies of SCAG, Riverside County, and San Bernardino County. This connection would 

specifically be consistent with Policy C 13.1 of the Riverside County General Plan, which seeks to 

“support continued development and implementation of the RCTC Rail Program including new rail 

lines and stations, the proposed California High Speed Rail System with at least two stations in 

Riverside County, the Coachella Valley San Gorgonio Pass Intercity Rail Service, and the proposed 

Intercity Rail Corridor between Calexico and Los Angeles.” 

Based on a Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level, the Build Alternative Options are generally 

consistent with the transportation goals outlined in the general plans, comprehensive plans, and 

transportation plans, as well as policies from the SCAG RTP/SCS. General plan policies include 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-28

guidance for siting transit stops within community centers and major activity areas. These policies 

are intended to coordinate the location and scheduling of public transit routes, services, and facilities 

for better coordination with bus and rail transit systems. Specific sites for the new stations have not 

been identified for this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation. During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, 

detailed and specific evaluation of land use compatibility with plans and programs would be 

completed once design details are known. 

Community Division or Disruption Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. No construction activities would be required to implement any of the Build 

Alternative Options within the Western Section of the Program Corridor because the existing railroad 

ROW and stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. The Build Alternative Options would not 

require construction of new stations, new track or extensions to existing track, or the addition of 

sidings, wayside signals, drainage, or at-grade separations within the Western Section of the 

Program Corridor. When compared with the No Build Alternative, disruption (including division) to 

existing communities would be negligible because no additional construction activities would occur 

within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, Build Alternative Option

1 would include the construction of infrastructure improvements, such as sidings, additional main line 

track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation structures, and stations, to accommodate the 

proposed service. The majority of construction activities would occur within or directly adjacent to the 

existing railroad ROW, and, therefore, would not be anticipated to result in the physical division of 

existing land uses. However, the construction of up to five new potential stations would require 

acquisition of parcels within local communities adjacent to the railroad ROW. 

Temporary effects on land use would occur during construction within the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1. Noise, pollutant emissions, and traffic generated 

by construction activities could temporarily disrupt residential or other sensitive land uses in the 

Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. When compared with the No Build Alternative, the 

temporary changes associated with Build Alternative Option 1 would have moderate effects on 

certain sensitive land uses adjacent to where construction could occur. When compared with Build 

Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have slightly reduced construction effects due 

to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options (i.e., less construction activity and, as such, 

fewer sensitive land uses). However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative 

Option 2 and considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared 

with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-29

due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and 

reduced third rail track infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build 

Alternative Option 3 and considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Site-specific land use compatibility effects, along with measures to minimize potential disruption to, 

and land use compatibility effects on adjacent land uses would be considered during the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

OPERATION

Western Section. Operation of Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 within the Western Section 

would not result in any physical divisions of established communities as the addition of two daily 

round-trip passenger trains would travel within an existing railroad ROW. When compared with the 

No Build Alternative, effects on land uses would be negligible because no additional infrastructure 

improvements are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. 

Eastern Section. Within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, Build Alternative Option

1 would include the operation of a passenger rail system including station facilities. The majority of 

operational activities would occur within or directly adjacent to the existing railroad ROW, and, 

therefore, would not be anticipated to result in the physical division of existing land uses. Depending 

on where the station facilities are sited, effects on sensitive land use could occur in the form of 

increased noise and traffic. However, operation of the passenger rail system would also provide an 

alternative transportation option and additional opportunities for transit orientated development within 

the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. When compared with the No Build Alternative, the land 

use changes associated with Build Alternative Option 1 would have moderate effects on certain 

sensitive land uses adjacent to where infrastructure or station facilities would operate. When 

compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have slightly 

reduced construction effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, 

the magnitude of effects would be similar and considered moderate when compared with the No 

Build Alternative. 

Site-specific land use compatibility effects, along with measures to minimize potential disruption to, 

and land use compatibility effects on adjacent land uses would be considered during the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

Agricultural Resource Effects 

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. No construction activities would be required to implement any of the Build 

Alternative Options within the Western Section of the Program Corridor because the existing railroad 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-30

ROW and stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. The Build Alternative Options would not 

require construction of new stations, new track, or extensions to existing track, or the addition of 

sidings, wayside signals, drainage, or at-grade separations within the Western Section of the 

Program Corridor. When compared with the No Build Alternative, conversion of agriculturally 

mapped lands to transportation uses would not occur and effects would be negligible within the 

Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Construction of Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 in the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor would require the construction of rail stations, reconfiguration of existing or 

creation of new rail facilities, and potential ROW acquisition. These would require the conversion of 

non-transportation land to a transportation use. The site-specific design that would be developed in 

later Tier 2/Project-level phases would determine the extent to which land use conversions occur. If 

the rail infrastructure or station facility is within the ROW of, or closely parallel to, an existing 

transportation corridor, the extent of land conversion would be minimal. However, the farther rail 

infrastructure or a station facility departs from an existing transportation feature, the greater the 

likelihood for land use conversion, ranging from building on vacant/undeveloped land to potential 

displacement of existing structures.

If a passenger rail system is constructed and operated within the existing rail ROW, relatively few 

ROW acquisitions would be required. However, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area allows for 

infrastructure and station facilities to be located beyond the limits of the existing rail ROW, which 

would require acquisition of land not designated for transportation uses. Which agricultural land uses 

would be affected by the future construction and operation of a passenger rail system, and to what 

extent, cannot be determined at this time. 

If agricultural mapped lands within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor are converted to a 

transportation use, it would be considered an adverse effect. Agricultural lands are considered a 

finite and unique resource, once agricultural land is converted to other uses, that agricultural land is 

effectively eliminated. When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 could 

have a substantial effect on agricultural resources within the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have 

slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the 

magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 2 and considered substantial when 

compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build 

Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a 

shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced third rail track infrastructure. However, 

the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and considered substantial 

when compared with the No Build Alternative. Detailed analysis of ROW acquisition impacts would 

be completed in a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-31

OPERATION

Western Section. Operation of Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 within the Western Section would 

not result in effects on agricultural resources as the additional train trips would travel within an 

existing railroad ROW. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects on agricultural 

resources would be negligible because no additional infrastructure improvements are planned within 

the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Once construction ceases, operation of the new railroad infrastructure and stations 

under the Build Alternative Options would not be anticipated to require further conversion of 

agricultural lands. Operational effects associated with the Eastern Section portion of Build 

Alternative Option 1 on agricultural resources would be negligible when compared with the No Build 

Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would 

have the same magnitude of effect and be considered negligible when compared with the No Build 

Alternative.

3.2.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects

Table 3.2-7 and Table 3.2-8 summarize the qualitative assessment of potential effects (negligible, 

moderate, or substantial) under NEPA for each of the Build Alternative Options. This service-level 

evaluation uses the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area to determine the types of resources that 

may be affected and, more importantly, the relative magnitude of resources that may be affected. 

Specific mitigation measures to reduce effects would be identified during the Tier 2/Project-level

environmental process. 

Table 3.2-7. NEPA Summary of Effects on Land Use

Alternative Options

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: None

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: Substantial

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-32

Alternative Options

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel 

facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels 

of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on Tier 2/Project-level 

specific analysis.

EIR=environmental impact report; EIS=environmental impact statement
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-33

Table 3.2-8. NEPA Summary of Effects on Agricultural Resources

Alternative Options

Prime 

Farmland 

(acres)

Unique 

Farmland 

(acres)

Farmland of 

Statewide 

Importance 

(acres)

Farmland of 

Local 

Importance 

(acres)

Total 

Farmland 

Protection 

Policy Act

Farmland 

(acres)

Potential Intensity of 

Effect: 

Western Section

Potential Intensity of 

Effect: 

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Not 

Applicable

Not 

Applicable

Not 

Applicable

Not 

Applicable

Not 

Applicable

Construction: None

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: None

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

560.38 96.69 22.59 2,623.91 3,303.57 Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: 

Substantial

Operation: Negligible

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

362.55 96.69 22.59 2,549.89 3,021.72 Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: 

Substantial 

Operation: Negligible 

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with 

Limited Third Track) 

362.55 96.69 22.59 2,549.89 3,021.72 Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction:

Substantial 

Operation: Negligible 

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study 

Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on 

Tier 2/Project-level specific analysis.

EIR=environmental impact report; EIS=environmental impact statement
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-34

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-35

3.2.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts

Based on the information provided in Section 3.2.4 and 3.2.5, and considering the CEQA Guidelines 

Appendix G Checklist questions for land use and planning and agriculture and forestry resources, 

the Build Alternative Options are considered to have a potentially significant impact on land use and 

planning and agriculture and forestry resources when reviewed on a Program-wide basis. Placing 

the infrastructure improvements and new stations largely within or along the existing ROW reduces 

the potential for significant impacts on these resources; however, because the proposed stations 

have not been selected, agricultural resources may be significantly impacted. At the programmatic 

analysis level, it is not possible to know the precise location, extent, and particular characteristics of 

impacts on these resources. 

Proposed programmatic mitigation strategies, discussed in Section 3.2.8, would be applied to reduce 

potential impacts. Table 3.2-9 describes the CEQA significance conclusions for the Build Alternative 

Options; the proposed programmatic mitigation strategies that would be applied to minimize, reduce, 

or avoid the potential impacts; and the significance determination after mitigation strategies are 

applied. The identification and implementation of additional site-specific mitigation measures 

necessary for Project implementation would occur as part of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-36

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-37

Table 3.2-9. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Land Use and Planning and Agriculture and Forestry Resources 

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program physically divide an established community?

Construction 

Western Section – No Impact. No impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or required in the Western 

Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts associated with physically 

dividing an established community depend on the location of new stations, which are currently 

unknown and which may require acquisition of parcels within local communities. However, the 

stations would be generally located adjacent to the existing tracks, and for that reason, impacts 

associated with dividing established communities would be unlikely. Construction activities 

would result in noise, air pollutants, and traffic impacts that may temporarily affect the 

community. While not anticipated, site-specific impacts would be further considered during the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis, when the actual locations of the proposed stations can be 

identified.

LU-1

LU-2 

LU-3 

Potentially Significant. LU-1 through 

LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid

potential impacts associated with 

physically dividing an established 

community through design and further 

analysis. However, impacts may remain 

significant and unavoidable as further 

analysis may determine that land 

acquisitions would result in community 

impacts. 

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional round-trip daily 

trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use that would cause or 

contribute to physical division of communities. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated under 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-38

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Less than Significant. Impacts from two additional round-trip daily trains 

are anticipated to be less than significant because they would not cause or contribute to 

physical division of communities. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated under 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Would the Program conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Program

(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding 

or mitigating an environmental effect?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or required within the 

Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts associated with consistency with 

plans and policies depend on the location of new stations and other infrastructure 

improvements, which are currently unknown. Construction of new stations may require land 

acquisition, which may require land use designation changes or amendments. However, a 

detailed analysis of city-level plans, policies, and regulations cannot be considered at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR level because such an analysis at this stage would be too speculative, 

given the exact location of stations is unknown at this time. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis 

would identify any conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation.

LU-3 Potentially Significant. LU-3 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts from conflicts with plans and 

policies through design and further 

analysis. However, impacts may remain 

significant and unavoidable as further 

analysis may determine that there is a 

conflict that cannot be mitigated between 

land uses. 

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. No impacts are anticipated from operation because Build 

Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 are consistent with federal, state, and regional plans and 

policies that promote expanding existing transportation options and providing multimodal

connectivity within the region.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-39

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts associated with consistency with 

plans and policies depend on the location of new stations and other infrastructure 

improvements, which are currently unknown. However, a detailed analysis of city-level plans, 

policies, and regulations cannot be considered at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR level because 

such an analysis at this stage would be too speculative, given the exact location of rail 

improvements and stations is unknown at this time. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would 

identify any conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation. 

LU-3 Potentially Significant. LU-3 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts from conflicts with plans and 

policies through design and further 

analysis. However, impacts may remain 

significant and unavoidable as further 

analysis may determine that there is a 

conflict that cannot be mitigated between 

land uses. 

Would the Program convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps 

prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

Construction 

Western Section – No Impact. No impacts are anticipated under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, 

or 3 at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are 

proposed or required within the Western Section and no agricultural mapped lands would be 

converted to non-agricultural use.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-40

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. The construction of rail infrastructure and station 

facilities could convert prime farmland, unique farmland or farmland of statewide importance to 

a non-agricultural use as these types of farmlands are present within the Eastern Section of 

the Program Corridor. Potential impacts associated with converting farmland to 

non-agricultural use depend on the location of new stations and other infrastructure 

improvements, which are currently unknown. Site-specific impacts would be further considered 

during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis when the actual locations of the proposed stations can 

be identified.

LU-4

LU-5 

Potentially Significant. LU-4 and LU-5

would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts associated with converting 

farmland through design, further analysis, 

and the consideration of agricultural 

easements. However, impacts may remain 

significant and unavoidable as further 

analysis may determine that agricultural 

easements would not actually mitigate the 

significant impact caused by the rail 

infrastructure or station facility proposed. 

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional round-trip daily 

trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use that would result in 

conversion of agricultural mapped lands into non-agricultural uses within the Western Section 

of Program Corridor. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, 

or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – No Impact. Once construction is completed, operation of Build Alternative 

Option 1, 2, or 3 would not require conversion of farmland. Therefore, no impacts are 

anticipated under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-41

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No conflicts with agriculturally zoned land or land under a 

Williamson Act contract would occur because no physical improvements are proposed or 

required within the Western Section. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. The construction of rail infrastructure and station 

facilities could conflict with existing zoning for agricultural uses or lands currently under a 

Williamson Act contract as both are present within the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor. Potential impacts associated with conflicts with existing zoning for agriculture or a 

Williamson Act contract depend on the location of new stations and other infrastructure 

improvements, which are currently unknown. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are 

anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, 

or 3. Site-specific impacts would be determined during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

LU-4

LU-5 

LU-6 

Potentially Significant. Although LU-4

through LU-6 would minimize, reduce, or

avoid potential impacts associated with 

converting farmland, it is unknown to what 

extent and type of impact on farmlands or 

Williamson Act contract lands would occur. 

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional round-trip daily 

trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use that would result in 

conflicts with existing agricultural zoning or lands under a Williamson Act contract within the 

Western Section of Program Corridor. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – No Impact. Once construction is completed, operation of Build Alternative 

Option 1, 2, or 3 would not conflict with existing agricultural zoning or lands under a Williamson 

Act contract within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. Therefore, no impacts are 

anticipated under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-42

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 

12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by 

Government Code section 51104(g))?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No conflicts with existing zoning of forest land or timberland 

would occur because no physical improvements are proposed or required and there are no 

forest lands in the Western Section. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – No Impact. No conflicts with existing zoning of forest land or timberland 

would occur because there are no forest lands in the Eastern Section. Therefore, no impacts 

are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 

2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. No conflicts with existing zoning of forest land or timberland 

would occur during operation because there are no forest lands in the Western Section.

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – No Impact. No conflicts with existing zoning of forest land or timberland 

would occur during operation because there are no forest lands in the Eastern Section.

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-43

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest 

land use would occur because no physical improvements are proposed or required and there 

are no forest lands in the Western Section. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – No Impact. No loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest 

land use would occur because there are no forest lands in the Eastern Section. Therefore, no 

impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative 

Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. No loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest 

land use would occur during operation because there are no forest lands in the Western 

Section. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level

under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – No Impact. No loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest 

land use would occur during operation because there are no forest lands in the Eastern 

Section. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level

under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-44

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of 

Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No impacts are anticipated under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, 

or 3 at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are 

proposed or required within the Western Section. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. The construction of rail infrastructure and station 

facilities could result in the direct conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses and represent 

a change in existing conditions that could result in an indirect potential for conversion of 

farmland to non-agricultural uses within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. Potential 

impacts associated with converting farmland to non-agricultural use depend on the location of 

new stations and other infrastructure improvements, which are currently unknown. Therefore, 

potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level

under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. Site-specific impacts would be determined during the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

LU-4

LU-5 

Potentially Significant. LU-4 and LU-5

would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts through design, further analysis, 

and the consideration of agricultural 

easements. However, impacts may remain 

significant and unavoidable as further 

analysis may determine that agricultural 

easements would not actually mitigate the 

significant impact caused by the rail 

infrastructure or station facility proposed.

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional round-trip daily 

trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use that would result in 

other changes that may result in the conversion of farmland or forest uses to non-farmland or 

non-forest uses. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 

3. 

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-45

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Once construction is complete, the operation of 

rail infrastructure and station facilities would not result in the direct conversion of farmland to 

non-agricultural uses. While there are numerous economic and environmental factors that 

would preclude the long-term viability of agriculture in Riverside County and the Inland Empire, 

operation of station facilities represents a change in existing conditions that could result in an 

indirect potential for conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses within the Eastern Section 

of the Program Corridor. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

LU-5 Potentially Significant. Although LU-5

would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts through design, further analysis, 

and the consideration of agricultural 

easements, impacts may remain 

significant and unavoidable as further 

analysis may determine that agricultural 

easements would not actually mitigate the 

significant impact caused by the rail 

infrastructure or station facility proposed.

Notes:

EIR=environmental impact report; EIS=environmental impact statement 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-46

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-47

3.2.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies

Identified below are proposed programmatic mitigation strategies for further consideration in the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified 

and discussed during Tier 2/Project-level analysis after design details are known and specific 

impacts are identified. Potential mitigation measures would be developed in consultation with the 

agency with jurisdiction over the resource and might include avoiding agricultural land resources or 

minimizing the acreage of a physical take of these properties during planning and design and 

selecting rail station locations that avoid conflicts with sensitive land uses. 

Proposed programmatic mitigation strategies, consistent with state and federal regulations, could 

include, but are not limited to, the following: 

Mitigation Strategy LU-1: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis and 

recommendations, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine the extent and duration of 

construction activities of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed and develop

construction best management practices that shall be implemented by the contractor to reduce 

noise, air quality, and transportation effects, such as temporary sound barriers and traffic 

management plans. Depending on the nature of construction activities proposed and the location 

where construction activities could occur, construction best management practices could include, but 

are not limited to, the following: 

• Limit noise-generating construction activities to the hours identified in the applicable local 

jurisdiction’s ordinance and/or policies governing construction activities

• Control fugitive dust by watering disturbed areas

• Require specifications for construction equipment and idling times

Mitigation Strategy LU-2: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis and 

recommendations, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if a construction 

management plan is required for construction activities of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being 

proposed. If required, a construction management plan shall be developed by the contractor and 

reviewed by the lead agency or agencies prior to construction and implemented during construction 

activities. The construction management plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

• Measures that minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project 

Study Area
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.2 Land Use and Planning

May 2021 | 3.2-48

• Measures pertaining to visual protection, air quality, safety controls, noise controls, and 

traffic controls to minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project 

Study Area

• Measures to ensure property access is maintained for local businesses, residences, and 

community and emergency services

• Measures to consult with local transit providers to minimize effects on local and regional bus 

routes in affected communities

• Measures to consult with local jurisdictions and utility providers to minimize effects on utilities 

in affected communities

Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency 

analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of 

the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general 

plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or 

environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall

be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or 

environmental resources. 

Mitigation Strategy LU-4: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, siting of rail 

infrastructure and station facilities shall be designed by the identified lead agency or agencies to 

avoid or minimize conversion of farmland resources. 

Mitigation Strategy LU-5: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, the identified lead 

agency or agencies shall determine if the siting of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being 

proposed is located within an area mapped as farmland by the California Department of 

Conservation. If the Tier 2/Project-level improvement is located in an area mapped as farmland, the 

preparation of a land evaluation and site assessment shall be conducted to determine significance of 

impacts attributed to the loss or conversion of farmland associated with the siting of the Tier 

2/Project-level improvement being proposed. 

Mitigation Strategy LU-6: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, the identified lead 

agency or agencies shall determine if the siting of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being 

proposed is located on land enrolled in a Williamson Act contract. Where lands enrolled in a 

Williamson Act contract are impacted during the siting of rail infrastructure or station facilities, the 

California Department of Conservation shall be notified by the identified lead agency or agencies 

and requirements of Government Code Section 51290-51295 and 51296.6 shall be met. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-1 

3.3 Transportation 

3.3.1 Introduction

This section provides an evaluation of traffic and transportation-related effects associated with

implementing the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternative Options. Information contained in 

this section is summarized from the Transportation Impact Technical Memorandum (Appendix C of 

this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). 

3.3.2 Regulatory Framework

In accordance with NEPA (42 USC Section 4321 et seq.), CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR Parts 1501-1508), FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 

28545, May 26, 1999), and CEQA, FRA identified transportation resources within the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Study Area and evaluated the potential impacts on those resources from implementation of 

the Build Alternative Options. 

Federal

Federal Railroad Administration

According to the FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545, May 

26, 1999) Section 14(n)(13) (FRA 1999), an “EIS should assess the impacts on both passenger and 

freight transportation, by all modes, from local, regional, national, and international perspectives. The 

EIS should include a discussion of both construction period and long-term impacts on vehicular 

traffic congestion.” 

State

California Department of Transportation

Caltrans manages and coordinates statewide intercity passenger rail service that helps to improve 

California’s air quality by reducing highway congestion and fuel consumption. Caltrans contracts with 

the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) to provide daily operation and maintenance of 

the Amtrak California service.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-2 

Senate Bill 743

California’s SB 743, approved in 2013, changes the evaluation of traffic impacts under CEQA. The 

bill required the Office of Planning and Research to modify the CEQA Guidelines to replace existing 

approaches for studying transportation impacts under CEQA. These previously existing approaches 

focused on auto delay and congestion, which are typically measured using level of service. These 

metrics will no longer be requirements to determine traffic impacts under CEQA. Rather, SB 743 

requires Office of Planning and Research to establish criteria for determining the significance of 

transportation impacts that promote the reduction of GHG emissions, the development of multimodal 

transportation networks, and a diversity of land uses. In December 2018, the California Natural 

Resources Agency finalized updates to the CEQA Guidelines, including the incorporation of SB 743

modifications.

SB 743 preserves local government authority to make planning decisions. Therefore, level of service

and congestion can still be measured for planning purposes; however, automobile delay may no 

longer constitute a significant impact under CEQA. 

Regional

Consideration of regional rail and roadway operations would include regional agency plans and 

regulations applicable to the planning of transportation infrastructure. Regional agencies include 

Metro, Orange County Transportation Authority, SBCTA, and RCTC. Regulations from regional 

agencies would be identified in the Tier 2/Project-level analysis once site-specific potential effects 

resulting from construction and operation of infrastructure improvements are known.

Southern California Association of Governments 

SCAG is a Joint Powers Authority under California state law, established as an association of local 

governments and agencies that voluntarily convene as a forum to address regional issues. Under 

federal law, SCAG is designated as a metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) and under state 

law as a Regional Transportation Planning Agency and a Council of Governments. The SCAG 

region encompasses six counties - Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and 

Ventura. On April 7, 2016, SCAG’s Regional Council adopted the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. The 

RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that balances future mobility and housing needs with 

economic, environmental, and public health goals. The RTP/SCS charts a course for closely 

integrating land use and transportation, so that the region can grow smartly and sustainably. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-3 

Local and Tribal Governments

Regulations from cities, local agencies, and tribal governments would be identified in the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis once site-specific rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are 

known.

3.3.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects

The methodology for this Tier 1/Program service-level evaluation identifies the approach and 

assumptions for the transportation assessment with regard to analyzing environmental 

consequences of the Build Alternative Options related to transportation effects. The methodology 

considers the change in travel conditions for the proposed transportation improvements by 

comparing the Build Alternative Options to the No Build Alternative. 

Travel conditions included service frequency, travel time, connectivity between modes (type or form 

of transportation), improved access to existing destinations, new means of access to locations 

presently unserved by passenger rail, expanded modal options, customer convenience, and safety 

enhancement. Together, these travel conditions describe the overall service quality. 

Table 3.3-1 presents the transportation assessment criteria and metrics for quantifying

Program-related effects.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-4 

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-5 

Table 3.3-1. Transportation Impact Methodology Framework

Level of 

Analysis Mode Unit of Analysis Metric

Travel 

Condition 

Factor

Regional Highways and roadways Travel along proposed Program Corridor Vehicle trip reduction Ridership

Regional Highways and roadways Travel along proposed Program Corridor VMT reduction Ridership

Regional Highways and roadways Travel along proposed Program Corridor Highway safety enhancement 

(accident reduction)

Safety

Regional Passenger rail Travel along proposed Program Corridor Off-highway person-capacity Frequency

Regional Passenger rail Travel along proposed Program Corridor Annual passengers Ridership

Regional Passenger rail Travel along proposed Program Corridor Passenger miles traveled Ridership

Regional Passenger rail Travel along proposed Program Corridor Travel time via public transportation Travel time

Regional Passenger rail Travel along proposed Program Corridor Reliability of service/on-time 

performance

Travel time

Regional Freight rail Shared rail corridor with proposed passenger rail 

service

Reliability of freight travel/delay to 

freight rail traffic

Travel time

Regional Passenger rail Representative station areas along proposed Program 

Corridor

Hours of service and frequency of 

possible connecting mode 

(commuter rail/public transit)

Connectivity

Regional Passenger rail Representative station areas along proposed Program 

Corridor

Number of trains per day Frequency

Regional Passenger rail Representative station areas along proposed Program 

Corridor

Number of boardings/alightings for 

each station area

Ridership
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-6 

Level of 

Analysis Mode Unit of Analysis Metric

Travel 

Condition 

Factor

Regional Passenger rail Representative station areas along proposed Program 

Corridor

Transit accessibility to other parts of 

the region

Regional 

accessibility

Regional Passenger rail Representative station areas along proposed Program 

Corridor

Ease of station access (multimodal 

access, frequency of access)

Local 

accessibility

Notes:

VMT=vehicle miles traveled
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-7 

Horizon Years

For the purpose of comparison between the Build Alternative Options and No Build Alternative, three 

horizon years were analyzed:

• Existing Year (2018): Under this scenario, Program-related transportation impacts were 

analyzed for the surrounding roadways and rail (passenger and freight) systems under 

existing conditions. This scenario was analyzed to fulfill CEQA requirements for establishing 

a baseline environmental setting. 

• Opening Year (2024): Under this scenario, Program-related transportation impacts were

analyzed for on the surrounding roadways and rail (passenger and freight) systems on the 

first day the Program is operational.

• Future Year (2044): Under this scenario, Program-related transportation impacts were 

analyzed for on the surrounding roadways and rail (passenger and freight) systems under full 

build-out conditions. 

Service goals, which include frequency and targeted trip times of trains, for the Build Alternative

Options were developed to meet the service objectives, as described in Chapter 1, Purpose and 

Need, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The frequency of the proposed passenger rail service would 

be two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains based on a ridership forecasting model service 

optimization analysis conducted during preparation of the Final Alternative Analysis, Coachella 

Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Study (summarized in Chapter 2, Program 

Alternatives, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). The details of the train schedule are presented in 

Appendix C of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

The study area used to quantify transportation impacts is different based on whether the assessment 

is conducted at the regional level or the local level. For regional transportation effects, the 

four-county study area is loosely defined around the Program Corridor, encompassing the regional 

freeways between Los Angeles and Coachella Valley. At the local level, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Study Area includes the catchment areas within which existing and potential new stations may be 

located along the Build Alternative Options between Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella. A detailed 

description of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area is provided in Section 3.1, Introduction to 

Environmental Analysis, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-8 

Data Sources

Annual Ridership estimates were derived from a mode-share model for intercity rail modeling for 

Caltrans and Amtrak. The mode-share model forecasted ridership on the Amtrak California rail 

network, evaluated the service attributes of each travel mode, and predicted the share of trips made 

by each mode. The model’s forecasting approach was applied separately for the average weekday 

and weekend across 12 travel markets based on a combination of trip purposes (business, 

commute, personal, etc.) and time of day when the trip began (morning, midday, afternoon/evening, 

and nighttime). The mode-share model accounted for an intercity rail’s potential weekday/weekend 

schedules and patron travel patterns, which in turn influences how a traveler makes choices about

travel modes based on trip purpose. An overview of the mode-share model is included in Appendix 

C of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 

Station access mode choice for arriving and departing passengers at stations was estimated based 

on a recent Amtrak onboard survey of its state-supported Pacific Surfliner and San Joaquin corridor 

services in California (San Francisco State University 2017). Details of this survey results are 

included in Appendix C of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 

Related Resources

This evaluation incorporates data and analysis from related resources to contribute to the 

assessment of transportation effects. These related resources are identified in Table 3.3-2. 

Table 3.3-2. Related Resource Inputs for Transportation

Resource Input for Transportation Assessment

Air Quality and Greenhouse 

Gases 

(Section 3.5)

Potential air quality benefits resulting from enhanced passenger service were 

considered.

Noise and Vibration 

(Section 3.6)

Location of areas where noise and vibration thresholds may be exceeded by the 

Program were identified.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-9 

3.3.4 Affected Environment

Transportation Networks and Services

The Program Corridor crosses a large geographic area within Southern California, spanning 

approximately 144 miles from its western terminus in Los Angeles to its eastern terminus in 

Coachella. Within the Program Corridor, there exists multiple modes of transportation and 

transportation networks including aviation (plane service), highway/roadway (for passenger vehicles 

and buses), and rail service (for passenger and freight service). 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Table 3.3-3 summarizes the existing transportation networks and services within the Program 

Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1. Key regional highways serving the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Study Area are shown on Figure 3.3-1, while Figure 3.3-2 depicts intercity rail and regional bus 

service between Los Angeles and Coachella Valley. Additional details on existing transportation and 

services within the Program Corridor are provided in Appendix C of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-10

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-11

Table 3.3-3. Summary of Transportation Networks and Services (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3) 

Transportation Mode Description Summary

Aviation Non-stop flights between Palm Springs and Los Angeles are operated twice a day between Palm Springs International Airport and 

Los Angeles International Airport. 

Regional Highways The Western Section of the Program Corridor is served by I-10, SR 60, and SR 91. The Eastern Section of the Program Corridor is 

served by I-10, SR 60, and SR 111. SR 111 serves as the main arterial highway between almost all Coachella Valley cities.

Bus Transit – Sunline 

Commuter Link 220

This commuter bus service operates a 73-mile route between the Coachella Valley and Western Riverside County. Three round-trips 

are operated on weekdays, with two morning and one afternoon westbound departures from Palm Desert, and one morning and two 

afternoon/evening eastbound departures from the Riverside Metrolink station. Trip time between Palm Desert and the Riverside 

Metrolink station is approximately 2 hours and 15 minutes (SunLine Transit Agency 2017). 

Bus Transit – Sunline 

Commuter Link 120

This express bus service operates between Beaumont and the San Bernardino Metrolink station, with stops in Calimesa and at the 

Loma Linda Veterans Administration Hospital. Seven round-trips are operated throughout the day each weekday and five round-trips 

on Saturdays. In San Bernardino, riders can catch Metrolink trains to travel to parts of the Los Angeles Basin. This service originates 

in the western part of the San Gorgonio Pass Area, so it does not directly serve Banning, Cabazon, or the Coachella Valley. Trip 

time from Beaumont to San Bernardino Metrolink ranges between 40 and 55 minutes.

Bus Transit – Amtrak 

Thruway

Travelers may use Amtrak Thruway buses only in conjunction with trips made aboard Amtrak passenger trains. The buses cannot 

be used for standalone intercity bus travel). Twelve daily Amtrak Thruway buses combine to provide two daily round-trips between 

the Coachella Valley and Fullerton by way of Riverside; two daily round-trips between the Coachella Valley and Bakersfield by way 

of San Bernardino, Ontario, and Pasadena; as well as four daily roundtrips between Bakersfield and Riverside/San Bernardino. The 

trip time for the Thruway bus and Pacific Surfliner rail service between Indio and Los Angeles with transfer at Fullerton varies 

between 3 hours, 42 minutes and 4 hours, 35 minutes, depending on direction of travel.

Bus Transit –

Greyhound

Greyhound operates intercity bus service between Los Angeles and Indio, with eight weekday trips from Los Angeles to Indio and 

seven from Indio to Los Angeles. Depending on the schedule, one to three communities (Indio, Thousand Palms, and Banning) in 

eastern Riverside County are served by this Greyhound route. Trip time for daytime service ranges from 3 to 4 hours, with late-night 

non-stop service making the trip in 2.5 hours. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-12

Transportation Mode Description Summary

Passenger 

Rail - Amtrak

In the Western Section of the Program Corridor, Amtrak provides Pacific Surfliner intercity passenger service from San Luis Obispo 

to San Diego through Santa Barbara and Los Angeles. Twenty-six Amtrak Pacific Surfliner trains operate daily between Fullerton 

and Los Angeles. In the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, Amtrak One Amtrak currently operates the Sunset Limited

passenger service. The Sunset Limited is a long-distance train that travels between Los Angeles and New Orleans with three 

round-trips per week. The westbound train has a scheduled stop in Palm Springs at 2:02 a.m. on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday 

en route to a 5:35 a.m. arrival in Los Angeles. The eastbound Sunset Limited is scheduled to depart Los Angeles at 10:00 p.m. and 

makes a scheduled stop at Palm Springs at 12:36 a.m. on Monday, Thursday, and Saturday en route to New Orleans. The Palm 

Springs station is currently unstaffed and located in a fairly isolated location with no local transit access. 

Passenger 

Rail - Metrolink

Within the Western Section of the Program Corridor, Metrolink provides multiple commuter rail services in Orange County, 

Riverside, or San Bernardino that connect to LAUS, Fullerton, and Riverside. These include the Orange County Line 

(Oceanside/Laguna Niguel/Irvine to LAUS), San Bernardino Line (San Bernardino to LAUS), the Riverside Line (Riverside to LAUS

via Ontario), and the 91/Perris Valley Line (Perris and Riverside to LAUS, via Orange County). Metrolink averages 26 to 28 

passenger and commuter trains daily throughout its rail network during the week, weekend, and holidays. Metrolink commuter rail 

service currently does not operate within the Coachella Valley. 

Freight Rail The Program Corridor is part of a key segment of high-density freight train routes that link Southern California, including the Ports of 

Los Angeles and Long Beach, with major population centers in the U.S., Midwest, the Gulf Coast, and the Southeast. As a result, 

freight train volumes in each section have substantial variability associated with vessel calls at the ports, customer requirements, 

day of week, and import-export fluctuations

Notes:

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; SR=State Route; U.S.=United States
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-13

Figure 3.3-1. Existing Key Corridor Highways within the Program Corridor
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-14

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-15

Figure 3.3-2. Existing Intercity Rail and Regional Bus Service within the Program Corridor
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-16

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-17

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Existing transportation networks and services within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build 

Alternative Option 1. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Existing transportation networks and services within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build 

Alternative Option 1. 

Rail Volume and Rail Corridor Ownership

Unlike roadways, U.S. freight railroads are owned by private organizations who are responsible for 

their own maintenance and improvement projects. 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Table 3.3-4 and Figure 3.3-3 summarize and show the existing host railroads within the Program 

Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1. Within the Western Section of the Program Corridor, the 

host railroads are BNSF and SCRRA (aka Metrolink). Rail operators within the Western Section of 

the Program Corridor include BNSF, SCRRA, UP, and Amtrak. The Western Section has more 

variability in volume because of the passenger and commuter train services that use portions of this 

section. BNSF-hosted sections vary from 32 to 54 average freight trains per day, along with 2 to 

26 average intercity passenger trains per day, and 8 to 28 average commuter trains per day that use 

part or all of the Program Corridor. The SCRRA-hosted section averages 26 and 28 passenger and 

commuter trains, respectively, per day to and from LAUS and also has one limited local freight 

service. 

Within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, the host railroad is UP. Rail operators within the 

Eastern Section of the Program Corridor include UP and Amtrak. In the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor, UP’s Yuma Subdivision, averages approximately 42 freight trains per day. In 

addition, Amtrak’s long-distance passenger train, the Sunset Limited, operates six one-way trips per 

week (3 days per week in each direction) along the Eastern Section. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-18

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-19

Figure 3.3-3. Host Railroads and Additional Operators within the Program Corridor
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-20

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-21

Table 3.3-4. Existing Year (2018) Daily Train Operations in the Coachella Valley Rail 

Corridor (Average One-Way Trips)

Segments

Existing Year 

(2018) Intercity 

Passenger 

One-way Train 

Trips

Existing Year 

(2018) 

Commuter 

One-way Train 

Trips

Existing Year 

(2018) Freight 

One-way Train 

Trips

Total Existing

Year (2018) 

Average Daily 

Volume of 

Trains

Western Section (SCRRA – Host Railroad; Additional Operators – Amtrak, BNSF)

Los Angeles (Union 

Station-Soto*)

26 28 1 55

Western Section (BNSF– Host Railroad; Additional Operators – Amtrak, SCRRA, UP)

Los Angeles (Soto*)-Fullerton 26 28 32 86

Fullerton-Atwood 2 9 32 43

Atwood-Riverside 2 25 34 61

Riverside-Highgrove 2 20 54 76

Highgrove-Colton 2 8 54 64

Eastern Section (UP – Host Railroad; Additional Operators – Amtrak)

Colton-Coachella 1 0 42 43

Notes:

Daily train counts represent revenue train movements on a weekday (Monday-Friday). Freight train counts are based 

on Base Year (2013) daily freight train totals for the line segments shown above, as published in the 2018 California 

State Rail Plan, Appendix A.4, Table 20. Passenger and commuter train counts are based on the following public 

timetables in effect in September 2018: Metrolink All Lines timetable effective May 14, 2018, the 2018 LOSSAN 

Southern California Passenger Rail System Map and Timetables effective April 1, 2018, the Amtrak Southwest Chief 

timetable effective July 31, 2018, and the Amtrak Sunset Limited timetable effective March 11, 2018. 

* Soto interlocking (Milepost 144.4) in Los Angeles

LOSSAN=Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo; SCRRA=Southern California Regional Rail Authority; UP=Union 

Pacific Railroad

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Existing rail volume and rail owners/operators within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build 

Alternative Option 1. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-22

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Existing rail volume and rail owners/operators within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build 

Alternative Option 1. 

Railroad/Roadway Crossings

Railroad/roadway crossings are subject to a number of existing laws, regulations, and policies 

related to sight distance for drivers and highway and rail system operational requirements. At-grade 

railroad/roadway crossings also present a risk of collisions between trains and other travel modes, 

as well as a risk of collisions between vehicles, particularly rear-end-type crashes when vehicles 

stop at a crossing. 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Within the Western Section, Build Alternative Option 1 crosses multiple highway/rail crossings. 

There are 129 existing highway/rail crossings including the following types:

• Public at-grade crossings: 36

• Private at-grade crossings: 4 

• Overpass, public roadway: 42

• Underpass, public roadway: 45

• Underpass, private crossing: 2 

Within the Eastern Section, Build Alternative Option 1 crosses multiple highway/rail crossings. There 

are 51 existing highway/rail crossings, 2 of which are at-grade crossings within an existing quiet 

zone in the City of Loma Linda. The existing highway/rail crossings are of the following types:

• Public at-grade crossings: 15

• Private at-grade crossings: 8

• Overpass, public roadway: 23

• Underpass, public roadway: 3

• Underpass, pedestrian, public: 1

• Underpass, private crossing: 1
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-23

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Railroad/roadway crossings within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build Alternative 

Option 1. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Railroad/roadway crossings within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build Alternative 

Option 1. 

Station Amenities 

One of the main infrastructure features in a rail passenger system is the rail station. A station 

provides a means for passengers to purchase tickets and board trains. The capacity of a station is 

the ability of the station and its associated spaces to create safety and comfort for the number of 

passengers expected to use the station. This feeds into the performance of the entire passenger rail 

system. 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Four existing stations along the Program Corridor have existing platforms and facilities that are 

anticipated to be used for the proposed passenger rail service. Table 3.3-5 summarizes local access 

to each of the existing stations in addition to existing amenities at each of the existing stations within 

the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1.

Table 3.3-5. Existing Station Access and Amenities within the Program Corridor

Station Station Summary

Western Section

LAUS

(City of Los 

Angeles, Los 

Angeles County) 

LAUS is a regional transportation hub providing multimodal access, including pedestrian and 

bicycle access. The station provides bicycle racks and lockers. The station is currently served 

by an extensive transit system including bus, rail, and high-occupancy vehicle facilities. 

Numerous bus routes start, stop, or terminate at LAUS and include long-haul, express, and 

local municipal buses provided by the City of Los Angeles Department of Transportation, 

Metro, Los Angeles World Airports, Orange County Transportation Authority, Foothill Transit, 

and Amtrak Thruway. Along with bus routes, the station also provides connection to Metro 

Red and Purple Lines, Gold Line, six Metrolink lines (91/Perris Valley Line, Antelope Valley 

Line, Orange County Line, Riverside Line, San Bernardino Line and the Ventura County 

Line), and four Amtrak services (Pacific Surfliner, Coast Starlight, Southwest Chief, and 

Sunset Limited). 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-24

Station Station Summary

Roadway access to the station is from Alameda Street on the west, Vignes Street on the east, 

and Cesar Chavez Avenue on the north. From the south, indirect access is provided from the 

El Monte Busway and Arcadia Street. Regional highway access to the station is provided via 

US-101 and I-110. Parking structures at both the east and the west end of the station provide 

paid parking spaces (approximately 3,000 spaces) (Union Station Los Angeles n.d.). 

Fullerton Station

(City of Fullerton, 

Orange County) 

The Fullerton Station serves as a multimodal transportation center and provides bicycle and 

pedestrian access. The station provides bicycle racks and lockers. The station is served by 

two Metrolink lines (91/Perris Valley Line and Orange County Line) and two Amtrak services 

(Pacific Surfliner and Southwest Chief).

Bus service is provided by Orange County Transportation Authority and Amtrak Thruway. 

Roadway access to the station is provided via Harbor Boulevard on the west, Santa Fe 

Avenue on the north, Walnut Avenue on the south, and Lemon Street on the east. Regional 

highway access to the station is provided via SR 91. The Fullerton station provides free 

parking and has 1,321 parking spaces of which 9 parking spaces are reserved for 

handicapped drivers. An additional parking structure west of Harbor Boulevard offers 814 

spaces (SCRRA 2018). 

Riverside Station

(City of 

Riverside, 

Riverside 

County) 

The Riverside station serves as a multimodal transportation center and provides bicycle and 

pedestrian access. Bicycle lockers or racks are not available at this station. The station is 

served by both Metrolink commuter service (91/Perris Valley Line, Inland Empire-Orange 

County Line, and Riverside Line) and Amtrak long distance service (Southwest Chief). Bus 

service to this station is provided by Riverside Transit Agency and SunLine. 

Roadway access to the station is provided via Vine Street on the north, 14th Street on the 

west, and Commerce Street on the south. Regional highway access to the station is provided 

via SR 91 and SR 60. The Riverside station provides free parking and has 1,115 parking 

spaces of which 25 parking spaces are reserved for handicapped drivers. In addition, 325 

parking spaces are provided on the east parking lot, located off Commerce Street (off the 

south-side platform) (SCRRA 2018).

Eastern Section

Palm Springs 

Station (City of 

Palm Springs, 

Riverside 

County) 

The Palm Springs Station is served by Amtrak long distance service (Sunset Limited and 

Texas Eagle). Greyhound bus lines has a stop at the station, however, no ticketing services 

are available. SunLine provides bus connection along Indian Canyon Drive but does not 

provide direct access to the station. No other connecting transportation services are available 

except for taxi cabs and app-based ride sharing services. This station is not a full-service 

station with station amenities comprising of a single platform and an open-air shelter with a 

roof.

Roadway access to the station is provided via Indian Canyon Drive and Palm Springs Station 

Drive on the east. Regional highway access to the station is provided via I-10. The Palm 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-25

Station Station Summary

Springs station has 40 parking spaces available of which 4 parking spaces are reserved for 

handicapped drivers. In addition, six drop-off/pick-up spaces and 10 bus bays are provided. 

Notes:

I=Interstate; LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; Metro=Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; 

SCRRA=Southern California Regional Rail Authority; SR=State Route

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Existing stations within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build Alternative Option 1. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Existing stations within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build Alternative Option 1. 

3.3.5 Environmental Consequences

Overview 

Effects as a result of implementing the Build Alternative Options can be broadly classified into 

construction and operational effects. Long-term or permanent effects and short-term or temporary 

effects on transportation would be anticipated as a result of constructing any of the Build Alternative 

Options. This section compares the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternative Options on their 

ability to meet the projected intercity travel demand and documents the anticipated changes to traffic 

patterns by Build Alternative Option, including changes in mode share, travel time, travel time 

reliability (for passenger rail and autos), and vehicle miles traveled (VMT). A qualitative discussion of 

potential effects on air carriers, intercity transit service providers, and freight operations is also 

provided. 

With all of the Build Alternative Options, highway, bus, and air travel could decrease as users shift 

from these modes to the new rail service. Based on the broad assessment conducted, increases in 

mode share to rail could provide both negative and beneficial effects across all mode choices. For 

highway travel, the decrease in mode share would be a beneficial effect, based on users being 

encouraged to use transit and reduce congestion on highways, which could also provide a 

secondary benefit to bus service providers. Likewise, the increase in mode share for passenger rail 

is considered a beneficial effect of the Program. 

The shift of intercity bus and air travelers to the rail system may yield additional benefits by providing 

a mode choice for travelers, travel time savings, and increased schedule reliability. For air carriers, 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-26

the potential benefits may include the opportunity to shift from short-haul to longer-haul flight 

operations, which may include more reliable scheduling and increased revenue. 

There are also negative effects for bus and air travel carriers, since a reduction in their mode share 

would affect intercity bus service providers and air carrier operations (e.g., existing demand, 

schedule adjustments/reductions, and revenue). The shift in mode share and the corresponding 

effects are discussed further throughout the section.

For example, automobile drivers do not typically switch to transit without significant gains in travel 

time or reductions in cost. Compared with the No Build Alternative, the Build Alternative Options 

save travelers time compared with highway travel in most cases, with time savings generally 

increasing as the trip length increases or for urban areas where congestion levels are forecast to 

increase and highway travel time increases. 

Travel time reliability is another beneficial effect of the Program. Trains operate on a scheduled 

service within a dedicated ROW and are not subject to fluctuations in traffic congestion. Highway 

travel time reliability varies from location to location, depending on future traffic conditions in the 

area. In general, the Build Alternative Options provide travel time reliability for train travelers, 

compared with expected increases in highway drive times. A reduction in VMT is also a beneficial 

effect of the Program. 

No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, of this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR, is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the 

Program associated with this service-level evaluation. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-27

Transportation effects due to increased rail operations under the No Build Alternative are anticipated 

in the Western Section due to the following planned/programmed and/or funded projects:

• Capacity improvement between Los Angeles and Fullerton is forecast to provide 

32 additional passenger/commuter slots between Los Angeles and Fullerton, with 10 of the 

new slots allocated for Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner trains (increasing service availability from 

today’s 24 one-way trips to 34 trips) and 22 of the new slots allocated to Metrolink commuter 

or RCTC-sponsored passenger service (increasing the number of available Metrolink/RCTC 

frequencies from today’s 28 one-way trips to 50 trips). 

• Metro’s Link Union Station Project would reconstruct the track and station infrastructure at 

LAUS to meet long-term rail travel needs and improve passenger comfort, safety, and ease 

of navigation through the facility. 

• Los Angeles to Anaheim Project Section of the California High-Speed Rail Authority program 

proposes to utilize portions of the existing Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo

(LOSSAN) rail corridor to connect Los Angeles to Anaheim.

In the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, the No Build Alternative would be similar to existing 

conditions for passenger rail and transit services that connect Coachella Valley with the greater Los 

Angeles metropolitan area, as well as forecasted increases in freight traffic. No known existing or 

committed transportation improvement projects are planned in the Eastern Section. The five intercity 

passenger rail and bus services that currently provide these connections are anticipated to remain 

unchanged from the existing conditions. No new regional linkages in the Eastern Section are 

programmed or funded for implementation at this time.

The counties and cities in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area would continue to grow, which 

would increase regional transportation demand. Under the No Build Alternative, accommodation of 

this additional transportation demand would be limited by the existing transportation infrastructure’s 

capacity and capacity increases resulting from other approved transportation projects in the region. 

The No Build Alternative therefore assumes completion of those reasonably foreseeable 

transportation, development, and infrastructure projects that are already in progress; are 

programmed; or are included in the fiscally constrained RTP. An increase in traffic and VMT is 

anticipated under the No Build Alternative because more cars would be on the roadways compared 

with what would occur with implementation of the Program. Therefore, the No Build Alternative could 

result in air quality effects and potential additional noise effects on the surrounding land uses, which 

could affect sensitive receptors adjacent to existing transportation corridors. However, disruption of 

established communities related to construction and operation of the Program would be avoided.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-28

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3

Rail Operational Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail 

infrastructure or stations in the Western Section of the Program Corridor because the existing rail 

infrastructure and stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build 

Alternative, short-term/temporary effects construction would be negligible because no additional 

construction activities are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, 

and 3. 

Eastern Section. Construction activities associated with any of the Build Alternative Options would 

affect rail traffic by reducing train operating speeds through construction zones, causing delays to 

freight and passenger service. In addition, there could be the temporary suspension of train 

operations through a work zone during scheduled periods of construction, such as when new 

turnouts are being installed for sidings, station tracks, or interlockings. Track outages and 

construction-related speed restrictions could occur when adding new siding tracks, double-tracking, 

upgrading signals, constructing stations and station tracks, or modifying grade crossings. During 

construction, temporary shoo-fly1 trackage may need to be installed for longer disruptions, and brief 

track outages, which would interrupt freight service temporarily, may be necessary. Once site 

specifics associated with the rail infrastructure improvement or station facility are known, the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis would identify and evaluate where and when temporary impacts on rail 

operations would occur.

When compared with the No Build Alternative, short-term/temporary effects related to rail operations 

would be moderate within the Eastern Section under Build Alternative Option 1. When compared 

with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have slightly reduced effects due to 

a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the magnitude of effects would be 

similar for Build Alternative Option 2 and would be considered moderate when compared with the No 

Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 

may have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route 

alignment, reduced station options, and reduced third rail track infrastructure. However, the 

magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and would be considered 

moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. 

1 Temporary shoo-fly trackage is temporary routing of track around a construction site or other obstruction.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-29

OPERATION

Western Section. Infrastructure estimates and rail operations impact assessments are not required 

for the Western Section of the Build Alternative Options between Soto interlocking (Milepost 1444.4) 

in Los Angeles (Soto) and Colton. Under an existing Shared Use Agreement between RCTC and 

BNSF, the timetable slots for the Program within the Western Section are already in place. Rights to 

operate the Program within the Western Section are contractually obligated by BNSF to RCTC, and 

infrastructure sufficient to support the proposed service within the Western Section has been 

planned for or constructed to allow for implementation of the service, as documented in the 2016 AA 

Report (summarized in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). Similarly, 

effects on rail operations and improvements to accommodate the Program between Soto and LAUS 

are not analyzed because these improvements are being accommodated within the capacity 

improvements currently planned in the Link Union Station Project. The Link Union Station Project 

would also identify infrastructure improvements required to support planned regional rail growth and 

future accommodation of California high-speed rail services at LAUS.

When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects related to rail operations would be negligible 

within the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1. When compared with No Build 

Alternative and Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have the same 

magnitude of effects and effects would be considered negligible. 

Eastern Section. For the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, the SDP identifies additional 

infrastructure and track capacity required to accommodate the Build Alternative Options and enable 

operation to achieve the on-time performance threshold of 90 percent for intercity passenger trains, 

without degrading future freight and other passenger rail services in the Program Corridor.

While the modeling shows improvements to freight service over the No Build Alternative, the 

purpose of the Build Alternative Options is to provide and enhance passenger rail service in the 

Program Corridor. Potential rail infrastructure improvements in the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor could include sidings, additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, and 

grade-separation structures, as well as station facilities to facilitate implementation of the proposed 

passenger rail service. Site-specific rail infrastructure improvements to accommodate the selected 

Build Alternative Option would be identified in coordination with RCTC and the host railroads and 

operators during Tier 2/Project-level analysis. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects 

related to rail operations would be moderate within the Eastern Section under Build Alternative 

Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have 

slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the 

magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 2 and Build Alternative Option 

3 and would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-30

Roadway and Vehicular Traffic Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or 

station infrastructure in the Western Section because the existing railroad infrastructure and stations 

from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build Alternative, 

short-term/temporary effects related to roadway and vehicular traffic would be negligible because no 

additional construction activities are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative 

Options 1, 2, and 3. 

Eastern Section. Construction of rail infrastructure improvements, such as sidings, additional main

line track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation structures, and stations could require 

temporary closure of lanes, sidewalks, bicycle lanes and routes, driveways, streets, and freeway 

lanes. All construction activities affecting roadways, bicycle paths, and pedestrian paths would be 

required to meet the requirements of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices

(MUTCD) (Caltrans 2020). Once site specifics associated with the rail infrastructure improvement or 

station facility are known, the Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and evaluate where 

temporary road closures and traffic detours would be needed. Mitigation strategies that require the 

preparation and implementation of a site-specific transportation management plan would help avoid, 

minimize, or reduce potential safety effects during construction activities. When compared with the 

No Build Alternative, short-term/temporary effects related to roadways and vehicular traffic would be 

moderate within the Eastern Section under Build Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build 

Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have slightly reduced effects due to a shorter 

route alignment and reduce station options. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for 

Build Alternative Option 2 and would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build 

Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may 

have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, 

reduced station options, and reduced third rail track infrastructure. However, the magnitude of 

effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and would be considered moderate when 

compared with the No Build Alternative.

OPERATION

Western Section. During operation of the Program within the Western Section of the Program 

Corridor, access streets around each existing station would likely be affected because of additional 

auto traffic generated by patrons accessing and departing from each station. Based on the ridership 

forecasts and estimates of mode choice for station access, an estimate of vehicle traffic generation 

was developed for each station under the Build Alternative Options. It was assumed that patrons for 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-31

this new rail passenger service would access the stations in a combination of modes – drove alone 

or carpooled and parked, got dropped and/or picked up by friend/family, used taxis/Uber/Lyft, and 

used future bus transit. Half the daily vehicle traffic would be generated during 

mid-morning/afternoon off-peak and the other half during the afternoon peak period.

Table 3.3-6 presents departure times of each train at each station location to indicate the time of day 

when activity would most likely occur at each station. Table 3.3-6 also provides an average estimate 

of passengers per train per ‘typical’ day and vehicle traffic generation per train and for a ‘typical’ day.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-32

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-33

Table 3.3-6. Train Schedule and Estimate of Vehicle Traffic Generation for each Station for Future Year (2044)

Station

Westbound AM Train 

Schedule - Coachella to 

LAUS (read up)

Eastbound AM Train 

Schedule – LAUS to 

Coachella (read down)

Westbound PM 

Train Schedule – 

Coachella to LAUS 

(read up)

Eastbound PM 

Train Schedule – 

LAUS to 

Coachella (read 

down)

Estimated 

Passenger 

Ons/Offs per 

Traina

Cars to be 

parkedb

Kiss and 

Rideb

Transportation Network 

Company/ Taxib Busb,c

Estimate of 

Vehicle Traffic 

generated by 

each Traind

Estimate of 

Daily Vehicle 

Traffice

LAUS 12:40 p.m. 10:20 a.m. 6:40 p.m. 3:20 p.m. 194 13 46 42 0 189 756

Fullerton 12:06 p.m. 10:55 a.m. 6:06 p.m. 3:55 p.m. 36 6 14 8 0 50 200

Riverside 11:22 a.m. 11:39 a.m. 5:22 p.m. 4:39 p.m. 52 8 23 11 0 76 304

Loma Linda 10:59 a.m. 11:59 a.m. 4:59 p.m. 4:59 p.m. 52 8 20 11 1 70 280

Pass Area 10:20 a.m. 12:38 p.m. 4:20 p.m. 5:38 p.m. 13 2 6 3 1 20 80

Palm Springs 9:59 a.m. 1:02 p.m. 3:59 p.m. 6:02 p.m. 119 18 57 32 1 196 784

Mid-Valley 9:45 a.m. 1:14 p.m. 3:45 p.m. 6:14 p.m. 41 6 18 11 1 64 256

Indio 9:32 a.m. 1:30 p.m. 3:32 p.m. 6:30 p.m. 31 5 14 7 1 47 188

Coachella 9:25 a.m. 1:38 p.m. 3:25 p.m. 6:38 p.m. 27 4 12 6 1 40 160

Notes:

a Calculated based on boardings/alightings for each station; typical day ridership estimated by dividing annual ridership by 300 

b Estimated vehicular activity per train is based on 2017 Amtrak onboard survey on station access mode choice for passengers using the Pacific Surfliner and the San Joaquin corridor services (San Francisco State University 2017)

c Additional bus trips (not existing services)

d Vehicular traffic generation at each station was calculated based on 1 trip for each car parked and 2 trips (in and out) for each pick up and drop off 

e Daily estimate obtained by multiplying estimates for each train by 4

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-34

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-35

Table 3.3-7 provides a summary of the potential roadways at each of the stations that could be 

affected during operation of the Program.

Table 3.3-7. Potential Roadway Impacts by Stations for Future Year (2044) 

Station 

Local Roadway Access to 

Station

Potential Train Arrivals/ 

Departures during AM

Peak Hour periodsa

Potential Train Arrivals/ 

Departures during PM

Peak Hour periodsa

LAUS Alameda Street, Vignes Street, 

and Cesar Chavez Avenue

None 3:20 p.m., 6:40 p.m.

Fullerton Harbor Boulevard, Santa Fe 

Avenue, Walnut Avenue, and 

Lemon Street

None 3:55 p.m., 6:06 p.m.

Riverside Vine Street, 14th Street, and 

Commerce Street

None 4:39 p.m., 5:22 p.m.

Loma Linda To be determined None 4:59 p.m.

Pass Area To be determined None 4:20 p.m., 5:38 p.m.

Palm Springs Indian Canyon Drive and Palm 

Springs Station Drive

9:59 a.m. 3:59 p.m., 6:02 p.m.

Mid-Valley To be determined 9:45 a.m. 3:45 p.m., 6:14 p.m.

Indio To be determined 9:32 a.m. 3:32 p.m., 6:30 p.m.

Coachella To be determined 9:25 a.m. 3:35 p.m., 6:38 p.m.

Notes: 

a Peak hours for traffic are generally considered as occurring from 6:00 a.m. through 10:00 a.m. and from 3:00 p.m. 

through 7:00 p.m. However, peak traffic hours vary from city to city, from region to region, and seasonally. 

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station

As summarized in Table 3.3-7, some of the proposed passenger activity (e.g., boarding and alighting 

trains) at all existing stations within the Western Section of the Program Corridor would occur during 

the PM peak hour for traffic. Based on the anticipated train timetable, none of the existing stations 

within the Western Section of the Program Corridor would have proposed passenger activity that 

would during the AM peak hour for traffic. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-36

While operation of the Program within the Western Section would add auto trips to local street 

network for the existing stations, the Build Alternative Options are anticipated to shift auto trips to 

intercity rail passenger trips, thereby reducing vehicle trips and VMT on the regional highways. 

Table 3.3-8 and Table 3.3-9 present the anticipated annual and daily reduction of auto trips and VMT 

for each horizon year for the Build Alternative Options. 

Table 3.3-8. Auto Trip and Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction by Horizon Year (Build 

Alternative Option 1)

Timeframe

Existing 

Year 

(2018)

Auto Trip 

Reduction

Existing 

Year 

(2018)

VMT 

Reduction

Opening 

Year

(2024)

Auto Trip 

Reduction

Opening 

Year

(2024)

VMT 

Reduction

Future Year 

(2044)

Auto Trip 

Reduction

Future Year 

(2044)

VMT 

Reduction

Annual 92,299 9,026,844 107,344 10,498,246 178,045 17,412,809

Daily 308 30,089 358 34,994 593 58,043

Notes: 

For calculating a typical day for the daily quantities, the annual ridership was divided by 300.

VMT=vehicle miles traveled

Table 3.3-9. Auto Trip and Vehicle Miles Traveled Reduction by Horizon Year (Build 

Alternative Options 2 and 3) 

Timeframe

Existing 

Year 

(2018)

Auto Trip 

Reduction

Existing 

Year 

(2018)

VMT 

Reduction

Opening 

Year

(2024)

Auto Trip 

Reduction

Opening 

Year

(2024)

VMT 

Reduction

Future Year 

(2044)

Auto Trip 

Reduction

Future Year 

(2044)

VMT 

Reduction

Annual 85,147 8,325,625 99,026 9,682,718 164,248 16,060,152

Daily 284 27,752 330 32,276 547 53,534

Notes: 

For calculating a typical day for the daily quantities, the annual ridership was divided by 300.

VMT=vehicle miles traveled

Auto and VMT reduction was calculated based off two-way auto trips that would be shifted to rail 

trips. VMT reduction was calculated based on multiplying average trip length for the Build Alternative 

Options by the corresponding number of two-way auto trip reduction. The average trip length was 

calculated based on approximate distance between station pairs and their annual ridership. Based 

on the data presented in Table 3.3-8 and Table 3.3-9, auto trip reductions and VMT reductions are 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-37

forecast to grow as the ridership increases. The annual reduction rate for both auto trips and VMT is 

forecast to be between 3 percent and 4 percent over time within the Program Corridor. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects related to roadways and vehicular traffic would 

be moderate within the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1. When compared with 

Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have the same magnitude of 

effect and would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Eastern Section. As summarized in Table 3.3-7, proposed passenger activity (boarding and alighting 

trains) at the existing station (Palm Springs station) within the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor would occur during the AM and PM peak hours for traffic. Two of the proposed stations 

(Loma Linda station and Pass Area station) would have proposed passenger activity occurring 

during the PM peak hour for traffic. The other three proposed stations (Mid-Valley station, Indio 

station, and Coachella station) would have proposed passenger activity occurring during both the 

AM and PM peak hours for traffic. 

For the proposed stations within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, catchment areas have 

been identified, but no specific sites have been selected. Therefore, it is not known at the Tier 

1/Program evaluation phase which local streets may be impacted by operation of station facilities. It 

is possible that the addition of auto trips to the existing roadway network could result in effects on 

local roadways that would require mitigation. A detailed assessment of operational traffic impacts 

would be conducted during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis once site-specific rail infrastructure or 

station facility details are known. 

While operation of the Program within the Eastern Section would add auto trips to local street 

network, the Build Alternative Options are anticipated to shift auto trips to intercity rail passenger 

trips, thereby reducing vehicle trips and VMT on the regional highways. As summarized in 

Table 3.3-8 and Table 3.3-9, auto trip reductions and VMT reductions are forecast to grow as the 

ridership increases. The annual reduction rate for both auto trips and VMT is forecast to be between 

3 percent and 4 percent over time within the Program Corridor. When compared with the No Build

Alternative, effects related to roadways and vehicular traffic would be substantial within the Eastern 

Section under Build Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build 

Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have the same magnitude of effect and would be considered 

substantial when compared with the No Build Alternative. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-38

Railroad/Roadway Crossing Modification Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or 

station infrastructure in the Western Section because the existing railroad infrastructure and stations 

from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build Alternative, 

short-term/temporary effects related to railroad/roadway crossings would be negligible because no 

additional construction activities are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative 

Options 1, 2, and 3. 

Eastern Section. Construction of rail infrastructure improvements, such as sidings, additional main

line track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation structures, and stations in the Eastern 

Section could require potential modifications to the existing at-grade and grade-separated crossings. 

For example, for an existing overpass, the placement of a new track would need to meet UP 

requirements for horizontal and vertical clearances and pier-protection, requirements as stipulated in 

the American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association Manual for Railway 

Engineering. If the existing overpass did not already meet all necessary requirements, it would either 

have to be modified or replaced to allow for the construction and operation of the additional track 

identified for the site-specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. 

Modifications to public at-grade crossings would be determined by a crossing-diagnostic team 

evaluation, as per the requirements of the MUTCD, while modifications to private crossings would be 

determined by UP, as needed. In addition, modifications to public at-grade crossings are subject to 

approval by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). Crossings within the existing Loma 

Linda quiet zone would require coordination with FRA to determine the effect, if any, on the current 

quiet zone risk indices. The rough magnitude of track infrastructure improvements would be 

determined from rail operations modeling paired with input from the host railroads. 

Depending on the site-specific constraints of the potential stations within the Eastern Section, the 

addition of station tracks may necessitate modifications to existing crossings, including the addition 

of pedestrian overcrossings and elevators. 

A detailed assessment of effects on existing and proposed railroad/roadway crossings would be 

prepared during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis once site-specific rail infrastructure improvements 

or station facility details are known. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects related to 

railroad/roadway crossing modifications would be moderate within the Eastern Section under Build 

Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 

2 and 3 would have slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-39

options. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar and would be considered moderate 

when compared with the No Build Alternative. 

OPERATION

Western Section. Under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, passenger train frequencies proposed 

as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two daily round-trip intercity diesel-powered 

passenger trains operating the entire length of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and the 

Coachella Valley. The number of trains traveling through the existing grade crossings between 

LAUS and Colton would increase with implementation of the Program. However, the traffic control 

devices at these existing crossings provide the level of advanced warning and protection from an 

oncoming train required by the CPUC and the California MUTCD (Caltrans 2020). These existing 

grade crossings currently meet the requirements of the CPUC and the California MUTCD. Operation 

of the Program in the Western Section would not modify the existing grade crossing devices and 

would not require the approval of the CPUC. It is anticipated that gate operation at these existing 

grade crossings would be optimized to accommodate the increased number of activities. Effects 

associated with the Western Section of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Options 1, 

2, and 3 would be negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative. 

Eastern Section. Similar to the Western Section, under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, 

passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two 

daily round-trip intercity diesel-powered passenger trains operating the entire length of the Program 

Corridor between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley. The number of trains traveling through the 

existing grade crossings between Colton and eastern terminus (Coachella for Build Alternative 

Option 1, Indio for Build Alternative Options 2 and 3), would increase with implementation of the 

Program. It is anticipated that the need for additional railroad/roadway crossings would be identified 

and implemented as part of the construction of rail improvements and station facilities in the Eastern 

Section. Therefore, once construction has concluded, operation of the Program in the Eastern 

Section would not modify the existing railroad/highway crossing devices. Effects associated with the 

Eastern Section of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1 would be negligible when 

compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build 

Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and 

reduced station options. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar and would be 

considered negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-40

Ridership Forecast Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western and Eastern Section. Ridership forecast effects are only associated with operation of the 

Program. When compared with the No Build Alternative, short-term/temporary effects related to 

ridership forecast would be negligible within the Western and Eastern Sections under Build 

Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

OPERATION

Western and Eastern Section. Ridership metrics identified in Table 3.3-10 and Table 3.3-11 present 

the potential estimated demand of the proposed service by Build Alternative Option. Passenger 

ridership is expected to increase annually from 3 percent to 4 percent based on the data presented 

in Table 3.3-10 and Table 3.3-11, along with corresponding increase in estimated passenger miles 

traveled. 

A hypothetical 2018 annual revenue from ticket sales is presented for study purposes. The annual 

estimated revenue is calculated using an estimated average ticket price based on the current fare 

structure on the LOSSAN Rail Corridor.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-41

Table 3.3-10. Proposed Ridership Metrics by Horizon Year (Build Alternative Option 1)

Ridership Metrics Existing Year (2018) Opening Year (2024) Future Year (2044)

Annual Ridership (one-way trips) 175,500 204,107 338,540

Average Ridership per Traina 146 170 282

Annual Passenger Miles Traveled (in millions) 17.2 20.0 33.1

Source: Steer 2018

Notes:

Build Alternative Option 1 assumes service to three existing Western Section station locations (LAUS, Fullerton, and Riverside), one existing Eastern Section 

station location (Palm Springs), and up to five potential Eastern Section station areas (Loma Linda, Pass Area, Mid-Valley, Indio and Coachella). Coachella is 

considered the eastern terminus of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1. 

a Average ridership per train for a typical day was calculated by dividing the annual ridership (one-way trips) by 300 days and four trains per day

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-42

Table 3.3-11. Proposed Ridership Metrics by Horizon Year (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3)

Ridership Metrics Existing Year (2018) Opening Year (2024)

Future Year

(2044)

Annual Ridership (one-way trips) 161,900 188,290 312,306

Average Ridership per Traina 135 157 260

Annual Passenger Miles Traveled (in millions) 15.8 18.4 30.5

Source: Steer 2018

Notes:

Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 assume service to three existing Western Section station locations (LAUS, Fullerton, and Riverside), one existing Eastern 

Section station location (Palm Springs), and up to four potential Eastern Section station areas (Loma Linda, Pass Area, Mid-Valley, and Indio). Indio is considered 

the eastern terminus of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Options 2 and 3. 

a Average ridership per train for a typical day was calculated by dividing the annual ridership (one-way trips) by 300 days and four trains per day

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-43

As summarized in Table 3.3-12 and Table 3.3-13, the Palm Springs station is forecast to have the 

most ridership across all Build Alternative Options (not including LAUS), followed by Loma Linda, 

Riverside, and Mid-Valley stations. 

In general, the Build Alternative Options would create a new rail alternative for travelers between the 

Los Angeles basin and the Coachella Valley with opportunities to connect communities along the 

Program Corridor that are not currently accessible by rail. In addition, the rail passenger service 

could also provide for a limited same day round-trip. 

For Build Alternative Option 1, the increase in passenger ridership presented in 

Table 3.3-10 translates to almost doubling of ridership by Future Year (2044), from the estimated 

ridership in Existing Year (2018) (175,500 one-way trips in 2018 and 338,540 one-way trips in 2044). 

Between the Opening Year (2024) and the Future Year (2044), ridership is expected to increase by 

66 percent (204,107 one-way trips in 2024 and 338,540 one-way trips in 2044).

For Build Alternative Options 2 and 3, the increase in passenger ridership presented in 

Table 3.3-10 translates to almost doubling of ridership by Future Year (2044), from the estimated 

ridership in Existing Year (2018) (161,900 one-way trips in 2018 and 312,306 one-way trips in 2044). 

Between the Opening Year (2024) and the Future Year (2044), ridership is expected to increase by 

66 percent (188,290 one-way trips in 2024 and 312,306 one-way trips in 2044). 

Table 3.3-12. Annual Boardings and Alightings at Proposed Station Options by Horizon 

Year (Build Alternative Option 1)

Proposed 

Station 

Options Existing Year (2018) Opening Year (2024) Future Year (2044)

LAUS 120,500 140,142 232,445 

Fullerton 22,600 26,284 43,595 

Riverside 32,100 37,332 61,921 

Loma Linda/ 

Redlands 

32,300 37,565 62,307 

Pass Area 8,300 9,653 16,011 

Palm Springs 73,900 85,946 142,553 

Mid-Valley 25,300 29,424 48,804 

Indio 19,400 22,562 37,423 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-44

Proposed 

Station 

Options Existing Year (2018) Opening Year (2024) Future Year (2044)

Coachella 16,600 19,306 32,021 

Total 351,000 408,214 677,080 

Source: Steer 2018

Notes: 

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station

Table 3.3-13. Annual Boardings and Alightings at Proposed Station Options by Horizon 

Year (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) 

Proposed Station Options Existing Year (2018) Opening Year (2024) Future Year (2044)

LAUS 114,100 132,698 220,099 

Fullerton 23,200 26,982 44,753 

Riverside 28,600 33,262 55,169 

Loma Linda/ Redlands 29,500 34,309 56,906 

Pass Area 8,100 9,420 15,625 

Palm Springs 72,600 84,434 140,045 

Mid-Valley 25,300 29,424 48,804 

Indio 22,400 26,051 43,210 

Total 323,800 376,580 624,611 

Source: Steer 2018

Notes: 

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station

When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects related to ridership forecasts would be 

moderately beneficial within the Western and Eastern Sections under Build Alternative Option 1. 

When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have 

slightly reduced beneficial effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. 

However, the magnitude of effects would be similar and would be considered moderately beneficial

when compared with the No Build Alternative.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-45

Travel Time Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or 

station infrastructure in the Western Section because the existing railroad infrastructure and 

stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build Alternative, 

short-term/temporary effects related to travel time would be negligible because no additional 

construction activities are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative 

Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. When compared with the No Build Alternative, short-term/temporary effects related 

to travel time would be negligible within the Eastern Section under Build Alternative Options 

1, 2, and 3.

OPERATION

Western and Eastern Section. Between Existing Year (2018), Opening Year (2024) and Future Year 

(2044) of operation of the Build Alternative Options, regional population and employment growth is 

anticipated to occur within the Program Corridor. This population and employment growth would 

result in additional demands on the existing roadway and highway networks which could contribute 

to congestion and impact both regional and local mobility. 

According to the 2016 SCAG RTP/SCS, population in the SCAG region would increase by 

approximately 4 percent between Existing Year (2018) and the Opening Year (2024) and 18 percent 

between Existing Year (2018) and Future Year (2044). Population growth between Opening Year 

(2024) and Future Year (2044) is anticipated to be 14 percent in the SCAG region. In comparison, 

Riverside County is expected to double this growth. Between Existing Year (2018) and Opening 

Year (2024), Riverside County is forecast to experience a 9 percent population growth, and between 

Existing Year (2018) and Future Year (2044), a 36 percent population growth. Corresponding growth 

between Opening Year (2024) and Future Year (2044) is anticipated at 25 percent in Riverside 

County (SCAG 2016). Based on these projections, roadway congestion would likely increase 

substantially between Existing Year (2018) and both Opening Year (2024) and Future Year (2044), 

contributing to longer auto travel times along the Program Corridor. Table 3.3-14 and 

Table 3.3-15 summarize travel time for the different travel modes envisioned under the Build 

Alternative Options. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-46

Table 3.3-14. Rail/Bus Travel Time by Horizon Year (Build Alternative Option 1)

Horizon Year Mode of Travel

Average 

Travel Time

(hour: 

minutes)

Average Travel 

Time Savingd 

(compared with

Intercity Bus 

travel)

Existing Year (2018) Intercity Bus (Existing Conditions)a 3:07 —

Existing Year (2018) Intercity Bus/Rail (Scenario 1)b 4:08 —

Existing Year (2018) Intercity Bus/Rail (Scenario 2)c 4:41 —

Existing Year (2018) Passenger Rail 3:16 1:25

Opening Year (2024) Passenger Rail 3:16 At least 1:25

Future Year (2044) Passenger Rail 3:16 At least 1:25

Notes:

a Intercity Bus travel under existing conditions assumes use of Greyhound service from Los Angeles to Indio

b Intercity bus/rail travel (Scenario 1) assumes travel on Amtrak Thruway service from Indio to Fullerton and 

connection to Amtrak Pacific Surfliner from Fullerton to Los Angeles

c Intercity bus/rail travel (Scenario 2) assumes travel on SunLine Commuter Link 220 from Palm Desert to Downtown 

Riverside Metrolink Station and connection to Metrolink Riverside Line to Los Angeles

d Highway traffic congestion in 2024 and 2044 is expected to increase from 2018, thereby adding to travel time 

saving for train travel compared with the bus portion of the trip that uses congested freeways

Table 3.3-15. Rail/Bus Travel Time by Horizon Year (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) 

Horizon Year Mode of Travel

Average 

Travel Time

(hour: 

minutes)

Average Travel 

Time Savingd 

(compared with

Intercity Bus 

travel)

Existing Year (2018) Intercity Bus (Existing Conditions)a 3:07 —

Existing Year (2018) Intercity Bus/Rail (Scenario 1)b 4:08 —

Existing Year (2018) Intercity Bus/Rail (Scenario 2)c 4:41 —

Existing Year (2018) Passenger Rail 3:09 1:32

Opening Year (2024) Passenger Rail 3:09 At least 1:32
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-47

Horizon Year Mode of Travel

Average 

Travel Time

(hour: 

minutes)

Average Travel 

Time Savingd 

(compared with

Intercity Bus 

travel)

Future Year (2044) Passenger Rail 3:09 At least 1:32

Notes:

a Intercity Bus travel under existing conditions assumes use of Greyhound service from Los Angeles to Indio

b Intercity bus/rail travel (Scenario 1) assumes travel on Amtrak Thruway service from Indio to Fullerton and 

connection to Amtrak Pacific Surfliner from Fullerton to Los Angeles

c Intercity bus/rail travel (Scenario 2) assumes travel on SunLine Commuter Link 220 from Palm Desert to Downtown 

Riverside Metrolink Station and connection to Metrolink Riverside Line to Los Angeles d Highway traffic congestion 

in 2024 and 2044 is expected to increase from 2018, thereby adding to travel time saving for train travel compared 

with the bus portion of the trip that uses congested freeways

As summarized in Table 3.3-14 and Table 3.3-15, if the Program were to be built under Existing 

Year (2018) conditions, travel time savings could range between 1 hour 25 minutes for Build 

Alternative Option 1 and 1 hour 38 minutes for Build Alternative Options 2 and 3. With congestion 

likely to increase in the future, the Program would likely save more travel time in Opening Year 

(2024) Future Year (2044) conditions as traffic congestion in the Program Corridor increases and 

slows down travel speeds on the highway system. Specific travel time savings would be analyzed in 

more detail during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects related to travel time would be moderately 

beneficial within the Western and Eastern Sections under Build Alternative Option 1. When 

compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have slightly 

reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the 

magnitude of effects would be similar and would be considered moderately beneficial when 

compared with the No Build Alternative.

Traveler Safety Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or 

station infrastructure in the Western Section because the existing railroad infrastructure and stations 

from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build Alternative, 

short-term/temporary effects related to traveler safety would be negligible because no additional 

construction activities are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 

1, 2, and 3.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-48

Eastern Section. Construction of rail infrastructure improvements, such as sidings, additional main

line track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation structures, and stations could require 

temporary closure of lanes, sidewalks, bicycle lanes and routes, driveways, streets, and freeway 

lanes, which could affect traveler safety within an area. All construction activities affecting roadways,

bicycle paths, and pedestrian paths would be required to meet the requirements of the MUTCD

(Caltrans 2020). Once site specifics associated with the rail infrastructure improvement or station 

facility are known, the Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and evaluate where temporary road 

closures and traffic detours would be needed. Mitigation strategies that require the preparation and 

implementation of a site-specific transportation management plan would help avoid, minimize, or 

reduce potential traveler safety effects during construction activities. When compared with the No 

Build Alternative, short-term/temporary effects related to traveler safety would be moderate within 

the Eastern Section under Build Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 

1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route 

alignment and reduced station options. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar and 

would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.

OPERATION

Western and Eastern Section. Overall, traveler safety within any of the Build Alternative Options 

would improve because a passenger rail service would divert some automobile trips to an alternate 

mode of travel such as passenger rail. The safety risk to travelers would decrease, as rail travel is 

statistically safer per passenger mile than automobile travel. The potential decrease in automobile 

VMT that could be realized with implementation of the Build Alternative Options would be anticipated

to result in a corresponding reduction of potential automobile injuries and fatalities within the 

Program Corridor. The potential annual reduction in fatalities and injuries on the highway system as 

a result of implementing the Build Alternative Options for each of horizon year (Existing Year 

[2018], Opening Year [2024], and Future Year [2044]) is presented in Table 3.3-16 and 

Table 3.3-17. Calculations were based on the following accident rates obtained from Caltrans and 

Amtrak’s operating experience in 2017: 

• Highway fatality rate: 0.005 per million vehicle miles

• Highway injury rate: 0.548 per million vehicle miles

• Passenger rail fatality rate: 0.046 per 100 million passenger miles

• Passenger rail injury rate: 14.78 per 100 million passenger miles
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-49

Table 3.3-16. Annual Number of Accidents Eliminated by Horizon Year (Build Alternative 

Option 1)

Accident Type

Existing 

Year 

(2018)

Opening 

Year

(2024)

Future 

Year 

(2044)

Fatal Accidents

Roadway accidents eliminated due to Program 0.05 0.05 0.09

Number of rail passenger accidents associated with the Program 0.01 0.01 0.01

Net number of accidents eliminated due to Programa 0.04 0.04 0.08

Injury Accidents

Roadway accidents eliminated due to Program 4.95 5.75 9.54

Number of rail passenger accidents associated with the Program 2.50 2.90 4.82

Net number of accidents eliminated due to Programa 2.45 2.85 4.72

Notes:

a Difference between roadway accidents eliminated and rail passenger accidents associated with the Program.

Rates for fatal and injury accidents on roadways obtained from Caltrans, Table B - Selective Accident Rate 

Calculation, I-10 Los Angeles, San Bernardino, 36-month historical rates (2014). 

Rates for rail-related accidents/incidents obtained from FRA Office of Safety Analysis (2019). 

Caltrans=California Department of Transportation

Table 3.3-17. Annual Number of Accidents Eliminated by Horizon Year (Build Alternative 

Options 2 and 3) 

Accident Type

Existing 

Year 

(2018)

Opening 

Year

(2024)

Future 

Year 

(2044)

Fatal Accidents

Roadway accidents eliminated due to Program 0.04 0.05 0.08

Number of rail passenger accidents associated with the Program 0.01 0.01 0.01

Net number of accidents eliminated due to Programa 0.03 0.04 0.07

Injury Accidents

Roadway accidents eliminated due to Program 4.56 5.31 8.80

Number of rail passenger accidents associated with the Program 2.30 2.68 4.45
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-50

Accident Type

Existing 

Year 

(2018)

Opening 

Year

(2024)

Future 

Year 

(2044)

Net number of accidents eliminated due to Programa 2.26 2.63 4.35

Notes:

a Difference between roadway accidents eliminated and rail passenger accidents associated with the Program.

Rates for fatal and injury accidents on roadways obtained from Caltrans, Table B - Selective Accident Rate 

Calculation, I-10 Los Angeles, San Bernardino, 36-month historical rates (2014). 

Rates for rail-related accidents/incidents obtained from FRA Office of Safety Analysis (2019). 

Caltrans=California Department of Transportation

As summarized in Table 3.3-16, the estimated net change in accidents with implementation of Build 

Alternative Option 1 is a reduction in fatalities by up to 0.08 per year (1 fatality eliminated every 

12 years) and 4.72 injuries per year in 2044. As summarized in Table 3.3-17, the estimated net 

change in accidents with implementation of Build Alternative Option 2 or 3 is a reduction in fatalities 

by up to 0.07 per year (1 fatality eliminated every 12 years) and 4.35 injuries per year in 2044.

When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects related to traveler safety would be moderate 

within the Western and Eastern Section under Build Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build 

Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have slightly reduced beneficial effects 

due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the magnitude of effects 

would be similar and would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.

3.3.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects

Table 3.3-18 through Table 3.3-22 summarize the qualitative assessment of potential effects 

(negligible, moderate, or substantial) under NEPA for each of the Build Alternative Options and 

presents a comparative overview of key metrics and how they measure against the No Build 

Alternative and each of the Build Alternative Options. For the purpose of this comparison, Future 

Year (2044) statistics are presented. While ridership, accident reduction, and VMT savings increase 

proportionally when the Program serves more communities (through more intermediate stations), 

travel time between the end points of the Program Corridor can increase to up to 13 minutes based 

on the number of stations east of Colton. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-51

Table 3.3-18. NEPA Summary of Effects on Rail Operation

Alternative Options

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: None 

Operation: None 

Construction: None

Operation: Substantial

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible 

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio 

Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible 

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio 

Terminus with Limited Third 

Track)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible 

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate 

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel 

facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels 

of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis.

Table 3.3-19. NEPA Summary of Effects on Roadways/Vehicular Traffic

Alternative Options

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: None 

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: Substantial

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Moderate 

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Substantial

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio 

Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Moderate 

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Substantial 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-52

Alternative Options

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio 

Terminus with Limited Third 

Track)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Moderate 

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Substantial 

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel 

facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels 

of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on Tier 2/Project-level

analysis.

Table 3.3-20. NEPA Summary of Effects on Railroad/Roadway Crossings

Alternative Options

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: None 

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: None

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible 

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Negligible 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio 

Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible 

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Negligible 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio 

Terminus with Limited Third 

Track)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible 

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Negligible 

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel 

facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels 

of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on Tier 2/Project-level

analysis.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-53

Table 3.3-21. NEPA Summary of Effects on Traveler Safety 

Alternative Options

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: None 

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: None

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Moderate 

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio 

Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Moderate 

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio 

Terminus with Limited Third 

Track)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Moderate 

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate 

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel 

facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels 

of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-54

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-55

Table 3.3-22. NEPA Summary of Effects on Ridership Forecast and Travel Time

Alternative Options

Annual 

Ridership 

(one-way 

trips)

Travel Time 

between 

LAUS and 

Eastern 

Terminus 

(hour:minute)

Annual 

Reduction of 

Accidents

Annual 

VMT 

Savings 

(million 

miles)

Annual 

Reduction 

of Auto 

Trips

Potential Intensity of 

Effect: 

Western Section

Potential Intensity of 

Effect: 

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea None — None None None Construction: None

Operation: Substantial 

Construction: None

Operation: Substantial

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

338,540 3:16 0.08 – Fatal

4.72 - Injury

17.4 178,045 Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Moderate 

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Moderate

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

312,306 3:09 0.07 – Fatal

4.35 - Injury

16.1 164,248 Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Moderate

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Moderate

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with 

Limited Third Track) 

312,306 3:09 0.07 – Fatal

4.35 - Injury

16.1 164,248 Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Moderate

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Moderate

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study 

Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on

Tier 2/Project-level specific analysis.

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; VMT=vehicle miles traveled
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-56

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-57

3.3.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts

Based on the information provided in Section 3.3.4 and 3.3.5, and considering the CEQA Guidelines 

Appendix G Checklist questions for transportation, the Build Alternative Options are considered to 

have a potentially significant impact on transportation when reviewed on a Program-wide basis. 

Placing the infrastructure improvements and new stations largely within or along the existing ROW 

reduces the potential for significant impacts on transportation resources. However, because the sites 

have not been selected, some resources may be significantly impacted. At the Program analysis 

level, it is not possible to know the location, extent, and particular characteristics of impacts on these 

resources. Proposed programmatic mitigation strategies discussed in Section 3.3.8 would be applied 

to reduce potential impacts. 

Table 3.3-23 describes the CEQA significance conclusions for the Build Alternative Options; the 

proposed programmatic mitigation strategies that would be applied to minimize, reduce, or avoid the 

potential impacts; and the significance determination after mitigation strategies are applied. The 

identification and implementation of additional site-specific mitigation measures necessary for 

Project implementation would occur as part of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-58

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-59

Table 3.3-23. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Transportation

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program conflict with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing the 

circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?

Construction 

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or required in the 

Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potentially significant impacts under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level.

Potential impacts are dependent on the location of new stations and rail infrastructure 

improvements, which are currently unknown. During construction, vehicular, pedestrian, and 

bicycle traffic may be affected due to temporary road closures and detours during 

construction-related activities. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would further identify and 

evaluate impacts related to conflict with applicable plans, ordinances, or policies for the 

applicable circulation system.

TR-1

LU-2 

Potentially Significant. TR-1 and LU-2 

would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts resulting from conflicts with 

Program plans, ordinances or policies 

through design and further analysis. 

However, impacts may remain significant 

and unavoidable, as further analysis may 

determine that there is a conflict that 

cannot be mitigated between land uses. 

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The change in train service (two additional round-trip daily 

trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use and would not conflict 

with a program plan, ordinance or policy addressing circulation. No impacts under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated to occur at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation 

level.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-60

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potentially significant impacts under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. 

Potential impacts are dependent on the location of new stations and rail infrastructure 

improvements, which are currently unknown. Vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic may be 

affected due to permanent road closures during operation. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis 

would further identify and evaluate impacts related to conflict with applicable plans, 

ordinances, or policies for the applicable circulation system.

TR-1

LU-2 

Potentially Significant. TR-1 and LU-2 

would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts resulting from conflicts with 

Program plans, ordinances or policies 

through design and further analysis. 

However, impacts may remain significant 

and unavoidable, as further analysis may 

determine that there is a conflict that 

cannot be mitigated between land uses. 

Would the Program conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or required in the 

Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potentially significant impacts under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. 

Potential impacts associated with construction VMTs depend of the location of new stations 

and other rail infrastructure improvements, which are currently unknown. Construction of these 

improvements could require large scale construction activities over an extended period of time. 

A detailed construction VMT analysis cannot be considered at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

level because such an analysis at this stage would be too speculative, given the exact location 

and duration of construction associated with station facilities and other rail infrastructure 

improvements is unknown at this time. Therefore, potentially significant impacts under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. 

Site-specific impacts would be identified and evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

TR-1 Less Than Significant. TR-1 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts through design and further 

analysis during the Tier 2/Project-level 

environmental process.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-61

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The change in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use and is 

anticipated to result in a decrease in regional and local VMTs. Operation of the Program within 

the Western Corridor would enhance passenger rail services within an existing high-quality 

transit corridor. These factors are consistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 (b).

Therefore, a less than significant impact under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 is anticipated 

to occur at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Less Than Significant. Operation of two additional round-trip daily trains 

within the Eastern Section of the Program is anticipated to result in a decrease in regional and 

local VMTs. Operation of the Program within the Eastern Corridor would enhance passenger 

rail services within an existing high-quality transit corridor. These factors are consistent with 

CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3 (b). Therefore, a less than significant impact under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 is anticipated to occur at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation 

level. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Would the Program substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or 

incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

Construction 

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated during at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or 

required in the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-62

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potentially significant impacts under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. 

Construction of the rail infrastructure improvements or station facilities have the potential to 

result in hazards from geometric design features or incompatible land uses Therefore, 

potentially significant impacts under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated at the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Site-specific impacts would be determined during the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

TR-1

LU-2 

SS-1 

Less than Significant. TR-1, LU-2, and 

SS-1 would minimize, reduce, or avoid

potential impacts resulting from design 

hazards by requiring coordination with 

emergency providers and railroad during 

construction and the preparation of a 

construction management plan. In 

addition, SS-1 would require station 

facilities to provide adequate safety 

features through design and further 

analysis prior to operation of the facility.

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The change in train service (two additional round-trip daily 

trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use and would not increase 

hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible uses. No impacts under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated to occur at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation 

level.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – No Impact. Once construction is complete, operation of Build Alternative 

Option 1, 2, or 3 would not increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible 

uses. Therefore, no impacts under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated to occur at 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-63

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program result in inadequate emergency access?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or required in the 

Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potentially significant impacts under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. 

Potential impacts are dependent on the location of new stations and infrastructure 

improvements, which are currently unknown. Construction of the rail infrastructure 

improvements or station facilities have the potential to result in inadequate emergency access 

if road closures or detours are proposed or if adequate access to new stations is not provided. 

Therefore, potentially significant impacts under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are 

anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Site-specific impacts would be 

determined during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

TR-1

LU-2 

SS-1 

Less than Significant. TR-1, LU-2, and 

SS-1 minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts resulting from inadequate 

emergency access by requiring 

coordination with emergency providers and 

railroad during construction. In addition, 

SS-1 would require station facilities to 

provide adequate emergency access 

through design and further analysis prior to 

operation of the facility.

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The change in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use. During 

operations, in the event that there is a derailment or situation at a station facility, the accident 

or incident would be communicated to all rail operators in the area and any safety measures, 

cleanup, and emergency access would be under the control of local jurisdiction emergency 

responders with assistance from rail operators. Therefore, a less than significant impact under 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 is anticipated to occur at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation level.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-64

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Less Than Significant. During operations, in the event that there is a 

derailment or situation at a station facility, the accident or incident would be communicated to 

all rail operators in the area and any safety measures, cleanup, and emergency access would 

be under the control of local jurisdiction emergency responders with assistance from rail 

operators. Therefore, a less than significant impact under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 is 

anticipated to occur at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level.

Not applicable Not applicable

Notes:

CEQA=California Environmental Quality Act; EIS/EIR=environmental impact statement/environmental impact report; VMT=vehicle miles traveled
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-65

3.3.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies

Identified below are proposed programmatic mitigation strategies for further consideration in the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified 

and discussed during Tier 2/Project-level analysis after design details are known and specific 

impacts are identified. Proposed programmatic mitigation strategies, consistent with state and 

federal regulations, could include, but are not limited to, the following:

Mitigation Strategy TR-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a Project-specific traffic impact 

analysis shall be required for the sites identified for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility 

proposed. The traffic impact analysis shall be prepared using the standards and procedures of the 

applicable local jurisdiction(s) in which the Project is located. The traffic impact analysis may include, 

but will not be limited to, the following: 

• Analysis of construction related traffic impacts including identification and analysis of:

o Transportation management plans to mitigate construction-related traffic, including 

coordination with emergency providers

o Alternative work windows or temporary construction features (e.g., shoo-fly) to minimize 

disruption to rail operations during construction

o Coordination with railroad host, operators and the jurisdiction within which construction 

will occur 

o Identification of haul routes for construction trucks, construction traffic management 

strategies, and any re-routing of vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle routes 

• Analysis of operational-related traffic impacts including identification and analysis of:

o Roadway network impacts and fair-share mitigation to mitigate impacts

o Transportation system management/signal optimization, including retiming, rephrasing, 

and signal optimization; turn prohibitions; use of one-way street; and traffic diversion to 

alternative routes

• For station facilities, identification and analysis of:

o Roadway network impacts associated with trips resulting from travel activity at stations

o Station amenities (e.g., parking, alternative modes of transit features, ticketing, 

emergency access)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.3 Transportation

May 2021 | 3.3-66

Mitigation Strategy LU-2: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis and 

recommendations, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if a construction 

management plan is required for construction activities of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being 

proposed. If required, a construction management plan shall be developed by the contractor and 

reviewed by the lead agency or agencies prior to construction and implemented during construction 

activities. The construction management plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

• Measures that minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project 

Study Area

• Measures pertaining to visual protection, air quality, safety controls, noise controls, and 

traffic controls to minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project 

Study Area

• Measures to ensure property access is maintained for local businesses, residences, and 

community and emergency services

• Measures to consult with local transit providers to minimize effects on local and regional bus 

routes in affected communities

• Measures to consult with local jurisdictions and utility providers to minimize effects on utilities 

in affected communities

Mitigation Strategy SS-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a Project-specific collision hazard 

analysis shall be required and would be prepared in coordination local jurisdictions in which the 

specific rail infrastructure or station facility is located. The collision hazard analysis shall be prepared 

in compliance with the Federal Railroad Administration’s Collision Hazard Analysis Guide: 

Commuter and Intercity Passenger Service (Federal Railroad Administration 2007), which provides a 

step-by-step procedure on how to perform a hazard analysis, and how to develop effective mitigation 

strategies that would improve passenger rail safety.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-1

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources 

Introduction

This section identifies natural and built visual and aesthetic scenic resources within the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area and evaluates the effects or impacts of the No Build Alternative and 

the Build Alternative Options on these resources. Information contained in this section is 

summarized from the Visual and Aesthetics Technical Memorandum (Appendix D of this Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR). 

Regulatory Framework

In accordance with NEPA (42 USC Section 4321 et seq.), CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR Parts 1501-1508); FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR

28545, May 26, 1999); and CEQA, FRA identified visual resources within the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Study Area and evaluated the potential impacts on those resources as a result of 

implementing the Build Alternative Options.

Federal

Federal Highway Administration

The National Scenic Byways Program, Title 23, Section 162 of the USC, is part of U.S. Department 

of Transportation (USDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which preserves and 

enhances identified roadways that possess certain cultural, historic, archaeological, scenic, natural, 

or recreational qualities. The National Scenic Byways Program designates roads as National Scenic 

Byways, All-American Roads, or America’s Byways. 

In addition, FHWA published a guidance document titled Guidelines for the Visual Impact

Assessment of Highway Projects (FHWA 2015). This guidance presents an approach used to 

identify the importance of visual resources and assess the impact of effects on these resources.

National Park Service, 36 Code of Federal Regulations Parts 1-199 – Parks, Forests, and Public 

Property

Title 36 provides guidance for the proper use, management, government, and protection of persons, 

property, and natural and cultural resources within areas under the jurisdiction of the National Park 

Service. It fulfills the statutory purposes of units of the National Park System: to conserve scenery, 

natural and historic objects, and wildlife and to provide for the enjoyment of those resources in a 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-2

manner that would leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations. National parks, 

recreation areas, and federal heritage areas are regulated by the National Parks Service.

State

California Department of Transportation, Senate Bill 1467, Streets and Highways Code, 

Sections 260-263

Scenic highways are identified in SB 1467, Section 263 of the Streets and Highways Code. SB 

1467 places the Scenic Highway Program under the stewardship of Caltrans. It establishes the 

state’s responsibility for the protection and enhancement of California’s natural scenic beauty by 

identifying those portions of the state highway system which, together with adjacent scenic corridors,

require special conservation treatment. 

Local and Tribal Governments

Regulations from cities, local agencies, and tribal governments would be identified in the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis once site-specific rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are 

known.

Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects

The methodology for this evaluation consists of using existing data to identify natural and built visual 

and aesthetic scenic resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area for each Build 

Alternative Option and evaluating the potential level of effect that each Build Alternative Option could 

have if constructed. Visual and aesthetic resources include features of both the built and natural 

environment that together make the visual environment, such as parks, natural areas, scenic 

features, open vistas, water bodies, and other landscape features. Historic or urban core districts 

can also be visual resources. All of these visual resources create aesthetic qualities that are valued 

by viewers. 

Visual and aesthetic resources are often described in terms of their visual quality. Visual quality is an 

attribute or characteristic based on professional, public, or personal values, as well as the intrinsic 

physical properties of the landscape. Visual quality is influenced by the visual character of elements

within the affected environment and what viewers like or dislike about a particular landscape. Visual 

and aesthetic effects result from changes in the visual landscape and the viewer’s response or 

sensitivity to those changes.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-3

Because specific locations of new visual elements, such as elevated structures, stations, grade 

separations, and noise barriers, are not known at the Tier 1/Program phase of the environmental 

review process, a qualitative evaluation of potential effects within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study 

Area is provided, including potential for blocking views, changes in visual character, and changes in 

light and glare. A detailed evaluation would be completed for the future Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

This service-level evaluation is limited to a desktop evaluation of the data sources described in 

Section 3.4.3. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area was combined with GIS overlays to identify 

potential natural and built visual and aesthetic scenic resources that could be affected by the 

Program. These potential resources were identified on a broad scale, using available mapping 

information. A detailed description of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area is provided in Section 

3.1, Introduction to Environmental Analysis. 

For this service-level visual assessment, the Tier 1/Program Study Area includes the viewshed of 

each Build Alternative Option. The viewshed is defined by the views of passengers and/or defined as 

the area that can be seen from the limits of the infrastructure improvements, and therefore would 

have a view of the infrastructure improvements. The viewshed is defined by the physical constraints 

of the environment and the physiological limits of human sight. Physical constraints of the 

environment include landform, land cover, and atmospheric conditions. Landform is a major factor in 

determining the viewshed because it can limit views or provide an elevated perspective for viewers. 

Similarly, land cover, such as trees and buildings, can limit views, while low-growing vegetation and 

the absence of structures can allow for unobscured views. Atmospheric conditions such as smoke, 

dust, fog, or precipitation can temporarily reduce visibility.

The viewshed is limited in many locations because of intervening topography, vegetation, structures, 

or other factors. The viewshed encompasses the potential area where physical changes may occur, 

including new infrastructure improvements for sidings, additional main line track, wayside signals, 

drainage, grade-separation structures, and stations. The context area allows for the characterization 

of the visual environment in which potential physical changes may occur. The larger context area is 

assessed as part of a context-sensitive approach to designing project features, which would be 

employed for the Tier 2/Project-level analysis to identify potential mitigation that are compatible with 

the broader surrounding environment.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-4

Data Sources

Online GIS data available from Caltrans, the U.S. Department of the Interior, and a variety of other 

sources were used to identify visual and aesthetic resources with the potential to occur within the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. Specifically, the following resources were reviewed: 

• Scenic highways: To identify designated state scenic highways, the Caltrans California 

State Scenic Highway System Map (Caltrans 2018) was consulted. 

• Historic districts and sites: To identify sites present within the Program Corridor, the 

National Park Service – U.S. Department of the Interior National Register of Historic Places 

(NRHP) Interactive Map (U.S. Department of Interior 2020a) was consulted. 

• Federal lands: To identify Federal lands within the Program Corridor, the California Map of 

Federal Lands (U.S. Department of Interior 2020b) was consulted. 

• Nighttime lighting policy areas: To identify areas within the Mount Palomar Nighttime 

Lighting Policy Area, the Western Coachella Valley Area Plan (County of Riverside 2019) 

was consulted.

Related Resources

This evaluation incorporates data and evaluation from related resources to contribute to the 

assessment of effects on visual and aesthetic resources. These related resources are identified in

Table 3.4-1. 

Table 3.4-1. Related Resource Inputs for Visual and Aesthetic Resources 

Resource Input for Visual and Aesthetics Assessment

Land Use and Planning

(Section 3.2)

General information about the land use types and delineation of areas where 

there may be open vistas or natural/human made landscape features were used 

for additional evaluation.

Transportation

(Section 3.3)

Locations of existing and proposed passenger rail station catchment areas were 

used to assess potential effects on existing or proposed land use classifications. 

Noise and Vibration

(Section 3.6)

Supplemental information to identify areas with increased noise and vibration 

levels that may identify areas where future mitigation may result in some type of 

noise/vibration barrier was used.

Biological Resources

(Section 3.8)

Distinct natural features or wildlife areas were identified.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-5

Resource Input for Visual and Aesthetics Assessment

Floodplains, Hydrology, and 

Water Quality 

(Section 3.9)

Hydrologic features (major rivers, streams, etc.) that may be distinct landscape 

features across all land cover classifications were identified.

Cultural Resources

(Section 3.13)

Supplemental information about listed historic sites (archaeological or 

architectural) within the affected environment was used to assess the potential 

effects and/or areas of concern.

Parklands and Community 

Services 

(Section 3.14)

Supplemental information about parklands, including type and accessibility that 

may provide visual and aesthetic resources, was used.

Affected Environment

The Program Corridor crosses a large geographic area within Southern California, spanning a 

distance of approximately 144 miles from its western terminus in Los Angeles to its eastern terminus 

in Coachella. The topography crossed by the Program Corridor ranges from relatively flat, urban 

landscapes in the Western Section of the Program, to hilly canyons in the central portion, and flat, 

low desert habitat in the east. 

The Program Corridor occurs within an existing railroad corridor that traverses areas that have 

predominately been heavily modified for urban purposes, especially in the Western Section of the 

Tier 1/Program Study Area, although some areas occur in or adjacent to lands that are in a natural 

condition. 

Elements of the urban and suburban landscape dominate the visual environment within the Western 

Section of the Program Corridor, as these areas are mostly developed and the topography generally 

flat. At the eastern end of the Western Section of the Program Corridor, there are nearby hills and 

mountains visible from the existing railroad corridor. Land uses in the Western Section are a mixture 

of urban uses, including industrial, commercial, institutional, residential, and smaller amounts of 

other uses. Although the majority of land uses within the Western Section of the Program Corridor

are urban, there are areas dedicated to open space and recreation uses, including Yorba Linda 

Regional Park, Green River Golf Course, and Prado Regional Park. The Program Corridor also 

crosses numerous waterways, including rivers such as the Los Angeles and Santa Ana Rivers, the 

Prado Flood Control Basin, and many smaller creeks and drainages, as well as numerous 

transportation corridors, including rail, highways, and local roadways. Regional highways in the 

Western Section of the Program Corridor include I-10, SR 60, and SR 91. As shown on 

Figure 3.4-1, there are no designated scenic highways within the Western Section of the Program 

Corridor. However, the Program Corridor crosses through the Juan Bautista de Anza Trail, a national 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-6

historic trail near Riverside and through the Grand Boulevard Historic District, a National Register 

Historic District near Corona. In addition, the Western Section of the Program Corridor contains six 

NRHP sites. 

The Program Corridor in the Eastern Section follows the existing UP ROW from Colton to Coachella, 

with the topography becoming more varied while traveling east. There are nearby hills and 

mountains, which are visible from the Program Corridor but outside of the viewshed and context Tier 

1/Program Study Area established in this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation. Much of the viewshed 

between the urban areas of Loma Linda and Beaumont is characterized by agriculture, open space, 

recreation, and vacant land uses. East of Beaumont, much of the land is categorized as vacant with 

large areas of open space. 

The Program Corridor in the Eastern Section crosses many small creeks and drainage ways, 

although most of the hydrological features are dry except after heavy rainfall. The Program Corridor 

also contains natural habitat areas located in San Timoteo Canyon between Redlands and Banning, 

the Santa Rosa-San Jacinto Mountains National Monument east of Cabazon, and the Sonoran 

Desert area 

Within the Eastern Section, the Program Corridor crosses numerous transportation corridors, 

including rail, highways, and local roadways, including I-10, SR 60, and SR 111. As shown on 

Figure 3.4-1, there are no designated scenic highways within the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor. However, the Program Corridor crosses through the Pacific Crest Trail, a national scenic 

trail, near Palm Springs. In addition, the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor contains one 

NRHP site. 

Figure 3.4-1 provides broad scale mapping of visual resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Study Area.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-7

Figure 3.4-1. Visual Resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 1 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-8

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-9

Figure 3.4-1. Visual Resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 2 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-10

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-11

Figure 3.4-1. Visual Resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 3 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-12

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-13

Figure 3.4-1. Visual Resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 4 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-14

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-15

Figure 3.4-1. Visual Resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 5 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-16

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-17

Figure 3.4-1. Visual Resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 6 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-18

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-19

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

As summarized in Table 3.4-2, there are 18 visual resources consisting of parks, trails, and NRHP 

sites within the Western Section of Build Alternative Option 1. As summarized in Table 3.4-2, there 

are 17 visual resources consisting of consisting of parks, trails, and a NRHP site within the Eastern 

Section of Build Alternative Option 1. 

Table 3.4-2. Summary of Visual Resources (Build Alternative Option 1) 

Visual Resource

Number of 

Resources 

within Western 

Section

Number of 

Resources 

within Eastern 

Section

Total Number of 

Resources

Park/trail 11 16 27

Designated scenic highway 0 0 0

NRHP site 6 1 7

NRHP district 1 0 1

Notes:

NRHP=National Register of Historic Places

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

As summarized in Table 3.4-3, there are 18 visual resources consisting of parks, trails, and NRHP 

sites within the Western Section of Build Alternative Option 2. As summarized in Table 3.4-3, there 

are 15 visual resources consisting of consisting of parks, trails, and a NRHP site within the Eastern 

Section of Build Alternative Option 2. There are fewer parklands within Build Alternative Option 

2 because of the shorter route alignment and reduced station options. 

Table 3.4-3. Summary of Visual Resources (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) 

Visual Resource

Number of 

Resources 

within Western 

Section

Number of 

Resources 

within Eastern 

Section

Total Number of 

Resources

Park/trail 11 14 25

Designated scenic highway 0 0 0

NRHP site 6 1 7
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-20

Visual Resource

Number of 

Resources 

within Western 

Section

Number of 

Resources 

within Eastern 

Section

Total Number of 

Resources

NRHP district 1 0 1

Notes:

NRHP=National Register of Historic Places

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track)

The affected environment within Build Alternative Option 3 is the same as Build Alternative Option 2.

Environmental Consequences

Overview 

Effects as a result of implementing the Build Alternative Options can be broadly classified into 

construction and operation effects. Long-term or permanent effects and short-term or temporary 

effects on visual and aesthetic resources would be anticipated as a result of constructing any of the 

Build Alternative Options. 

Viewer groups in the viewshed are as varied as the land uses. Generally, the most sensitive viewer 

groups are those who can see the Program Corridor from their residences and have a sense of 

familiarity and ownership of the view, and recreational viewers at parks, trails, and other recreational 

areas because of their relationship with the view during their recreational activity and often their 

expectations of an aesthetically pleasing view. Because the Build Alternative Options would use 

existing railroad ROWs, it would introduce limited changes to existing aesthetic and visual conditions 

and visual quality. In areas where new tracks, roadway crossings, stations, and station supporting 

infrastructure would be constructed, the Build Alternative Options could change the aesthetic and 

visual conditions of adjacent areas, but the likelihood of the changes reducing visual quality would 

be low.

The Build Alternative Options are proposed to be located within or next to existing rail or 

transportation corridors, where the presence of additional tracks would not be out of character for a 

transportation corridor containing major infrastructure elements that are currently part of the view 

landscape. 

No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, of this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-21

Program associated with this service–level evaluation. Because no physical changes would occur, 

no effects on views of visual resources, visual character or quality, or light and glare conditions are 

anticipated under the No Build Alternative. 

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 

Visual Resources and Visual Character Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. No construction activities would be required to implement any of the Build 

Alternative Options within the Western Section of the Program Corridor because the existing railroad 

ROW and stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. The Build Alternative Options would not 

require construction of new stations, new track or extensions to existing track, or the addition of 

sidings, wayside signals, drainage, or at-grade separations within the Western Section of the 

Program Corridor. When compared with the No Build Alternative, short-term/temporary effects on 

scenic vistas, visual resources, or visual character would be negligible because no additional 

construction activities are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 

1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Temporary effects on visual resources and the landscape would occur during 

construction within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1. 

These changes would include views of construction equipment, dust, material stockpiling, nighttime 

construction lighting and glare, and construction and detour signage. When compared with the No 

Build Alternative, the temporary visual changes associated with Build Alternative Option 1 would 

have negligible effects on the visual quality, as construction activities would not permanently obstruct 

views of the landscape, change the visual character, or result in degradation of visual quality within 

the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build 

Alternative Option 2 would have slightly reduced construction effects due to a shorter route 

alignment and reduced station options (i.e., less construction activity and, as such, fewer visual 

quality and aesthetic effects). However, the magnitude of effects would be similar and considered 

negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative 

Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint 

associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced third track rail 

infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and 

would be considered negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-22

OPERATION

Western Section. Operation of Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 within the Western Section would 

not result in effects on existing visual resources as the additional train trips would travel within an 

existing railroad ROW. When compared with the No Build Alternative, long-term/permanent effects 

on scenic vistas, visual resources, or visual character, would be negligible because no additional 

infrastructure improvements are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 

1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Permanent visual changes (physical elements) that could result from 

implementation of the Build Alternative Option 1 could include the presence of new railroad track, 

bridges, grade crossing, train stations, parking facilities, noise walls, open cuts, cut-and-fill areas, 

retaining walls, removed vegetation, and night lighting. The precise location, quantity, and design of 

these physical elements and the visual changes associated with them are not known at this time. 

Because the infrastructure improvements would be located along the existing railroad ROW, the 

infrastructure improvements would generally not represent a change in visual character from existing 

conditions. However, effects could occur if the improvements would remove structures or 

landscaping or introduce visual elements that are out-of-scale or otherwise visually incompatible with 

the existing visual character. This would most likely occur if substantial ROW widening was 

necessary at grade separations or at stations and associated parking areas. 

Effects associated with the Eastern Section of Build Alternative Option 1 on visual character would 

be moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative 

Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have slightly reduced effects on visual character due to a 

shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the magnitude of effects would be 

similar and would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. When 

compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced 

effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, 

and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for 

Build Alternative Option 3 and would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build 

Alternative. Site-specific, long-term/permanent effects would be considered during 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis once details for the needed rail and station infrastructure are known.

Light and Glare Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or 

station infrastructure in the Western Section of the Program Corridor because the existing railroad 

ROW and stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-23

Alternative, short-term/temporary effects on light and glare would be negligible because no 

additional construction activities are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative 

Options 1, 2, and 3. 

Eastern Section. Temporary effects on visual resources and the landscape could occur during 

construction within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1. 

The construction of passenger rail infrastructure and station facilities may require nighttime work that 

would require lighting for safety and security. Potential staging and storage areas would also require 

temporary lighting for safety and security purposes; however, these effects would be temporary and 

construction would not permanently obstruct views of the landscape, change the visual character, or 

result in degradation of visual quality within the Eastern Section. Therefore, effects associated with 

the Eastern Section of Build Alternative Option 1 on light and glare would be negligible when 

compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build 

Alternative Option 2 would have slightly reduced effects on light and glare due to a shorter route 

alignment and reduced station options; however, the magnitude of effects would be similar and 

would be considered negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with 

Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to 

a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced 

third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative 

Option 3 and would be considered negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative.

OPERATION 

Western Section. Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the Program would consist of 

adding four daily one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the Program 

Corridor between Los Angeles and Coachella. Train services currently operating on the existing 

railroad ROW require the use of train headlamps for safety and security. The addition of two daily 

round trips would not change the type or intensity of train light that would be used. When compared 

with the No Build Alternative, long-term/permanent effects on light and glare would be negligible 

because no additional infrastructure improvements are planned, and existing lighting sources within 

the Western Section would not change under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Lighting at stations and parking lots could result in increased light levels or spillover 

lighting into adjacent areas. Site-specific effects would be considered during Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis. The addition of grade separations, which would be identified during the Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis process, could result in roadway alignments that may result in headlight glare effects on 

adjacent uses above those under existing conditions. Materials used for the infrastructure 

improvements or stations would be unlikely to introduce substantial sources of glare. Station design 

would be consistent with local codes and guidelines, where applicable. Therefore, effects associated 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-24

with the Eastern Section of Build Alternative Option 1 on light and glare would be moderate when 

compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build 

Alternative Option 2 would have slightly reduced effects on light and glare due to a shorter route 

alignment and reduced station options. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar and 

would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with 

Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to 

a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced 

third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative 

Option 3 and would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Site-specific long-term/permanent effects would be considered during Tier 2/Project-level analysis

once details for the needed rail and station infrastructure are known. 

NEPA Summary of Potential Effects

Table 3.4-4 summarizes the qualitative assessment of potential effects (negligible, moderate, or 

substantial) under NEPA for each of the Build Alternative Options. This service-level analysis uses 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area to determine the types of visual resources that may be 

affected and, more importantly, the relative magnitude of the effect. Specific mitigation measures to 

reduce effects would be analyzed at the Tier 2/Project-level environmental process. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-25

Table 3.4-4. NEPA Summary of Effects on Visual and Aesthetic Resources

Alternative Option

Total Number of 

Resources Park/Trail

Designated 

Scenic 

Highway

NRHP 

Site

NRHP 

District

Potential Intensity of 

Effect: 

Western Section

Potential Intensity 

of Effect:

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea

Not applicable

Not 

applicable 

Not 

applicable 

Not 

applicable 

Not 

applicable 

Construction: None

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: None

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus) 35 27 0 7 1 

Construction: 

Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: 

Negligible 

Operation: Moderate

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus) 33 25 0 7 1 

Construction: 

Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: 

Negligible 

Operation: Moderate

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with 

limited third track)

33 25 0 7 1 

Construction: 

Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: 

Negligible 

Operation: Moderate

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study 

Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on 

Tier 2/Project-level specific analysis.

NRHP=National Register of Historic Places
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-26

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-27

 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts 

Based on the information provided in Section 3.4.4 and 3.4.5, and considering the CEQA Guidelines 

Appendix G Checklist questions for aesthetics and visual resources, the Build Alternative Options 

would have a potentially significant visual or aesthetic impact when reviewed on a Program-wide 

basis. Placing the infrastructure improvements and new stations largely within or along the existing 

ROW reduces the potential for significant impacts to these resources; however, because the sites 

have not been selected, some visual resources may be significantly impacted. At the programmatic 

level of evaluation, it is not possible to precisely know the location, extent, and particular 

characteristics of impacts on these resources. Proposed programmatic mitigation strategies 

discussed in Section 3.4.8 would be applied to reduce potential impacts. 

Table 3.4-5 summarizes the CEQA significance conclusions for the Build Alternative Options; the 

proposed programmatic mitigation strategies that could be applied to minimize, reduce, or avoid 

potential impacts; and the significance determination after mitigation strategies are applied. The 

identification and implementation of additional site-specific mitigation measures necessary for 

Project implementation would occur as part of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-28

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-29

Table 3.4-5. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Visual Quality and Aesthetics Resources

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

Construction 

Western Section - No Impact. No impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or required under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Less Than Significant. Temporary impacts on visual resources and the 

landscape would occur during construction activities within the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor. These changes would include views of construction equipment, dust, material 

stockpiling, and construction and detour signage. However, construction activities would not 

permanently obstruct views of the landscape, change the visual character, or result in 

degradation of visual quality within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. A less than 

significant impact is anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level in the Eastern 

Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Operation

Western Section - No Impact. The change in train service (two additional round-trip daily 

trains within the Program Corridor) would occur within an existing rail corridor that would not 

require changes in existing zoning or land use. Operation of the Program would not have a 

substantial impact on a scenic vista within the Western Section of Program Corridor. 

Therefore, no impacts under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-30

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section - Potentially Significant. Potential impacts on scenic vistas depend on the 

location of new stations, grade separations, and sound barriers, which are currently unknown. 

Visual impacts may occur if these new structures block views of important scenic vistas. 

However, the stations would be generally located adjacent to the existing rail line and are 

anticipated to occur in urbanized areas. Site-specific impacts would be considered during the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

VIS-1 Potentially Significant. VIS-1 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid impacts on 

scenic vistas by identifying design 

alternatives (e.g., undercrossings instead 

of overcrossings where scenic vistas might 

be blocked) or material alternatives (e.g., 

see-through materials for noise barriers) 

that would preserve existing views of 

scenic vistas. However, impacts may 

remain significant and unavoidable as 

further analysis may determine that there 

is a conflict that cannot be mitigated 

between land uses.

Would the Program substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited 

to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic highway?

Construction

Western Section - No Impact. No impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or required under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section - No Impact. The Eastern Section of the Program Corridor does not cross or 

include designated scenic highways. Therefore, construction activities would not result in 

impacts on scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic 

building within a state scenic highway. No impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level in the Eastern Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-31

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section - No Impact. The Western Section of the Program Corridor does not cross 

or include designated scenic highways. Therefore, the change in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not result in impacts on scenic 

resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a 

state scenic highway. No impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation

level in the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – No Impact. The Eastern Section of the Program Corridor does not cross or 

include designated scenic highways. Therefore, the change in train service (an additional 2 

daily trips within the Program Corridor) would not result in impacts on scenic resources, 

including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic building within a state scenic 

highway. No impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level in the 

Eastern Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Would the Program substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 

public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are 

experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the Program is in an urbanized 

area, would the Program conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations 

governing scenic quality?

Construction

Western Section - No Impact. No impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or required under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-32

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Less Than Significant. Temporary impacts on visual resources and the 

landscape would occur during construction activities within the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor. These changes would include views of construction equipment, dust, material 

stockpiling, and construction and detour signage. However, construction activities would not 

permanently obstruct views of the landscape, change the visual character, or result in 

degradation of visual quality within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. A less than 

significant impact is anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level in the Eastern 

Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Operation

Western Section - No Impact. The change in train service (two additional round-trip daily 

trains within the Program Corridor) would occur within an existing rail corridor that would not 

require changes in existing zoning or land use. Operation of the Program would not 

substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views or conflict with 

applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality within the Western Section of 

Program Corridor. Therefore, no impacts under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are

anticipated. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section - Potentially Significant. Potential impacts on the existing visual character 

or quality depend on the location of new stations, which are currently unknown. Significant 

impacts could occur if the improvements would remove existing structures or landscaping that 

contribute to a high level of visual character, or if they introduce visual elements that are 

out-of-scale or otherwise visually incompatible with the existing visual character. This would be 

most likely to occur if substantial ROW widening was necessary, at grade separations, or at 

stations and associated parking areas. Site-specific impacts would be considered during the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

VIS-1 Potentially Significant. VIS-1 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid impacts on 

visual character or quality by identifying 

design or material alternatives that avoid 

altering the existing visual character. 

However, impacts may remain significant 

and unavoidable as further analysis may 

determine that there is a conflict that 

cannot be mitigated between land uses.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-33

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 

adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Construction

Western Section - No Impact. No construction lighting or glare impacts are anticipated at the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed. or 

required in the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section - Potentially Significant. Nighttime construction lighting may be required for 

construction staging and storage areas and during nighttime construction activities. Potential 

impacts would be temporary under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. Site-specific impacts 

would be considered during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

VIS-2 Less than Significant. VIS-2 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid, impacts from a 

new source of substantial light and glare 

by minimizing light spillover and evaluating 

and addressing potential nighttime impacts 

from light sources during design through 

the preparation of a construction lighting 

plan.

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The change in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would occur within an existing rail corridor 

that currently experiences lighting from travelling trains. Operation of the Program would not 

create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime 

views within the Western Section of the Program Corridor. Therefore, impacts associated with 

light and glare under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated to be less than 

significant. 

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-34

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section - Potentially Significant. Potential impacts related to light and glare depend 

on new station locations and infrastructure improvements, which are currently unknown. 

During operation, the addition of grade separations could result in roadway alignments that 

may result in headlight glare impacts on adjacent uses. Lighting at stations and parking lots 

could result in increased light levels or spillover lighting into adjacent areas. Site-specific 

impacts would be considered during Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

VIS-1 Potentially Significant. VIS-1 and would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid impacts from a 

new source of substantial light and glare 

by minimizing light spillover and evaluating 

and addressing potential impacts from light 

sources during design and through the 

preparation of an operational lighting plan. 

However, impacts may remain significant 

and unavoidable as further analysis may 

determine that there is a conflict that 

cannot be mitigated between land uses.

Notes:

EIS/EIR=environmental impact statement/environmental impact report; ROW=right-of-way
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-35

Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies

Identified below are proposed programmatic mitigation strategies for further consideration in the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis. Examples of programmatic mitigation strategies for visual and aesthetic 

resources would include the use of context-sensitive design features for ancillary facilities and 

incorporation of natural screening, such as landscaping or buffers. Coordination with local agencies 

and stakeholders would occur to develop Project-specific mitigation measures during the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis after design details are known. Proposed programmatic mitigation strategies 

or design considerations, consistent with state and federal regulations, include, but are not limited to

the following:

Mitigation Strategy VIS-1: During the Tier 2/Project-level environmental process, the identified lead 

agency or agencies shall conduct an inventory of visual or aesthetic resources at the location of 

specific rail infrastructure and station facility proposed. If visual or aesthetic resources are present,

the identified lead agency or agencies shall undertake an analysis associated with the specific rail 

infrastructure and station facility proposed. The analysis shall include, but not be limited to, the 

following: 

• Infrastructure/station effects and impacts associated with blocking views of identified visual 

resources (e.g., local scenic resources, mountain/foothill views)

• Infrastructure/station effects and impacts associated with change in visual character (e.g., 

removal of structures or landscaping)

• Infrastructure/station effects and impacts associated with local design criteria and guidelines

• Infrastructure/station effects and impacts associated with local lighting design criteria and 

guidelines

Criteria to determine the type of site-specific mitigation for visual resources would be developed by 

the identified lead agency or agencies in consultation with local jurisdictions during the Tier 

2/Project-level environmental process. 

Mitigation Strategy VIS-2: To address potential lighting impacts related to nighttime construction 

lighting, the contractor shall use construction lighting during nighttime that is limited to the minimum 

necessary for safety and security, and the use of downward facing, cut-off fixtures that do not allow 

spillover onto adjacent land uses. A construction lighting plan shall be developed for each station 

facility, taking into account local and regional lighting policies, including but not limited to, the Mount 

Palomar Nighttime Lighting Policy. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.4 Visual and Aesthetic Resources

May 2021 | 3.4-36

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-1

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

3.5.1 Introduction

This section provides an evaluation of air quality, health risk, GHGs, and global climate 

change-related effects associated with implementing the No Build Alternative and Build Alternative

Options. Information contained in this section is summarized from the Air Quality and Greenhouse 

Gas Technical Memorandum (Appendix E of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). 

3.5.2 Regulatory Framework

In accordance with NEPA (42 USC Section 4321 et seq.), CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR Parts 1501-1508), FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR

28545, May 26, 1999) and CEQA, FRA identified sensitive receptors within the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Study Area and evaluated the potential air quality, health risk, GHGs, and global climate 

change-related impacts that could occur from implementation of the Build Alternative Options. 

Federal

The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), as amended, is the primary federal law that governs air quality, 

while the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) is its companion state law. These laws and related 

regulations by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and California Air Resources Board 

(ARB) set standards for the concentration of air pollutants. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency General Conformity Rule

The U.S. EPA General Conformity Rule (40 CFR 93 Subpart B) applies to federal actions, other than 

those related to highway and transit planning, that result in emissions of non-attainment or 

maintenance pollutants, or their precursors, in federally designated non-attainment or maintenance 

areas. The U.S. EPA General Conformity Rule establishes a process to demonstrate that federal 

actions would be consistent with applicable state implementation plans and would not cause or 

contribute to new violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), increase the 

frequency or severity of existing violations of the NAAQS, or delay the timely attainment of the 

NAAQS.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases 

May 2021 | 3.5-2

Federal Clean Air Act

The FCAA, enacted in 1963, established federal air quality standards, known as NAAQS, and 

defines non-attainment areas as geographic regions designated as not meeting one or more of the 

NAAQS. Attainment areas are areas with concentrations of criteria pollutants that are below the 

levels established by the NAAQS. The FCAA also requires that a state implementation plan be 

prepared for local areas not meeting these standards (non-attainment area) and a maintenance plan 

be prepared for each former non-attainment area that subsequently demonstrated compliance with 

the standards. 

NAAQS have been established for transportation-related criteria pollutants that are linked to 

potential health concerns: carbon monoxide (CO); nitrogen dioxide (NO2); ozone (O3); particulate 

matter 10 microns or less (PM10); particulate matter 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5); sulfur dioxide (SO2); 

and lead (Pb). The FCAA requires U.S. EPA to designate areas as attainment, non-attainment, or 

maintenance for each criteria pollutant based on whether the NAAQS have been achieved.

Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program 

On September 22, 2009, U.S. EPA published the final rule that requires mandatory reporting of GHG 

emissions from large sources in the U.S. The gases covered by the final rule are carbon dioxide, 

methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, sulfur hexafluoride, and other 

fluorinated gases, including nitrogen trifluoride and hydrofluorinated ethers. Currently, this is not a 

transportation-related regulation and, therefore, the final rule does not apply to the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR. However, the methodology developed as part of this regulation is helpful in identifying 

potential GHG emissions.

On December 7, 2009, the Final Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse 

Gases, under Section 202(a) of the FCAA, was signed by the U.S. EPA administrator. The 

endangerment finding states that current and projected concentrations of the seven final rule GHGs 

in the atmosphere threaten public health and welfare. Furthermore, combined emissions of these 

well-mixed GHGs from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the GHG 

pollution.

On April 5, 2017, CEQ withdrew its Final Guidance for Federal Departments and Agencies on 

Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in National 

Environmental Policy Act Reviews. As such, California’s laws and CEQA considerations were used 

to satisfy the NEPA considerations for GHGs.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-3

State

California Clean Air Act

The CCAA designates air districts as lead air quality planning agencies, requires air districts to 

prepare air quality plans, and grants air districts explicit authority to implement transportation control 

measures and regulate indirect sources of air pollution. The CCAA focuses on attainment of the 

California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which for certain pollutants and averaging 

periods are more stringent than the comparable federal standards. The following are criteria 

pollutants, which the California ARB and U.S. EPA regulate: CO, NO2, SO2, O3, PM10, PM2.5, and 

Pb. CAAQS are generally more stringent than the NAAQS and incorporate additional standards for 

sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and vinyl chloride, and visibility-reducing particles. Additional information 

on CAAQS and NAAQS is provided in the Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Technical Memorandum 

(Appendix E of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR).

Assembly Bill 1493

Assembly Bill (AB) 1493, enacted in 2002, requires the California ARB to develop and implement 

regulations to reduce automobile and light-truck GHG emissions. 

Assembly Bill 32

AB 32, known as the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 and enacted in 2006, requires the state 

to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, mandating the California ARB create a plan that 

includes market mechanisms and implement rules to achieve “real, quantifiable, cost-effective 

reductions of GHGs.” The required scoping plan includes the implementation of the high-speed rail 

system as a GHG reduction measure, estimating a 2020 reduction of 1 million metric tons of carbon 

dioxide equivalent. 

Executive Order S-3-05

Executive Order (EO) S-3-05, enacted in 2005, establishes targets to reduce California’s GHG 

emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and 80 percent below the 1990 levels by 

2050. 

Governor’s Executive Order S-01-07

Under EO S-01-07, enacted in 2007, the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels is to be 

reduced by at least 10 percent by 2020. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-4

Governor’s Executive Order S-13-08

EO S-13-08, enacted in 2008, addresses the risk of sea level rise resulting from global climate 

change. It requires all state agencies that are planning construction projects in the areas vulnerable 

to sea level rise consider a range of sea level rise scenarios to assess project vulnerability and, to 

the extent feasible, reduce expected risks, and increase resiliency to sea level rise. 

Governor’s Executive Order B-30-15

EO B-30-15, enacted in 2015, established a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 

1990 levels by 2030. This is intended to make it possible to reach the state’s goal of reducing 

emissions 80 percent under 1990 levels by 2050. 

Senate Bill 375

SB 375, known as the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008, requires the 

California ARB to develop regional reduction targets for GHG emissions and prompts the creation of 

regional land use and transportation plans to reduce emissions from passenger vehicle use 

throughout the state. The law was enacted in 2008 and became effective on January 1, 2009. The 

targets apply to the regions in the state covered by California’s 18 MPOs. The 18 MPOs have been 

tasked with creating the regional land use and transportation plans called SCSs. The MPOs are 

required to develop the SCSs through integrated land use and transportation planning and 

demonstrate an ability to attain the proposed reduction targets by 2020 and 2035.

Senate Bill 32

SB 32, which was signed into law on September 8, 2016, expands upon AB 32 to reduce GHG 

emissions and mandates the reduction target in GHG emissions as written into EO B-30-15.

Regional

Southern California Association of Governments 

Through the FCAA amendments, California’s 18 MPOs are responsible for the planning,

programming, and coordination of federal highway and transit investments in urbanized areas. As 

part of this work, MPOs help to ensure that the transportation and air quality plans of the region are 

consistent with goals established in the state implementation plans. The MPO responsible for air 

quality within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area is the SCAG. The SCAG region encompasses

6 counties (Imperial, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura) and 191 cities 

in an area covering more than 38,000 square miles. On April 7, 2016, SCAG’s Regional Council 

adopted the 2016-2040 RTP/SCS. The RTP/SCS is a long-range visioning plan that balances future 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-5

mobility and housing needs with economic, environmental, and public health goals. The RTP/SCS 

charts a course for closely integrating land use and transportation, so that the region can grow 

smartly and sustainably. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District Regulations 

The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) has jurisdiction over the South Coast 

Air Basin (SCAB) and the Salton Sea Air Basin (SSAB), of which the Program is located within. To 

ensure continued progress toward clean air and comply with state and federal requirements, the 

SCAQMD, in conjunction with the California ARB, SCAG, and U.S. EPA, generally updates its air 

quality management plans every 3 years. The 2016 Air Quality Management Plan was adopted by 

the SCAQMD Governing Board on March 3, 2017 (SCAQMD 2016). The SCAQMD implements the 

following rules: 

• SCAQMD Rule 402 – Nuisance: This rule prohibits discharge or air contaminants or other 

materials that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number 

of persons or the public; endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any such persons 

or the public; or cause, or have a natural tendency to cause injury or damage to businesses 

or property.

• SCAQMD Rule 403 – Fugitive Dust: This rule prohibits emissions of fugitive dust from any 

active operation, open storage pile, or disturbed surface area that remains visible beyond the 

emission source property line. Additional requirements apply to construction projects on 

property with 50 or more acres of disturbed surface area, or for any earth-moving operation 

with a daily earth-moving or throughput volume of 5,000 cubic yards or more three times 

during the most recent 365-day period. These requirements include submittal of a dust 

control plan, maintaining dust control records, and designating a SCAQMD-certified dust 

control supervisor.

• SCAQMD Rule 1108 – Cutback Asphalt: This rule prohibits the sale or use of any cutback 

asphalt containing more than 0.5 percent by volume organic compounds which evaporate at 

260°C (500°F) or lower within the SCAQMD. 

• SCAQMD Rule 1113 – Architectural Coatings: This rule is intended to limit the volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) content of architectural coatings used in the SCAQMD. 

Local and Tribal Governments

Regulations from cities, local agencies, and tribal governments would be identified in the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis once site-specific rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are 

known.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-6

3.5.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects

The methodology for this Tier 1/Program service-level evaluation identifies existing conditions for air 

quality and GHGs and provides the approach and assumptions for analyzing air quality and GHG 

environmental consequences associated with implementation of the Build Alternative Options. The 

methodology considers the change in travel conditions for the proposed transportation 

improvements by comparing the Build Alternative Options with the No Build Alternative during the 

identified horizon years. 

Given that the details of the needed rail infrastructure and station locations are unknown at this time, 

direct and indirect effects on air quality and GHG emissions were evaluated qualitatively for the 

following: 1) evaluation of construction-related emissions; 2) identification and evaluation of 

operation-related emissions sources; 3) evaluation of GHG emissions; and 4) discussions of likely 

Tier 2/Project-level analyses. Quantitative emissions estimates were provided for locomotive and 

VMT emissions reductions during operation of the Build Alternative Options. 

Horizon Years

For the purpose of comparison between the No Build Alternative and Build Alternative Options, three 

horizon years were analyzed:

• Existing Year (2018): Under this scenario, Program-related transportation impacts were 

analyzed for the surrounding roadways and rail (passenger and freight) systems under 

existing conditions. This scenario was analyzed to fulfill CEQA requirements for establishing 

a baseline environmental setting. 

• Opening Year (2024): Under this scenario, Program-related transportation impacts were 

analyzed for the surrounding roadways and rail (passenger and freight) systems on the first 

day the Program is operational.

• Future Year (2044): Under this scenario, Program-related transportation impacts were 

analyzed for the surrounding roadways and rail (passenger and freight) systems under full 

build-out conditions. 

Air Quality Assumptions

Potential regional air quality effects from the Program were evaluated based on a comparison of 

their effects on overall air quality emissions. In addition, the effect of these changes on maintenance 

and non-attainment areas, as classified by U.S. EPA at the time of analysis, is discussed. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-7

To examine the Program’s potential effects on local air quality, a quantitative analysis was 

conducted based on potential changes in VMT as a result of estimated changes in local traffic at 

stations, changes in rail service, and location of parking facilities. Regional VMT estimates and 

EMFAC2017 emissions factors were used to estimate criteria pollutant emissions for the Build 

Alternative Options and No Build Alternative. Locomotive emissions were estimated using rail miles 

traveled estimates and U.S. EPA locomotive emissions factors. Potential local health risks 

associated with construction and locomotive diesel particulate matter emissions were evaluated 

qualitatively. 

The emissions thresholds that trigger requirements of the General Conformity Rule for federal 

actions emitting criteria pollutants in non-attainment or maintenance areas, or their precursors, are 

called de minimis levels. If a project’s emissions are projected to be below the de minimis levels, 

then the FCAA assumes the project would not result in any substantial air quality effects, and no 

further analysis would be required.

Conversely, if the Build Alternative Options emissions exceed de minimis levels, then the Project

would require an air quality conformity determination relative to the NAAQS. Site-specific information 

is required to assess the need for a conformity determination. This information would be available in 

a Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

This Tier 1/Program-level analysis was prepared by comparing the net increase in air quality criteria 

pollutant emissions estimated to occur under the No Build Alternative and Build Alternative Options 

against the General Conformity de minimis levels shown in Table 3.5-1. Because the Program would 

be located partially in the SCAB and partially in the SSAB, net criteria pollutant emissions occurring 

in each air basin would be compared with applicable de minimis levels (i.e., emissions occurring 

within the SCAB would be compared with SCAB de minimis levels).

Table 3.5-1. General Conformity De Minimis Thresholds

Criteria Pollutant

SCAB

(tons per year)

SSAB

(tons per year)

O3 10 25

CO 100 100

PM10 100 100

PM2.5 100 100

Pb 25 25

Source: U.S. EPA 2018b

Notes: 

CO=carbon monoxide; O3=ozone; Pb=lead; PM2.5=particulate matter 2.5 microns or less; PM10=particulate matter 

10 microns or less; SCAB=South Coast Air Basin; SSAB=Salton Sea Air Basin
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-8

Greenhouse Gas Emission Assumptions 

GHG emissions were evaluated on a statewide level, as emissions released as a result of 

implementing the Build Alternative Options would not be localized or regional due to their rapid 

dispersion into the global atmosphere. For the GHG emissions evaluation, passenger VMT and 

locomotive operations were evaluated as the main source of energy consumption under the Build 

Alternative Options. Regional VMT estimates and EMFAC2017 emissions factors were used to 

estimate GHG emissions for the No Build Alternative and Build Alternative Options. Locomotive 

emissions were estimated using rail miles traveled estimates and U.S. EPA locomotive emissions 

factors. 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area for air quality includes the affected air basins: SCAB for the 

Western Section and the Eastern Section west of Cabazon and the SSAB for the Eastern Section 

east of Cabazon. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area for GHGs includes the state of California. 

Data Sources

The data sources used to establish the existing conditions include information from the California 

ARB, U.S. EPA, and air quality management districts. Existing ambient air quality and GHG 

emissions data from the California ARB and U.S. EPA were collected and summarized. The current 

status of MPO-administered areas within the Program Corridor were described with regard to 

ambient air quality standards and the final conformity rule. GHG emissions were compiled from the 

California ARB for the affected environment. The California ARB GHG emissions information is 

available on a statewide basis. 

Related Resources

This evaluation incorporates data and evaluation from related resources to contribute to the air 

quality and GHG assessment, as applicable. These related resources are identified in Table 3.5-2. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-9

Table 3.5-2. Related Resource Inputs for Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Assessment

Resource Input for Air Quality and GHG Assessment

Transportation

(Section 3.3)

Potential changes in VMT were identified, including those resulting from local

traffic, as an input to air quality and GHG emissions. 

Public Utilities and Energy

(Section 3.12)

Net changes in energy consumption within the affected environment as a result of 

the Build Alternative Options and the potential effects on regional air quality

would be evaluated during Tier 2/Project-level analysis when specific Project

details are available.

Notes:

GHG=greenhouse gas; VMT=vehicle miles traveled

3.5.4 Affected Environment

Air Quality

The Program Corridor crosses a large geographic area within Southern California, spanning 

approximately 144 miles from its western terminus in Los Angeles to its eastern terminus in 

Coachella. As shown on Figure 3.5-1, the entire Western Section and a portion of the Eastern 

Section (west of Cabazon) of Program Corridor is located within the SCAB. The Eastern Section 

(east of Cabazon) of the Program Corridor is located within the SSAB. 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Table 3.5-3 summarizes the federal (under NAAQS) and state (under CAAQS) attainment status for 

the SCAB and SSAB. The two air basins are in federal and state non-attainment status for several of 

the air quality criteria pollutants.

Table 3.5-3. Federal and State Attainment Status of the South Coast Air Basin and Salton 

Sea Air Basin

Pollutant

Federal Attainment 

Status: SCAB

State Attainment 

Status: SCAB

Federal Attainment 

Status: SSAB

State Attainment 

Status: SSAB

O3 (1-hour

standard)

— Non-attainment — Non-attainment

O3 (8-hour

standard)

Non-attainment/ 

Extreme 

Non-attainment Non-attainment/ 

Severe 15

Non-attainment

PM10 Attainment/ 

Maintenance

Non-attainment Non-attainment/ 

Serious 

Non-attainment
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-10

Pollutant

Federal Attainment 

Status: SCAB

State Attainment 

Status: SCAB

Federal Attainment 

Status: SSAB

State Attainment 

Status: SSAB

PM2.5 Non-attainment/ 

Moderate

Non-attainment Attainment/ 

Unclassifiable

Attainment

CO Attainment/ 

Maintenance

Attainment Attainment/ 

Unclassifiable

Attainment

NO2 (1-hour

standard) 

Attainment/ 

Unclassifiable 

Attainment Attainment/ 

Unclassifiable

Attainment

NO2 (annual

standard)

Attainment/ 

Maintenance

Attainment Attainment/ 

Unclassifiable

Attainment

SO2 Attainment/ 

Unclassifiable

Attainment Attainment/ 

Unclassifiable

Attainment

Pb Non-attainment 

(partial Los Angeles

County 

only)/Attainment (rest 

of the SCAB) 

Attainment Attainment/ 

Unclassifiable

Attainment

All others — Attainment — Attainment/ 

Unclassifiable

Source: California ARB 2018; U.S. EPA 2018a

Notes:

CO=carbon monoxide; NO2=nitrogen dioxide; O3=ozone; Pb=lead; PM2.5=particulate matter 2.5 microns or less; 

PM10=particulate matter 10 microns or less; SCAB=South Coast Air Basin; SO2=sulfur dioxide; SSAB=Salton Sea Air 

Basin 

Emissions of PM2.5 and nitrogen oxide (NOx) from diesel locomotive engines currently contribute to 

the non-attainment of the NAAQS for PM2.5 and O3. U.S. EPA has established emission standards 

for these pollutants for newly manufactured and remanufactured locomotives (73 FR 

25098, Locomotive and Commercial Marine Rule). U.S. EPA is projecting that PM2.5 and NOx

emissions will drop as a result of these standards.

Rail service can also contribute to visibility concerns in non-attainment and maintenance areas 

through primary and secondary PM2.5, SO2, and NOx diesel emissions. Under the provisions of the 

FCAA, U.S. EPA has designated a number of areas in California, including national parks and 

wilderness areas, as Mandatory Class I Federal Areas, where visibility is an important value. Under 

the U.S. EPA Regional Haze Rule, states must establish goals to improve visibility in Mandatory 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-11

Class I Federal Areas and develop long-term strategies to reduce emissions of air pollutants that 

cause visibility impairment. Of the Mandatory Class I Federal Areas in the region, the San Jacinto 

Wilderness and San Gorgonio Wilderness are located nearest to the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study 

Area; however, no Mandatory Class I Federal Areas are located within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Study Area (U.S. EPA 2019). 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Existing air quality data and information within Build Alternative Option 2 is the same as Build 

Alternative Option 1. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track)

Existing air quality data and information within Build Alternative Option 3 is the same as Build 

Alternative Option 1. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-12

This page is intentionally blank. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-13

Figure 3.5-1. Air Basins Traversed by the Program Corridor
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-14

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-15

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus) 

GHGs are inventoried on a statewide basis because their effects are not localized or regional. A 

summary of the 2018 statewide GHG emissions inventory is provided in Table 3.5-4. Transportation 

is the largest contributor of GHGs in California, accounting for 39.8 percent of the total statewide 

GHG emissions. Contributions from the transportation sector include emissions from on-road and 

off-road vehicles, aviation, rail, and water-borne vehicles, as well as a few other smaller sources. 

Table 3.5-4. California Greenhouse Gas Inventory

GHG Emission Category

2018 Emissions 

(million metric tons

carbon dioxide

equivalent)

Percentage of Total

(%)

Transportation 169.5 38.8

Electric power 63.1 14.4

Commercial and residential 41.4 9.5

Industrial 89.2 20.4

Agriculture and forestry 32.6 7.5

High global warming potential gases 20.5 4.7

Recycling and waste 20.5 4.7

Total California emissions 436.8 100.0

Source: California ARB 2020

Notes:

GHG=greenhouse gas

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Existing GHG data and information within Build Alternative Option 2 is the same as Build Alternative 

Option 1. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track)

Existing GHG data and information within Build Alternative Option 3 is the same as Build Alternative 

Option 1. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-16

3.5.5 Environmental Consequences

Overview 

Effects as a result of implementing the Build Alternative Options can be broadly classified into 

construction and operational effects. Both short-term or temporary effects and long-term or 

permanent air quality and GHG-related effects would be anticipated as a result of constructing any of 

the Build Alternative Options. 

Construction effects on air quality are generally short term and are due to the emissions from 

construction equipment; fugitive dust from ground-level disturbances; on-site materials processing 

and handling, such as concrete plants; and vehicle emissions from increases in local traffic 

congestion. The potential construction effects on air quality are evaluated based on the intensity of 

the construction activities and construction duration of the Program. The longer the construction 

period and the more non-road construction equipment used (such as cranes, bulldozers, heavy duty

trucks, and concrete batch plants), the greater the potential for construction effects on air quality.

Effects could also result from operation of any of the Build Alternative Options, as the addition of two 

daily round trips would result in the increased consumption of fossil fuels and resultant release of 

emissions. However, while implementation of any of the Build Alternative Options would increase 

emissions from locomotives, those emissions would be partially offset by automobile emissions 

reduction that would occur due to the travel mode shift from automobile to rail transport within the 

Program Corridor. Any of the Build Alternative Options would be largely beneficial to air quality in the 

region and anticipated to contribute to the region’s long-term attainment of air quality goals by 

reducing VMT and vehicle emissions.

Site-specific sensitive land uses potentially affected by the Program would be further identified as 

part of the Tier 2/Project-level environmental review process. Specific types and degrees of impacts 

on sensitive receptors would not be known until further design and construction information is 

known. 

No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, of this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR, is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the 

Program associated with this service-level evaluation. Existing air quality, compared with future air 

quality without the Program, would be affected by two key factors: regional growth and air quality 

and GHG regulatory actions. Regional growth, such as increased residential development and 

density, along with additional industry, results in more and greater sources of air and GHG 

emissions. These increases in air emissions are offset by transportation projects, which generally
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-17

reduce traffic congestion, thus minimizing local effects for emission hot spots, as well as vehicle

regulatory programs that control the level of emissions from on-road and non-road vehicles. 

While regional program efforts and changes in transportation technology (e.g., use of electrified and 

Tier IV equipment) would reduce future pollutant burdens for air quality criteria pollutants such as 

VOC, CO, NOx, PM2.5, and PM10, and GHG emissions within the Program Corridor, several existing 

and committed transportation projects would occur in the Program Corridor under the No Build 

Alternative. These future projects would result in an increase in passenger and freight services 

resulting in more and greater sources of air quality and GHG emissions within the Program Corridor 

under the No Build Alternative. 

As summarized in Table 3.5-5, projected future growth in the Program Corridor would result in a 

corresponding increase in traffic and VMT, as more cars would be on the roadways. Therefore, 

traffic congestion is likely to worsen with the No Build Alternative, resulting in air quality effects. With 

the continued trend in increases of VMT within the Program Corridor, energy consumption and GHG 

emissions would likely increase under the No Build Alternative. This assessment does not, however, 

consider other influences, including changes in Corporate Average Fuel Economy, standards, bus 

and aircraft efficiency, fuel compositions, and other factors.

Table 3.5-5. Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled Estimates (No Build Alternative)

Horizon Year VMT Estimate 

Existing Year (2018) 3,195,227,280 

Opening Year (2024) 3,475,105,216 

Future Year (2044) 4,335,611,649 

Notes:

VMT=vehicle miles traveled

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3

Air Quality Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or 

station infrastructure in the Western Section because the existing railroad infrastructure and stations 

from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build Alternative, 

short-term/temporary air quality effects would be negligible because no additional construction 

activities are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-18

Eastern Section. Construction activities required for infrastructure improvements (such as sidings, 

additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation structures) and station 

facilities would result in short-term increases in dust and equipment-related emissions in and around 

the construction site. Exhaust emissions during construction would be generated by fuel combustion 

in motor vehicles and construction equipment, and particulate emissions would result from soil 

disturbance, earthwork, and other construction activities. Construction vehicle activity and disruption 

of normal traffic flow may also result in increased motor vehicle emissions within the construction 

area.

The air quality emissions that could be generated would vary depending on the length of the 

construction period, specific construction activity (e.g., grading, paving, pile driving), types of 

equipment, and number of personnel.

Construction of any of the Build Alternative Options would have the potential to cause temporary air 

quality effects. In general, the degree of adverse construction effects is proportional to the length of 

new rail proposed to be constructed, number of grade separations, number and size of new facilities, 

relationship of the improvements and facilities to populated areas, and the duration of construction at 

each site. 

Potential air quality impacts from each construction project would be short term, occurring at a 

location only while construction work is in progress. Construction activities would be required to 

comply with applicable local, state, and federal regulations, in addition to the implementation of 

identified best management practices (BMP), to minimize emissions and construction effects. 

Design specifics and locations of the rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are not 

known at this time, so the air quality emissions that could be generated and potential sensitive 

receptors that could be affected during specific construction activities cannot be quantified at the Tier 

1/Program-level evaluation. Once detailed construction information for the site-specific rail 

infrastructure improvement or station facility is available, a quantitative estimate of the total air 

quality emissions during construction would be conducted and impacts on sensitive receptors would 

be evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

Although construction of site-specific rail infrastructure and station facilities would be subject to 

applicable regulations and BMPs, when compared with the No Build Alternative, short-term localized 

construction air quality effects could be substantial within the Program Corridor under Build 

Alternative Option 1 if the implementation of BMPs would not bring construction emissions to below 

identified SCAQMD construction emission thresholds. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would 

also evaluate mobile source air toxics emissions to assess construction period effects and 

SCAQMD regional and local daily significance thresholds. When compared with Build Alternative 

Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-19

alignment and reduced station options. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build 

Alternative Option 2 and would be considered substantial when compared with the No Build 

Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may 

have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, 

reduced station options, and reduced third rail track infrastructure. However, the magnitude of 

effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and would be considered substantial when 

compared with the No Build Alternative.

OPERATION

Western and Eastern Section. During operation, passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the 

Program would consist of the addition of two daily, round-trip intercity diesel-powered passenger 

trains operating the entire length of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and Coachella.

Operational activities are anticipated to be limited to maintenance of culverts, bridges, 

embankments, and station areas. Operation of any of the Build Alternative Options would generally 

result in a long-term net benefit to air quality by reducing emissions of criteria pollutants, air toxics, 

and GHG. There are several factors that would contribute to the extent to which the operation any of 

the Build Alternative Options have a long-term effect on air quality. These include the operation of 

the stations and other supporting facilities, the forecast ridership of the rail system, and the 

subsequent vehicle and airplane emission change due to the shift of travel mode. 

Build Alternative Options with higher ridership would have the potential to shift more passengers 

from driving to riding the trains, thus decreasing the regional VMT and associated vehicle emissions. 

In addition, longer route segments would provide access to more locations and would likely have a 

greater reduction in regional VMT. 

The estimated annual railroad emissions for operation of the Build Alternative Options for the horizon 

years are provided in Table 3.5-6 and Table 3.5-7. These estimates do not consider future emission 

reductions associated with new emission standards or changes in transportation technology (e.g., 

U.S. EPA Tier IV equipment). As summarized in Table 3.5-6 and Table 3.5-7, the estimated Build 

Alternative Options locomotive emissions would not exceed General Conformity de minimis levels in 

the SCAB or SSAB.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-20

Table 3.5-6. Locomotive Emission Estimates (Build Alternative Option 1) 

Air Basin

NOx 

(tons per year)

VOC

(tons per year)

PM10

(tons per year)

PM2.5

(tons per year)

CO

(tons per year)

Estimated Rail Emissions

SCAB 5.0166 0.2007 0.0008 0.0007 6.4213

SSAB 1.7984 0.0719 0.0003 0.0003 2.3020

Total 6.8150 0.2726 0.0011 0.0010 8.7233

General Conformity De Minimis Level

SCAB 10 10 100 100 100

SSAB 25 25 100 100 100

Source: Appendix E of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR

Notes:

CO=carbon monoxide; NOx=nitrogen oxide; PM2.5=particulate matter 2.5 microns or less; PM10=particulate matter 

10 microns or less; SCAB=South Coast Air Basin; SSAB=Salton Sea Air Basin; VOC=volatile organic compound

Table 3.5-7. Locomotive Emission Estimates (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3)

Air Basin

NOx 

(tons per year)

VOC

(tons per year)

PM10

(tons per year)

PM2.5

(tons per year)

CO

(tons per year)

Estimated Rail Emissions

SCAB 4.9279 0.1971 0.0007 0.0007 6.3077

SSAB 1.7097 0.0684 0.0003 0.0003 2.1884

Total 6.6376 0.2655 0.0010 0.0010 8.4961

General Conformity De Minimis Level

SCAB 10 10 100 100 100

SSAB 25 25 100 100 100

Source: Appendix E of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR

Notes:

CO=carbon monoxide; NOx=nitrogen oxide; PM2.5=particulate matter 2.5 microns or less; PM10=particulate matter 

10 microns or less; SCAB=South Coast Air Basin; SSAB=Salton Sea Air Basin; VOC=volatile organic compound
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-21

While operation of the Build Alternative Options would increase emissions from locomotives, those 

emissions would be offset by automobile emissions reduction that would occur due to the travel 

mode shift from automobile to rail transport within the travel corridor. A projection of ridership and 

VMT reductions is provided in Table 3.5-8 and Table 3.5-9 for the Build Alternative Options. 

Table 3.5-8. Annual Ridership and Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled by Horizon Year (Build 

Alternative Option 1)

Alternative Scenarios

Annual Ridership 

(one-way trips) VMT (million)

Existing Year (2018)a

2018 baseline/existing conditions — 3,200.0

Opening Year (2024)

No Build Alternative — 3,500.0

Build Alternative Option 1 204,107 3,489.5

Change in VMTs from No Build Alternative — 10.5 

Future Year (2044)

No Build Alternative — 4,300.0

Build Alternative Option 1 338,540 4,282.6

Change in VMTs from No Build Alternative — 17.4 

Source: Appendix C of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR

Notes:

a Existing Year (2018) assumes no reductions from emissions, as the Program would not be in operation. 

VMT=vehicle miles traveled

Table 3.5-9. Annual Ridership and Annual Vehicle Miles Traveled by Horizon Year (Build 

Alternative Options 2 and 3)

Alternative Scenarios

Annual Ridership 

(one-way trips) VMT (million)

Existing Year (2018)a

2018 baseline/existing conditions — 3,200.0

Opening Year (2024)

No Build Alternative — 3,500.0
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-22

Alternative Scenarios

Annual Ridership 

(one-way trips) VMT (million)

Build Alternatives Options 2 and 3 188,290 3,490.3

Change in VMTs from No Build Alternative — 9.7

Future Year (2044)

No Build Alternative — 4,300.0

Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 312,306 4,283.9

Change in VMTs from No Build Alternative — 16.1

Source: Appendix C of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR

Notes:

a Existing Year (2018) assumes no reductions from emissions, as the Program would not be in operation. 

VMT=vehicle miles traveled

Operation of the Build Alternative Options would be largely beneficial to air quality in the region and 

anticipated to contribute to the region’s long-term attainment of air quality goals by reducing VMT 

and vehicle emissions. A conservative estimate of regional air quality criteria pollutants and the 

corresponding reductions related to the VMT reduction estimates is provided in Table 3.5-10 and 

Table 3.5-11 for the Build Alternative Options. The VMT emissions reduction estimates provided in 

Table 3.5-10 and Table 3.5-11 would be partially offset by locomotive and station operations 

emissions. 

Table 3.5-10. Regional Air Quality Criteria Pollutant Estimates by Horizon Year (Build 

Alternative Option 1)

Alternative Scenarios

VOC

(tons 

per 

year)

NOX 

(tons 

per 

year)

CO

(tons 

per 

year)

SOx 

(tons 

per 

year)

PM10

(tons 

per 

year)

PM2.5

(tons 

per 

year)

Existing Year (2018)a

2018 baseline/existing emissions 96.3 349.3 4,282.4 11.2 164.8 69.1 

Opening Year (2024) 

No Build Alternative 40.9 163.0 2,637.7 10.1 177.5 73.5 

Build Alternative Option 1 40.7 162.0 2,621.8 10.0 176.4 73.1

Change in emissions from No Build Alternative -0.2 -1.0 -15.9 -0.1 -1.1 -0.4
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-23

Alternative Scenarios

VOC

(tons 

per 

year)

NOX 

(tons 

per 

year)

CO

(tons 

per 

year)

SOx 

(tons 

per 

year)

PM10

(tons 

per 

year)

PM2.5

(tons 

per 

year)

Future Year (2044)

No Build Alternative 10.1 79.4 1,918.8 9.4 216.7 87.4 

Build Alternative Option 1 10.0 78.8 1,903.4 9.3 215.0 86.7

Change in emissions from No Build Alternative -0.1 -0.6 -15.4 -0.1 -1.7 -0.7

Source: Appendix E of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR

Notes: 

a Existing Year (2018) assumes no reductions from emissions, as the Program would not be in operation. 

CO=carbon monoxide; NOx=nitrogen oxide; PM2.5=particulate matter 2.5 microns or less; PM10=particulate matter 

10 microns or less; SOx=sulfur oxide; VOC=volatile organic compounds 

Table 3.5-11. Regional Air Quality Criteria Pollutant Estimates by Horizon Year (Build 

Alternative Options 2 and 3)

Alternative Scenarios

VOC 

(tons per 

year)

NOX 

(tons per 

year)

CO

(tons 

per 

year)

SOx 

(tons per 

year)

PM10 

(tons per 

year)

PM2.5

(tons per 

year)

Existing Year (2018)a

2018 baseline/existing 

emissions

96.3 349.3 4,282.4 11.2 164.8 69.1 

Opening Year (2024)

No Build Alternative 40.9 163.0 2,637.7 10.1 177.5 73.5 

Build Alternatives

Options 2 and 3

40.7 162.1 2,623.0 10.0 176.5 73.1

Change in emissions 

from No Build Alternative 

-0.2 -0.9 -14.7 -0.1 -1.0 -0.4
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-24

Alternative Scenarios

VOC 

(tons per 

year)

NOX 

(tons per 

year)

CO

(tons 

per 

year)

SOx 

(tons per 

year)

PM10 

(tons per 

year)

PM2.5

(tons per 

year)

Future Year (2044)

No Build Alternative 10.1 79.4 1,918.8 9.4 216.7 87.4 

Build Alternative Options

2 and 3

10.0 78.8 1,904.6 9.3 215.1 86.8

Change in emissions 

from No Build Alternative 

-0.1 -0.6 -14.2 -0.1 -1.6 -0.6

Source: Appendix E of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR

Notes: 

a Existing Year (2018) assumes no reductions from emissions, as the Program would not be in operation. 

CO=carbon monoxide; NOx=nitrogen oxide; PM2.5=particulate matter 2.5 microns or less; PM10=particulate matter 

10 microns or less; SOx=sulfur oxide; VOC=volatile organic compounds 

Localized activities, including locomotive idling and vehicular queuing in and around commuter 

parking lots, have the potential to result in air quality effects. Locations adjacent to station-related 

commuter parking lots could potentially experience increases in localized air quality pollutant 

concentrations, as additional traffic could be concentrated in these areas in addition to increased 

train idling at the station. The generation of localized CO, PM2.5, and PM10 emissions tend to occur at 

locations with a large number of vehicles idling, such as at congested intersections. Implementation 

of the Program under any of the Build Alternative Options could result in beneficial localized air 

quality effects through relieving traffic congestion in a local area. 

Implementation of the Program could add new at-grade rail crossings that would increase localized 

vehicle emissions at those locations, other rail infrastructure improvements, such as 

grade-separated crossings, could also be implemented, which could also relieve traffic congestion at 

the local level. 

Localized air quality emissions from Program operation would have the potential to expose nearby 

population to air pollutants such as diesel particulate matter. Potential localized air quality emissions 

associated with Program operation would be mostly from diesel locomotives idling. However, 

localized air quality emissions from diesel train travel are expected to be limited due to the low 

number of diesel locomotives that would idle at particular locations. Localized air quality effects 

would be higher in urban or populated areas due to the exposure of sensitive receptors. Facilities 

located mostly in suburban or rural areas, such as those in the Eastern Section, would likely have 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-25

lower potential to cause localized air quality emission exposure than facilities in the Western Section, 

where there are more densely populated areas.

Similar to construction activities, operational activities would be subject to applicable local, state, and 

federal regulations, and operational BMPs would be implemented to minimize emissions and 

operational effects. Although operation of site-specific rail infrastructure and station facilities would 

be subject to applicable regulations and BMPs, when compared with the No Build Alternative, 

localized operational air quality effects could be substantial within the Program Corridor under Build 

Alternative Option 1 if the implementation of BMPs would not bring operational emissions to below 

identified localized SCAQMD operational emission thresholds. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis 

would also evaluate mobile source air toxics emissions to assess operational effects and SCAQMD 

regional and local daily significance thresholds. As shown in Table 3.5-10 and Table 3.5-11, when 

compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 could have nominally 

greater operational emissions of NOx, sulfur oxide (SOx), PM10, and PM2.5. However, the magnitude 

of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 2 and 3 and could be considered substantial 

when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Final conclusions of localized effects would depend on design details and information on affected 

locations and the corresponding traffic data that are not available as part of this Tier 1/Program 

service-level evaluation. Therefore, localized effects of the Program would be evaluated during Tier 

2/Project-level analysis to determine air pollutant effects and quantify on-road mobile-source 

emissions reductions, as well as locomotive operations and train station operations area-source 

emissions. 

Implementation of any of the Build Alternative Options would not be anticipated to have any 

measurable air quality effects on Mandatory Class I Federal Areas, including the San Gorgonio 

Wilderness and San Jacinto Wilderness. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects on 

Mandatory Class I Federal Areas would be negligible under Build Alternative Option 1. When 

compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have the same 

magnitude of effect and would be considered negligible when compared with the No Build 

Alternative. Further site-specific analysis to assess visibility concerns, such as regional haze, would 

be considered during Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints 

typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical 

plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. Implementation of any of the 

Build Alternative Options would not be anticipated to have any measurable odor effects, as the 

Program does not include any uses identified by SCAQMD as being associated with odor

complaints. When compared with the No Build Alternative, odor effects would be negligible under 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-26

Build Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 

2 and 3 would have the same magnitude of effect and would be considered negligible when 

compared with the No Build Alternative. 

Greenhouse Gas Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or

station infrastructure in the Western Section because the existing railroad infrastructure and stations 

from LAUS to Colton would be used. Therefore, no GHG emissions would be generated, as no 

additional construction activities are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative 

Options 1, 2, and 3. When compared with the No Build Alternative, short-term/temporary GHG 

effects would be negligible.

Eastern Section. Construction activities required for infrastructure improvements (such as sidings, 

additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation structures) and station 

facilities would result in short-term increases GHG emissions in and around the construction site.

GHG emissions would be generated from the use of equipment to conduct vegetation clearing, 

grading and excavation, and transport of materials and waste. The GHG emissions that could be 

generated would vary depending on the length of the construction period, specific construction 

activity (e.g., grading, paving, pile driving), types of equipment, and number of personnel. In some 

situations, construction GHG emissions associated from a project may be orders of magnitude lower 

than the operational emissions from the project due to construction emissions generally being short 

in duration compared with the project’s overall lifetime. However, there are instances when projects 

have long construction periods (e.g., 10 years) and may result in a large amount of emissions. 

The generation of GHG emissions from each construction project would be short term. Construction 

activities would be required to comply with applicable local, state, and federal regulations, in addition 

to the implementation of identified BMPs, to minimize GHG emissions and construction effects. 

Design specifics and locations of the rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are not 

known at this time, so the GHG emissions that could be generated during specific construction 

activities cannot be quantified at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Once detailed construction 

information for the site-specific rail infrastructure improvement or station facility is available, a 

quantitative estimate of the total GHG emissions during construction would be conducted and 

impacts would be evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

Although construction of site-specific rail infrastructure and station facilities would be subject to 

applicable regulations and BMPs, when compared with the No Build Alternative, short-term 

construction GHG effects could be moderate within the Program Corridor under Build Alternative 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-27

Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have 

slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the 

magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 2 and would be considered 

moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative 

Option 1 or Build Alternative Option 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects 

due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and 

reduced third rail track infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build 

Alternative Option 3 and would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build 

Alternative.

OPERATION 

Western and Eastern Section. Implementation of any of the Build Alternative Options has the 

potential to provide energy savings and reduce the transportation system’s effect on climate change. 

Based on projected ridership and VMT reductions, passenger rail use within the Program Corridor 

would decrease VMT and related mobile-source emissions. Emission reductions of GHG would 

mainly be attributed to the reduced travel time and resulting reduced fuel usage that would occur 

with operation of the Build Alternative Options. Table 3.5-12 and Table 3.5-13 provide a summary of

mobile-source emissions for Opening Year (2024) and Future Year (2044) for each of the Build 

Alternative Options. 

Table 3.5-12. Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates (Build Alternative Option 1) 

Emissions

No Build Alternative

(metric tons per year)

Build Alternative 

Option 1 

(metric tons per year)

Existing Year (2018)a

Automobile emissions 1,033,792 1,033,792

Passenger rail emissions — —

Total GHG emissions 1,033,792 1,033,792

Change in GHG emissions from No Build Alternative — —

Opening Year (2024) 

Automobile emissions 934,560 928,913

Passenger rail emissions — 3,017

Total GHG emissions 934,560 931,930
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-28

Emissions

No Build Alternative

(metric tons per year)

Build Alternative 

Option 1 

(metric tons per year)

Change in GHG emissions from No Build Alternative — -2,630

Change in GHG emissions from Existing Year (2018) -99,232 -101,862

Future Year (2044)

Automobile emissions 862,289 855,363

Passenger rail emissions — 3,017

Total GHG emissions 862,289 858,380

Change in GHG emissions from No Build Alternative — -3,909

Change in GHG emissions from Existing Year (2018) -171,503 -175,412

Source: Appendix E of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR

Notes: 

a Existing Year (2018) assumes no reductions from emissions, as the Program would not be in operation. 

GHG=greenhouse gas

Table 3.5-13. Greenhouse Gas Emission Estimates (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) 

Emissions

No Build Alternative 

(metric tons per year)

Build Alternative 

Options 2 and 3 

(metric tons per year)

Existing Year (2018)a

Automobile emissions 1,033,792 1,033,792

Passenger rail emissions — Not Applicable

Total GHG emissions 1,033,792 1,033,792

Change in GHG emissions from No Build Alternative — —

Opening Year (2024) 

Automobile emissions 934,560 929,352

Passenger rail emissions — 3,017

Total GHG emissions 934,560 932,369

Change in GHG emissions from No Build Alternative — -2,191
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-29

Emissions

No Build Alternative 

(metric tons per year)

Build Alternative 

Options 2 and 3 

(metric tons per year)

Change in GHG emissions from Existing Year (2018) -99,232 -101,423

Future Year (2044) 

Automobile emissions 862,289 855,901

Passenger rail emissions — 3,017

Total GHG emissions 862,289 858,918

Change in GHG emissions from No Build Alternative — -3,371

Change in GHG emissions from Existing Year (2018) -171,503 -174,874

Source: Appendix E of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR

Notes: 

a Existing Year (2018) assumes no reductions from emissions, as the Program would not be in operation. 

GHG=greenhouse gas

As shown in Table 3.5-12 and Table 3.5-13, when compared with the No Build Alternative, GHG 

effects would be beneficial within the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1. When 

compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have slightly 

reduced beneficial effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, 

the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 2 and 3 and would be 

considered beneficial when compared with the No Build Alternative. A comprehensive quantitative 

GHG analysis would be performed during Tier 2/Project-level analysis to determine GHG effects and 

quantify on-road mobile-source emissions reductions, as well as locomotive operations and train 

station operations area-source emissions. 

3.5.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects

Table 3.5-14 through Table 3.5-16 summarize the qualitative assessment of potential effects 

(negligible, moderate, or substantial) under NEPA for each of the Build Alternative Options. This 

service-level evaluation uses the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area to determine the relative 

magnitude of the air quality- and GHG-related effects of the Build Alternative Options when 

compared with the No Build Alternative. Specific mitigation measures to reduce effects would be 

identified during the Tier 2/Project-level environmental process. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-30

Table 3.5-14. NEPA Summary of Effects on Air Quality Emissions 

Alternative Option

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: Negligible

Operation: Substantial

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Substantial

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Beneficial (regional), 

substantial (localized)

Construction: Substantial 

Operation: Beneficial (regional), 

substantial (localized) 

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Beneficial (regional), 

substantial (localized)

Construction: Substantial 

Operation: Beneficial (regional), 

substantial (localized) 

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with Limited Third 

Track) 

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Beneficial (regional), 

substantial (localized)

Construction: Substantial 

Operation: Beneficial (regional), 

substantial (localized) 

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and 

air travel facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, 

identifying levels of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on 

Project-level analysis.

Table 3.5-15. NEPA Summary of Effects on Regional Haze and Odors 

Alternative Option

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible 

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-31

Alternative Option

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Eastern Section

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with Limited Third 

Track)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and 

air travel facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, 

identifying levels of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on 

Project-level analysis.

Table 3.5-16. NEPA Summary of Effects on Greenhouse Gases 

Alternative Option

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: Negligible

Operation: Substantial

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Substantial

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Beneficial 

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Beneficial 

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Beneficial

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Beneficial 

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with Limited Third 

Track) 

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Beneficial

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Beneficial 

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and 

air travel facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, 

identifying levels of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on 

Project-level analysis.

3.5.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts

Based on the information provided in Sections 3.5.4 and 3.5.5, and considering the CEQA 

Guidelines Appendix G Checklist questions for air quality and GHGs, the Build Alternative Options 

would have potentially significant impacts on air quality and GHGs when reviewed on a 

Program-wide basis. Placing the infrastructure improvements and new stations largely within or 

along the existing ROW would reduce the potential for significant impacts associated with air quality 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-32

and GHG. However, because the infrastructure and station sites have not been selected, some 

areas that may contain sensitive land uses may be significantly impacted. At the Tier 1/Program 

analysis level, it is not possible to know the location, extent, and particular characteristics of impacts 

on these areas. Proposed programmatic mitigation measures strategies discussed in Section 

3.5.8 would be applied to reduce potential impacts. 

Table 3.5-17 summarizes the CEQA significance conclusions for the Build Alternative Options; the 

proposed programmatic mitigation strategies that could be applied to minimize, reduce, or avoid the 

potential impact, and the significance determination after mitigation strategies are applied. The 

identification and implementation of site-specific mitigation measures necessary for Project 

implementation would occur as part of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-33

Table 3.5-17. CEQA Summary of Impacts on Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Construction 

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated during at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or 

required in the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Less Than Significant. The SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan is a 

regional blueprint for achieving air quality standards and healthful air through various 

measures, such as trip reduction strategies, vehicle substitution, VMT reduction, and 

technological improvements. While construction activities may generate localized air quality 

emissions, construction of the Program under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 would 

result in the operation of an enhanced passenger rail system within the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The SCAQMD Air Quality Management Plan is a 

regional blueprint for achieving air quality standards and healthful air through various 

measures, such as trip reduction strategies, vehicle substitution, VMT reduction, and 

technological improvements. Operation of an enhanced passenger rail system within the 

Western Section of the Program Corridor would reduce VMTs within the region, which would 

have a corresponding reduction in air quality emissions generated. Since the Program would 

improve regional air quality through VMT reductions and technological improvements, the 

Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD Air Quality 

Management Plan. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-34

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Less Than Significant. Operation of an enhanced passenger rail system 

within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor would reduce VMTs within the region, 

which would have a corresponding reduction in air quality emissions generated. Since the 

Program would improve regional air quality through VMT reductions and technological 

improvements, the Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the SCAQMD 

Air Quality Management Plan. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Would the Program result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the region is non-attainment under an 

applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated during at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or 

required in the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts associated with air quality 

construction emissions depend of the location of new stations and other rail infrastructure 

improvements, which are currently unknown. Construction of these improvements could 

require large scale construction activities over an extended period of time. A detailed air 

quality construction analysis cannot be considered at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR level 

because such an analysis at this stage would be too speculative, given the exact location and 

duration of construction associated with station facilities and other rail infrastructure 

improvements is unknown at this time. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are 

anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, 

and 3. Site-specific impacts would be determined during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

AQ-1

LU-2 

Potentially Significant. AQ-1 and LU-2 

would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts associated with net increases of 

criteria pollutants; however, impacts may 

remain significant after mitigation.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-35

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts associated with air quality 

pollutant emissions would vary depending on the traffic generated in and around the existing 

stations as a result of operation associated with the enhanced passenger rail system. 

Therefore, there is potential for the Build Alternative Options to result in the generation of 

operational air quality pollutants at a localized level. However, it is anticipated that at the 

regional level, operation of the Program within the Western Section of the Program Corridor 

would result in a reduction of VMTs, which would result in a corresponding reduction in 

regional air quality pollutants generated. Therefore, potentially significant impacts associated 

with localized air quality emissions are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation

level under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. Once Tier 2/Project-level details are known, a 

quantitative air quality analysis would be prepared to identify and evaluate air quality 

emissions during operation.

AQ-1 Potentially Significant. AQ-1 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts from air quality emissions; 

however, impacts may remain significant 

at the localized level after mitigation. 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts associated with air quality 

pollutant emissions would vary depending on the location of proposed infrastructure, level of 

activity, specific operations, and number of new stations. However, these details are currently 

unknown; therefore, there is potential for the Build Alternative Options to result in an increase 

in air quality emissions at the localized level. However, it is anticipated that at the regional 

level, operation of the Program within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor would 

result in a reduction of VMTs, which would result in a corresponding reduction in regional air 

quality pollutants generated. Therefore, potentially significant impacts associated with 

localized air quality emissions are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level

under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. Once Tier 2/Project-level details are known, a 

quantitative air quality analysis would be prepared to identify and evaluate air quality 

emissions during operation.

AQ-1 Potentially Significant. AQ-1 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts from air quality emissions; 

however, impacts may remain significant 

at the localized level after mitigation. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-36

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated during at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or 

required in the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts associated with construction air 

quality emissions depend of the location of new stations and other rail infrastructure 

improvements and their proximity to sensitive receptors, which are currently unknown. A

detailed construction air quality analysis cannot be considered at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

level because such an analysis at this stage would be too speculative, given the exact location 

and duration of construction associated with station facilities and other rail infrastructure 

improvements is unknown at this time. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are 

anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, 

and 3. Site-specific air quality construction impacts would be identified and evaluated during 

the Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

AQ-1

LU-2 

Potentially Significant. AQ-1 and LU-2 

would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts associated with net increases of 

criteria pollutants; however, impacts may 

remain significant after mitigation. 

Operation

Western Section – Potentially Significant. The increase in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use and is 

anticipated to result in a decrease in regional and local VMTs. Operation of the Program within 

the Western Corridor would enhance passenger rail services within an existing high-quality 

transit corridor. However, there is the potential for generation of air quality criteria pollutants 

associated with increases in vehicles accessing the existing stations to use the enhanced 

passenger rail service. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. Site-specific 

air quality impacts on sensitive receptors would be identified and evaluated during the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis. 

AQ-1 Potentially Significant. Operation of the 

Program is anticipated to result in a 

beneficial air quality impact at the regional 

level, as VMTs would be reduced. AQ-1 

would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts associated with cumulatively 

considerable net increases of criteria 

pollutants at the localized level; however, 

impacts at the local level may remain 

significant after mitigation. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-37

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts are dependent on the location 

of infrastructure improvements and station locations. Temporary emissions would be 

generated during construction, and permanent emissions would be generated by vehicles and 

locomotives at the stations; however, pollutant emissions would vary daily depending on the 

level of activity, specific operations, number of new stations, and prevailing weather. 

Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation level under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. Site-specific air quality impacts on

sensitive receptors would be identified and evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

AQ-1 Potentially Significant. Operation of the 

Program is anticipated to result in a 

beneficial air quality impact at the regional 

level, as VMTs would be reduced. AQ-1 

would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts associated with cumulatively 

considerable net increases of criteria 

pollutants at the localized level; however, 

impacts at the local level may remain 

significant after mitigation.

Would the Program result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or required in the 

Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Less than Significant. Construction activities may generate odors from 

construction equipment and vehicles (e.g., diesel exhaust). However, these impacts would be 

short term and limited in extent at any given time and range. Therefore, less than significant 

impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative 

Options 1, 2, and 3.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-38

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section – Less than Significant. Operation of the Program would generate odors 

from the operation of the additional passenger rail trains and the continued operation of the 

existing station facilities. However, these types of uses and generation of odors already occur 

within the Western Section of the Program Corridor. The types of uses are not within a 

category of land uses that are associated with objectionable odors. Therefore, less than 

significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build 

Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Less than Significant. Operation of the Program in the Eastern Section of 

the Program Corridor would not result in objectionable odors because the Build Alternative 

Options do not include any land uses identified by SCAQMD as being associated with 

objectionable odor generation. Therefore, less than significant impacts are anticipated at the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Would the Program generate GHG emissions, either directly, or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated during at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or 

required in the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-39

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Construction of the Build Alternative Options 

would generate GHG emissions. Construction of these improvements could require large 

scale construction activities over an extended period of time. A detailed construction GHG 

analysis cannot be considered at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR level because such an analysis 

at this stage would be too speculative, given the exact location and duration of construction 

associated with station facilities and other rail infrastructure improvements is unknown at this 

time. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation level under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. Site-specific impacts would be 

identified and evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

GHG-1

LU-2 

Less than Significant. GHG-1 and LU-2 

would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts through design and further 

analysis. 

Operation

Western Section – Potentially Significant. Operation of the Build Alternative Options would 

generate GHG emissions. However, the Build Alternative Options would result in overall 

energy savings and reduce the transportation system’s impact on climate change because rail 

transit, and public transportation more generally, produces significantly lower GHG emissions 

per passenger mile than private single-occupancy vehicles. Based on projected ridership and 

VMT reductions, passenger rail use within the Program Corridor would decrease VMT and 

related mobile-source emissions. This would be offset somewhat by locomotive operations 

and train station facility operations that would generate GHG emissions. Therefore, potentially 

significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build 

Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. Further analysis would be conducted during Tier 

2/Project-level evaluation.

GHG-2 

LU-3 

Less than Significant. GHG-2 and LU-3 

would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts through design and further 

analysis. While operation of the Program 

would generate GHG emissions, the 

Program is also anticipated to result in 

regional GHG reduction benefits. 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Operation of the Build Alternative Options would 

generate GHG emissions. However, the Build Alternative Options would result in overall 

energy savings and reduce the transportation system’s impact on climate change because rail 

transit, and public transportation more generally, produces significantly lower GHG emissions 

per passenger mile than private single-occupancy vehicles. Based on projected ridership and 

GHG-2 

LU-3 

Less than Significant. GHG-2 and LU-3 

would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts through design and further 

analysis. While operation of the Program 

would generate GHG emissions, the 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-40

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

VMT reductions, passenger rail use within the Program Corridor would decrease VMT and

related mobile-source emissions. This would be offset somewhat by locomotive operations 

and train station facility operations that would generate GHG emissions. However, the specific 

Tier 2/Project-level details necessary to determine impacts are unavailable at this time 

because station locations and infrastructure components are unknown. Therefore, further 

analysis would be considered during Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

Program is also anticipated to result in 

regional GHG reduction benefits. 

Would the Program conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse 

gases?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated during at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or 

required in the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Less Than Significant. While construction activities may generate GHG 

emissions, construction of the Program under the Build Alternative Options would result in the 

operation of an enhanced passenger rail system within the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor. The operation of the enhanced passenger rail system would reduce VMTs within the 

region, which would have a corresponding reduction in GHG emissions generated. Since the 

Program is anticipated to result in beneficial GHG emission reductions through VMT 

reductions and technological improvements, the Program would not conflict with or obstruct 

implementation of the plans, policies, or programs associated with GHG reduction efforts.

Less than significant impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level 

under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. Operation of an enhanced passenger rail system 

within the Western Section of the Program Corridor would reduce VMTs within the region, 

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-41

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

which would have a corresponding reduction in GHG emissions generated. Since the Program 

is anticipated to result in reductions of regional GHG emissions through VMT reductions and 

technological improvements, the Program would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of 

the plans, policies, or programs associated with GHG reduction efforts. Less than significant 

impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative 

Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section – Less Than Significant. Operation of an enhanced passenger rail system 

within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor would reduce VMTs within the region, 

which would have a corresponding reduction in GHG emissions generated. Since the Program 

is anticipated to result in reductions of regional GHG emissions through VMT reductions and 

technological improvements, the Program would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of 

the plans, policies, or programs associated with GHG reduction efforts. Less than significant 

impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative 

Options 1, 2, and 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Notes: 

EIR=environmental impact report; EIS=environmental impact statement; FRA=Federal Railroad Administration; GHG=greenhouse gas; SCAQMD=South Coast Air 

Quality Management District; VMT=vehicle miles traveled
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-42

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-43

3.5.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies

Identified below are proposed programmatic mitigation strategies for further consideration in the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis. During the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, construction and operational

impacts would be quantified, and BMPs and site-specific mitigation measures would be 

recommended. Proposed programmatic mitigation strategies or design considerations, consistent 

with state and federal regulations may include, but are not limited to, the following: 

Mitigation Strategy AQ-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a site-specific air quality analysis 

shall be required for the specific rail infrastructure or station facilities proposed. If an air quality 

analysis is warranted at the Tier 2/Project level, the air quality analysis shall be prepared using the 

standards and procedures of the South Coast Air Quality Management District and applicable local 

jurisdiction(s) in which the Project is located. The air quality analysis shall include analysis of 

construction and operational air quality impacts, including identification and analysis of:

• Construction equipment to be used and corresponding air quality emissions that could be 

generated from construction activities. 

• Construction and operational traffic impacts analysis, including quantification of construction 

emissions and comparison with South Coast Air Quality Management District significance 

thresholds. 

• Sensitive receptors and exposure of those sensitive receptors to air quality emissions during 

construction and operational activities. If sensitive receptors are located within or adjacent to 

the Project site, a health risk assessment to assess cancer risks and non-carcinogenic 

hazards for sensitive receptors may be required. 

• Best management practices to be implemented during construction activities such as 

practices to limit idling and construction emissions, the use of ozone precursor emission 

controls, implementation of diesel emission reduction plans, and use of California Air 

Resources Board-certified equipment for pose combustion controls 

• If a Project is located within an area designated as non-attainment for federal particulate 

matter 10 microns or less and particulate matter 2.5 microns or less standards, a particulate 

matter 10 microns or less and particulate matter 2.5 microns or less hot spot analysis shall 

be prepared based on guidance provided in Transportation Conformity Guidance for 

Qualitative Hot Spot Analyses in Particulate Matter 2.5 Microns or Less and Particulate 

Matter 10 Microns or Less Non-attainment and Maintenance Areas (United States

Environmental Protection Agency 2006). As part of the hot-spot analyses, a project-level 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-44

conformity determination shall include a finding of whether the Project is a Project of Air 

Quality Concern. 

Mitigation Strategy GHG-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a construction energy conservation 

plan to avoid excess energy consumption shall be required for the specific rail infrastructure or 

station facility proposed. The construction energy conservation plan shall identify best management 

practices including, but not limited to, the following:

• Identification of opportunities to use newer, more energy efficient construction equipment, 

vehicles, and materials

• Limit construction equipment idling

• Develop and implement a program encouraging construction workers to carpool or use 

public transportation for travel to and from construction sites

• Locate construction materials production facilities onsite or in proximity to project work sites

• Schedule material deliveries during off-peak hours to minimize highway congestion

Mitigation Strategy GHG-2: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, an operational energy 

conservation plan shall be required for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The 

operational energy conservation plan shall identify best management practices, including, but not 

limited to, the following:

• Limit operational idling at stations

• Identify state-of-the-art locomotives to maximize fuel efficiency

• Target market to drivers of single-occupancy vehicles to maximize the effects of rail modal 

use on energy conservation and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

• Concentrate bus-service routes to feed passengers to train stations

• Bring dispersed riders to train stations through other methods (e.g., demand response 

systems [paratransit, taxi, shuttle, call-and-ride])
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-45

Mitigation Strategy LU-2: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis and 

recommendations, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if a construction 

management plan is required for construction activities of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being 

proposed. If required, a construction management plan shall be developed by the contractor and 

reviewed by the lead agency or agencies prior to construction and implemented during construction 

activities. The construction management plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

• Measures that minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project 

Study Area 

• Measures pertaining to visual protection, air quality, safety controls, noise controls, and 

traffic controls to minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project 

Study Area

• Measures to ensure property access is maintained for local businesses, residences, and 

community and emergency services

• Measures to consult with local transit providers to minimize effects on local and regional bus 

routes in affected communities

• Measures to consult with local jurisdictions and utility providers to minimize effects on utilities 

in affected communities

Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency 

analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of 

the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general 

plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or 

environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall 

be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or 

environmental resources.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.5 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases

May 2021 | 3.5-46

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-1

3.6 Noise and Vibration

3.6.1 Introduction

This section identifies potential noise-sensitive land uses within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study 

Area and evaluates the noise- and vibration-related effects associated with the No Build Alternative 

and Build Alternative Options on these areas. Information contained in this section is summarized 

from the Noise and Vibration Technical Memorandum (Appendix F of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). 

3.6.2 Regulatory Framework

In accordance with NEPA (42 USC Section 4321 et seq.), CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR Parts 1501-1508), FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR

28545, May 26, 1999) and CEQA, FRA identified potential noise-sensitive land uses within the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, and evaluated the potential impacts that could occur from 

implementation of the Build Alternative Options.

Federal

Environmental Protection Agency Guidance

In 1974, U.S. EPA published Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect 

Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety, a comprehensive document that 

identifies noise levels to protect public health and welfare against hearing loss, annoyance, and

activity interference (U.S. EPA 1974). In response to the requirements of the Noise Control Act, U.S. 

EPA identified indoor and outdoor noise limits to protect public health and welfare. U.S. EPA 

identified outdoor day-night average noise level (Ldn) limits of 55 decibels (dB) and indoor Ldn limits 

of 45 dB as desirable for protecting against speech interference and sleep disturbance in residential 

areas and at educational and health care facilities. The sound-level criterion for protecting against 

hearing damage in commercial and industrial areas is identified as the 24-hour equivalent sound 

level (Leq) value of 70 dB (both outdoors and indoors). Based on attitudinal surveys, U.S. EPA 

determined that a 5 dB increase in Ldn or Leq could result in a change in community reaction (U.S. 

EPA 1974). Ldn and Leq are described in further detail in Appendix F of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-2

Federal Transit Administration Noise and Vibration Impact Criteria

FTA has published impact assessment procedures and criteria pertaining to noise and vibration. The 

FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (FTA Manual) (FTA 2018) is used for 

rail projects where conventional train speeds are below 90 miles per hour (FRA 2012). Therefore, 

FRA conventional rail projects generally use noise and vibration assessment guidance from the FTA 

Manual. The FTA Manual also includes assessment methods for noise and vibration from 

construction.

Federal Highway Administration Noise Impact Criteria

Implementation of the Program may involve the construction of new roads and/or grade crossings. 

The need for an impact analysis and evaluation of noise abatement for these types of infrastructure 

improvements depends on whether new project roadways meet the definition of a Type I Project as 

defined by FHWA.

Procedures for preparing operational and construction noise studies and evaluating noise abatement 

considered for federal and federal-aid highway projects are provided under 23 CFR Part 772. Under 

23 CFR Part 772.7, highway projects are categorized as Type I, Type II, or Type III Projects. 

FHWA defines a Type I Project as a proposed federal or federal-aid highway project for the 

construction of a highway at a new location or the physical alteration of an existing highway that 

significantly changes either the horizontal or vertical alignment of the highway. The following projects 

are also considered to be Type I Projects: 

• The addition of a through-traffic lane. This includes the addition of a through-traffic lane that 

functions as a high-occupancy vehicle lane, high-occupancy toll lane, bus lane, or truck 

climbing lane;

• The addition of an auxiliary lane, except when the auxiliary lane is a turn lane;

• The addition or relocation of interchange lanes or addition of ramps to a quadrant to 

complete an existing partial interchange;

• Restriping existing pavement for the purpose of adding a through-traffic lane or an auxiliary 

lane; and

• The addition of a new weigh station, rest stop, ride-share lot, or toll plaza or substantial 

alteration to such features.

If a project is determined to be a Type I Project under this definition, the entire project area, as 

defined in the environmental document, is a Type I Project. Type I Projects include those that add an 

interchange, ramp, auxiliary lane, or truck-climbing lane to an existing highway or widen an existing 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-3

ramp by a full lane width for its entire length. Projects that are unrelated to increased noise levels, 

such as striping, lighting, signing, and landscaping projects, are not considered Type I Projects. A 

Type II Project is a noise barrier retrofit project that involves no changes to highway capacity or 

alignment. A Type III Project is a project that does not meet the classifications of a Type I or Type II 

Project. Type III Projects do not require a noise analysis.

Under 23 CFR Part 772.11, noise abatement must be considered for Type I Projects if the project is 

predicted to result in a traffic noise impact. In such cases, 23 CFR Part 772 requires that the project 

sponsor “consider” noise abatement before adoption of the final NEPA document. This process 

involves identification of noise abatement measures that are reasonable, feasible, and likely to be 

incorporated into the project, as well as the identification of noise impacts for which no apparent 

solution is available.

Traffic noise impacts are considered to occur when the predicted noise level in the design year 

approaches or exceeds noise abatement criteria (NAC) specified in 23 CFR Part 772, or a predicted 

noise level substantially exceeds the existing noise level (a “substantial” noise increase). However, 

23 CFR Part 772 does not specifically define the terms “substantial increase” or “approach”; these 

criteria are defined in the state-level implementation of 23 CFR Part 772. An NAC value of 67 

A-weighted decibel (dBA) Leq is used for residences, schools, parks, places of worship, active sport 

areas, and other land uses where there are areas of outdoor frequent human use.

Noise Control Act of 1972

The Noise Control Act of 1972 (Public Law 92 574) established a requirement for all federal 

agencies to administer their programs in a manner that promotes an environment that is free of 

noise that jeopardizes public health or welfare. U.S. EPA was assigned the following responsibilities:

• Providing information to the public regarding the identifiable effects of noise on public health 

and welfare

• Publishing information on the levels of environmental noise to protect the public health and 

welfare with an adequate margin of safety

• Coordinating federal research and activities related to noise control

• Establishing federal noise emission standards for selected products distributed in interstate 

commerce
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-4

State

California Department of Transportation Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway 

Construction and Reconstruction Projects

The Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol (Protocol) developed by Caltrans is the implementation of 

23 CFR Part 772 in California. The Protocol specifies the policies, procedures, and practices to be 

used by agencies that sponsor new construction or reconstruction of federal or federal-aid highway

projects. The Protocol defines a noise increase from a roadway project as substantial when the 

predicted noise levels with project implementation exceed existing noise levels by 12 dBA or more. 

The Protocol also states that a sound level approaches the NAC when the sound level is within 1 dB 

of the NAC value specified in 23 CFR Part 772 (e.g., 66 dBA would be considered to be approaching 

the NAC of 67 dBA for residential use, but 65 dBA would not be considered to be approaching the 

NAC).

California Department of Transportation Vibration Standards

For continuous/frequent intermittent sources, such as pile driving, Caltrans recommends a 

0.25-inch-per-second peak particle velocity (PPV) threshold for “historic and some old buildings” and 

a PPV of 0.3 inch per second for “older residential structures” (Caltrans 2004). These criteria are 

directed primarily toward, but not limited to, all construction related to pile driving, demolition, and 

pavement-breaking activities.

California Noise Control Act

The California Noise Control Act of 1973 requires a city or county to identify local noise sources and 

analyze and quantify to the extent practicable current and projected noise levels from various 

sources, including highways and freeways; passenger and freight railroad operations; ground rapid 

transit systems; commercial, general, and military aviation and airport operations; and other 

stationary ground noise sources. 

Regional

Los Angeles County General Plan

The Noise Element of the Los Angeles County 2035 General Plan (County of Los Angeles 2015) 

provides goals, objectives, policies, and programs related to noise mitigation and noise compatibility 

with adjacent land uses. These goals include the minimization of impacts on noise-sensitive land 

uses by ensuring adequate site design, acoustical constriction, and the use of barriers, berms, or 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-5

additional engineering controls through best available technologies and utilizing traffic management 

and noise suppression techniques to minimize noise from traffic and transportation systems.

Orange County General Plan

The Noise Element of the Orange County General Plan (Orange County 2005) provides goals, 

objectives, and policies related to noise. These include transportation system noise control, noise 

abatement and monitoring, and land use and planning integration to prevent new noise and land use 

conflicts. 

County of Riverside General Plan

The Noise Element of the County of Riverside General Plan (County of Riverside 2015) includes 

goals and policies to reduce compatibility impacts between sensitive land uses and noise generation 

sources. The policies identified in the plan are intended to ensure that land use and siting decisions 

take noise generation and reduction into account. 

County of San Bernardino General Plan

The Noise Element of the County of San Bernardino General Plan (County of San Bernardino 2014) 

identifies noise abatement provisions to guide local decisions. The plan includes goals and polices to 

minimize potential land use computability conflicts resulting from exposure of county residents to 

mobile and stationary noise sources. 

Local and Tribal Governments

Regulations from cities, local agencies, and tribal governments would be identified in the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis once site-specific rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities

are known.

3.6.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects

Because this analysis was conducted at a Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR service-evaluation level, a 

screening-level noise and vibration impact assessment was completed rather than a detailed 

quantitative evaluation of project noise and vibration levels. Detailed quantitative analysis would 

occur during Tier 2/Project-level analysis. Assessment of noise and vibration impacts associated 

with the Program is based on guidance in the FTA Manual (FTA 2018).
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-6

Construction Noise Assumptions

The FTA Manual does not contain standardized criteria for assessing construction noise impacts. 

Instead, it includes guidelines for suggested noise limits for residential uses exposed to construction 

noise to describe levels that may result in an adverse community reaction. These guidelines are 

summarized in Table 3.6-1. 

Table 3.6-1. Federal Transit Administration Construction Noise Impact Limit Guidelines

Land Use 8-hour Leq (dBA), Day 8-hour Leq (dBA), Night

Residential 80 70

Commercial 85 85

Industrial 90 90

Source: FTA 2018

Notes:

dBA=A-weighted decibel; Leq=equivalent sound level

The noise impact limit guidelines are recommended to be used in construction noise assessment of 

transit projects under FTA and are appropriate given federal involvement in the Program. Thresholds 

for construction in local jurisdictions, if more stringent, would be identified as part of a 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis. In many cases, local jurisdictions do not regulate daytime construction 

noise, and FTA daytime standards are often used to determine potential for community annoyance 

during construction. As such, local ordinances were not evaluated for potential noise effects under 

this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR service-level evaluation. FTA guidelines for temporary construction, as 

summarized in Table 3.6-1, provide a reasonable set of indicators that can be used as impact 

thresholds for this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR service-level evaluation.

Individual types of heavy construction equipment commonly used for construction activities are 

expected to generate noise levels ranging from 74 to 89 dBA at 50 feet. Given construction 

requirements, pile drivers could be used. Pile drivers typically generate a maximum noise level of up 

to 101 dBA at 50 feet. The construction noise level at a given receptor would depend on the type of 

construction activity, the noise level generated by that activity, and the distance and shielding 

between the activity and the noise-sensitive receptor. Additional details for noise levels produced by 

commonly used construction equipment is provided in Appendix F of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 

Based on FTA guidance, a construction noise impact may occur if construction equipment exceeds 

80 dBA Leq (8 hours) at a residential location between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. or 

70 dBA Leq (8 hours) between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. In addition, thresholds for 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-7

construction noise may be set at the local level, according to the expected hours of equipment 

operation and the noise limits specified in the noise ordinances of the applicable local jurisdiction(s). 

Rail Operation Noise Assumptions

Operational noise impacts associated with the Program are based on guidance in the FTA Manual.

The FTA Manual describes the noise impact criteria that have been adopted to assess noise 

contributions and potential impacts on the existing environment from rapid transit sources. The noise 

impact criteria defined in the FTA Manual are based on an objective that calls for maintaining a noise 

environment that is considered acceptable for noise-sensitive land uses. For assessing noise from 

transit operations, this Tier 1/Program service-level evaluation relies on FTA’s three land use noise 

categories: 

• Category 1: Tracts of land where quiet is an essential element of their intended purpose, 

such as outdoor amphitheaters, concert pavilions, and national historic landmarks with 

significant outdoor use.

• Category 2: Residences and buildings where people normally sleep, including homes, 

hospitals, and hotels. 

• Category 3: Institutional land uses (e.g., schools, places of worship, libraries) that are

typically available during daytime and evening hours. Other uses in this category can include 

medical offices, conference rooms, recording studios, concert halls, cemeteries, monuments, 

museums, historical sites, parks, and recreational facilities. 

Noise exposure values are reported as the Ldn average sound level for residential land uses 

(Category 2) or the Leq over a 1-hour time period for other land uses (Categories 1 and 3). 

Commercial and industrial uses are not included in the vast majority of cases because they are 

generally compatible with higher noise levels. Exceptions include commercial land uses with a 

feature that receives significant outdoor use, such as a playground, or uses that require quiet as an 

important part of their function, such as recording studios.

In the FTA Manual, noise impact criteria for operation of rapid transit facilities consider a project’s 

contribution to existing noise levels, using a sliding scale, according to the land uses affected. The 

criteria correspond to heightened community annoyance because of the introduction of a new transit 

facility relative to existing ambient noise conditions. Noise impacts are assessed by comparing 

existing outdoor exposures with future project-related outdoor noise levels, as shown on 

Figure 3.6-1. The criterion for each degree of impact is based on a sliding scale that is dependent on 

the existing noise exposure and the increase in noise exposure with the project. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-8

Figure 3.6-1. Federal Transit Administration Noise Impact Criteria

Source: FTA 2018

For assessing noise from transit operations, this Tier 1/Program service-level evaluation relies on 

the following noise impact classifications: 

• No Impact: A project, on average, would result in an insignificant increase in the number of 

instances where people are highly annoyed by new noise. 

• Moderate Impact: The change in cumulative noise is noticeable to most people but may not 

be enough to cause strong adverse community reactions. 

• Severe Impact: A significant percentage of people would be highly annoyed by the noise, 

perhaps resulting in vigorous community reaction. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-9

A project’s noise contribution relative to the existing noise levels, as shown on Figure 3.6-1, differs 

according to the level of existing noise exposure. For example, a project contribution of 59 dBA Ldn

would be considered a severe impact at a Category 2 receptor with an existing noise exposure of up 

to 50 dBA Ldn (a difference of 9 dBA), whereas a project contribution of 69 dBA Ldn would result in a 

severe impact at a Category 2 receptor with an existing noise exposure of up to 70 dBA Ldn (a 

difference of 1 dBA). The impact curves shown on Figure 3.6-1 are based on community increases 

in cumulative noise exposure relative to existing conditions, as depicted on Figure 3.6-2. The 

justification for the sliding scale depicted in these figures recognizes that people who are already 

exposed to high levels of noise in the ambient environment are expected to tolerate small increases 

in noise in their community according to the level of their existing noise exposure.

Figure 3.6-2. Increase in Cumulative Noise Levels Allowed by Criteria

Notes: 

Noise exposure increase impact curves are adjusted by +5 dB for Category 3 land uses.

The rail noise model utilized as part of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR service-level evaluation focuses 

on land uses that could be subject to Program-related transit noise impacts. Although all developed 

land uses were evaluated in this analysis, the focus of the impact evaluation was on outdoor 

locations with frequent human use, institutional land uses, and residential buildings where people 

normally sleep. The FTA Manual specifies that criteria are to be applied to compare future noise with 

existing noise rather than future noise with projections of future no build noise exposure.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-10

Existing noise levels for receptor locations were derived from projected daily freight, intercity 

passenger, and commuter rail trips along the existing corridor, described in Section 3.6.4. Given the 

high density of residential use along much of the Program Corridor, existing noise levels from rail

operation were calculated by adjusting varying distances between noise-sensitive receptors and 

noise sources. The primary sources of noise along the Program Corridor were assumed to consist of 

either wayside noise from train passbys or grade crossings where trains are required to sound horns 

as they approach within 0.25 mile of the crossing. 

The noise model was based on FTA single-event source levels for train vehicles and horns, as 

defined in the FTA Manual. For this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR service-level evaluation, rail vehicle 

source levels specified in the FTA General Assessment methodology were used to determine 

projected future Program-induced noise and vibration levels as a function of distance and to identify 

impacts on noise-sensitive receivers. Noise contributions from rail vehicles were calculated using the 

noise source levels for at-grade rail transit vehicles operating on welded rail, as outlined in the FTA 

Manual. Calculated Program noise levels were then compared with moderate and severe impact 

criteria, according to existing ambient levels at a given receptor location.

A noise impact is considered to occur at a receptor location if the Program-related noise exposure 

for the receptor’s applicable land use category (Category 1, 2, or 3) equals or exceeds the FTA 

criterion for a moderate or severe impact, as shown on Figure 3.6-1, based on the existing noise 

exposure for the receptor. The analysis assumes that the configuration of the track would be the 

same under both existing and future conditions as the Build Alternative Options would use the 

existing railroad ROW. Therefore, the focus of the analysis was on the overall increase in daily train 

trips (four additional daytime [7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.] one-way intercity train trips per day). 

Traffic Noise Assumptions

Noise analysis procedures specified in the Caltrans Protocol would be used to evaluate Program

highway improvements considered to be Type I projects, as defined by FHWA. For roadways where 

changes in traffic volume are anticipated due to implementation of the Program, traffic noise levels 

under the Build Alternative Options would be analyzed at the Tier 2/Project-level based on 

anticipated changes in ridership and subsequent effects on traffic. A traffic noise impact is 

considered to occur where the increase in traffic volume on a given road segment would result in a 

3 dBA increase relative to existing conditions. 

Construction Vibration Assumptions

For assessing vibration effects associated with the Program, this Tier 1/Program service-level 

evaluation relies on the FTA’s vibration impact criteria for the land use categories summarized in

Table 3.6-2. The criteria in Table 3.6-2 are based on the frequency of events and related to 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-11

ground-borne vibration that can cause human annoyance or interfere with the use of 

vibration-sensitive equipment. The criteria for acceptable ground-borne vibration are based on the 

velocity in decibels (VdB) for a single event and expressed in terms of root-mean-square velocity 

levels. 

Table 3.6-2. Ground-borne Vibration Impact Criteria for General Assessment

Land Use Category

Vibration Impact 

Level: 

Frequent Eventsa 

(VdB re 1 micro inch 

per second)

Vibration Impact 

Level: 

Occasional Eventsb 

(VdB re 1 micro inch 

per second)

Vibration Impact 

Level: 

Infrequent Eventsc 

(VdB re 1 micro inch 

per second)

Category 1: High Sensitivitye

65 VdBd65 VdBd65 VdBd

Category 2: Residentialf 72 VdB 75 VdB 80 VdB

Category 3: Institutionalg 75 VdB 78 VdB 83 VdB

Source: FTA 2018

Notes:

a The term frequent events is defined as more than 70 vibration events from the same source each day. Most rapid 

transit projects fall into this category. 

b The term occasional events is defined as between 30 and 70 vibration events from the same source each day. 

Most commuter trunk lines have operations in this range. 

c The term infrequent events is defined as fewer than 30 vibration events of the same kind each day. This category 

includes most commuter rail branch lines. 

d This criterion limit is based on levels that are acceptable for most moderately sensitive equipment, such as optical 

microscopes. Vibration-sensitive manufacturing or research will require detailed evaluation to define the acceptable 

vibration levels. Ensuring lower vibration levels in a building often requires special design of the heating, ventilation, 

and air conditioning systems and stiffened floors. 

e This category includes land where quiet is an essential element of its intended purpose. Example land uses include 

preserved land for serenity and quiet, outdoor amphitheaters and concert pavilions, and national historic landmarks 

with considerable outdoor use. Recording studios and concert halls are also included in this category.

f This category is applicable all residential land use and buildings where people normally sleep, such as hotels and 

hospitals.

g This category is applicable to institutional land uses with primarily daytime and evening use. Example land uses 

include schools, libraries, theaters, and churches where it is important to avoid interference with such activities as 

speech, meditation, and concentration on reading material. Places for meditation or study associated with 

cemeteries, monuments, museums, campgrounds, and recreational facilities are also included in this category.

VdB=velocity in decibels
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-12

FTA analysis guidelines also call for an investigation of the potential for vibration-induced damage to 

fragile or extremely fragile buildings (FTA 2018). Damage to a building is possible (but not 

necessarily probable) if ground-borne vibration levels exceed the following criteria: 

• A 0.20-inch-per-second PPV (approximately 100 VdB) for non-engineered timber and 

masonry buildings

• A 0.12-inch-per-second PPV (approximately 95 VdB) for buildings that are extremely 

susceptible to vibration damage

Potential ground-borne vibration that could occur during construction activities was analyzed using 

the methodology discussed in Chapter 12 of the FTA Manual. For this Tier 1/Program service-level 

evaluation, a vibratory roller (source vibration level of 0.21-inch-per-second PPV) was identified as 

the piece of non-impact equipment that could produce the highest vibration levels. Additional detail 

for vibration levels produced by commonly used construction equipment is provided in Appendix F of 

this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 

Vibration from use of construction equipment within the Program Corridor could cause damage to 

buildings or structures adjacent to the Build Alternative Options. The potential for building damage 

was determined by using FTA methodology, including the damage potential vibration thresholds 

described under FTA vibration impact criteria. In addition, construction-related vibration impacts 

could occur if vibration levels from construction equipment are perceptible at a receiving residential 

land use (i.e., 75 VdB, described as the annoyance impact criterion for occasional events at 

Category 2 land uses, summarized in Table 3.6-2). 

Operational Vibration Assumptions

The FTA procedure for a general vibration assessment was used for the analysis of ground-borne 

vibration levels from trains within the existing Program Corridor. For the operational vibration 

analysis, the number of daily events was classified under the FTA category of frequent events for the 

Western Section, which corresponds to more than 70 vibration events from freight, intercity 

passenger, and commuter trains per day, as defined in Table 3.6-2. For the Eastern Section, the 

number of daily events was classified under the FTA category of occasional events, which 

corresponds to between 30 and 70 vibration events from freight and intercity passenger trains 

per day. Land use designations for Category 2 (residences and lodging facilities) and 

Category 3 (institutional use) were used in the analysis. 

Vibration source levels were derived from the FTA Manual using the generalized surface vibration 

curve for locomotive-powered passenger or freight vehicles. Soil propagation characteristics were 

assumed to be normal. For the generalized ground-surface vibration curve, root-mean-square
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-13

velocity-level data at the receptor were used, with the distance of interest adjusted according to

vehicle speed (a maximum of 79 miles per hour was assumed throughout the Program Corridor), 

wheel condition (normal), track condition (normal), track treatments, and the number of floors above 

grade-to-receptor locations. Vibration-level adjustments for special track work were applied as 

applicable in areas adjacent to vibration-sensitive land uses.

Ground-borne vibration impact criteria for the FTA general assessment were used to assess 

vibration impacts from train operations. Impacts would be triggered at a vibration-sensitive location if 

future vibration levels were to exceed the FTA general assessment criteria under FTA vibration 

criteria identified in Table 3.6-2, and predicted future vibration levels were to exceed existing 

vibration levels by 3 VdB or more. 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area for noise includes land uses that could be subject to 

Program-related transit noise impacts. Although all developed land uses were evaluated in this 

analysis, the focus of the impact evaluation was on outdoor locations with frequent human use, 

institutional land uses, and residential buildings where people normally sleep. 

Data Sources

The data sources used to establish the existing conditions include information from U.S. EPA, FRA, 

and Caltrans. 

Related Resources

Noise or vibration impacts identified in this analysis affect related resources identified in Table 3.6-3. 

Table 3.6-3. Related Resources Affected by Noise and Vibration

Resource Effects

Land Use and Planning

(Section 3.2) 

Sensitive land uses (residential uses, educational facilities) may be affected by 

increased noise/vibration. 

Cultural Resources

(Section 3.13)

Historic buildings or structures may be affected by increased vibration. 

Parklands and Community 

Services 

(Section 3.14)

Sensitive land uses (parks and recreational areas) may be affected by increased 

noise/vibration.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-14

Resource Effects

Environmental Justice

(Chapter 4)

Sensitive receptors in EJ communities may be affected by increased 

noise/vibration.

Notes:

EJ=environmental justice

3.6.4 Affected Environment

Noise and Vibration Sensitive Land Uses

The Program Corridor crosses a large geographic area within Southern California, spanning 

approximately 144 miles from its western terminus in Los Angeles to its eastern terminus in 

Coachella. The Program Corridor occurs within an existing railroad corridor that traverses areas that 

have predominately been heavily modified for urban purposes, especially in the Western Section, 

although some areas occur in, or adjacent to, lands that are in a natural condition. Much of the 

Program Corridor from Los Angeles to Redlands is urbanized. The Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor east of Colton is less urbanized with vacant land comprising of the largest land use 

category. 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Almost the entire Western Section of the Program Corridor passes through highly developed urban 

and suburban areas, including many areas with adjacent sensitive land uses, such as residences

(Category 2), schools (Category 3), and other institutional uses (Category 3). The Western Section 

also extends through many commercial and industrial areas, which are generally not noise sensitive 

unless they are associated with areas of frequent outdoor use. 

The Eastern Section of the Program Corridor is highly developed in many locations but also passes

through sparsely populated rural areas and open space areas, including a large wind farm west of 

Palm Springs. There are several single- and multifamily residences (Category 2), lodging uses 

(Category 2), churches (Category 3), schools (Category 3), and other institutional uses (Category 3) 

within the Program Corridor. No Category 1 land uses were identified within the Program Corridor. 

Additional details related to land use within the Program Corridor, parks and schools located within 

the Program Corridor, and potentially historic buildings (which may be affected by vibration) are 

provided in Section 3.2, Land Use and Planning; Section 3.13, Cultural Resources; and Section 

3.14, Parklands and Community Services; of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-15

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Distribution of existing land uses within the Western Section of the Program Corridor under Build 

Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build Alternative Option 1. There are fewer acres of land within 

Build Alternative Option 2 because of the shorter route alignment and reduced station options; 

however, Build Alternative Option 2 still contains several single- and multifamily residences 

(Category 2), lodging uses (Category 2), churches (Category 3), schools (Category 3), and other 

institutional uses (Category 3) within the Eastern Section. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track)

Potential sensitive land uses within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as those identified for 

Build Alternative Option 2. 

Existing Noise Sources

The urban setting that constitutes most of the Western Section of the Program Corridor contains a 

mix of transportation and stationary noise sources associated with a highly developed area. Within 

the Eastern Section of the Program, there is a mix of urban, suburban, and rural areas that contain a 

similar mix of transportation and stationary noise sources. Noise from freeway and local traffic, 

transit, aircraft, heavy equipment, and industrial and commercial sources contributes to ambient 

noise along the Program Corridor. Train and traffic operations are assumed to be primary 

contributors to ambient noise within the Program Corridor. 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Table 3.6-4 presents existing train operations from the three host railroads along the Program 

Corridor – UP, BNSF, and SCRRA (Metrolink). Operations vary considerably by segment, but both 

the Western and Eastern Sections of the Program Corridor have high-density, multiple-track main 

lines that support freight and passenger rail operations, which contribute to existing noise and 

vibration levels within the Program Corridor. The highest density segment in the Western Section is 

between Los Angeles and Fullerton and has an average of 86 daily trains, while the lowest density 

segment is between Fullerton and Atwood and has an average of 43 daily trains. The Eastern 

Section averages 43 daily trains along the Colton-Coachella segment, consisting of freight and 

passenger trains. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-16

This page is intentionally blank. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-17

Table 3.6-4. Existing Year (2018) Daily Train Operations within Program Corridor (One-Way Trips) 

Endpoints

Eastbound

Commuter 

Trains 

(SCRRA)

Westbound

Commuter 

Trains 

(SCRRA)

Eastbound

Intercity 

Trains

(Amtrak, 

Pacific 

Surfliner)

Westbound

Intercity 

Trains

(Amtrak, 

Pacific 

Surfliner)

Eastbound

Long 

Distance 

Passenger 

Trains 

(Amtrak)

Westbound

Long 

Distance 

Passenger 

Trains 

(Amtrak)

Eastbound

Freight 

Trains 

(UP, BNSF)

Westbound

Freight 

Trains 

(UP, BNSF)

Total 

Average 

Daily 

Volume 

of 

Trains

Western Section (SCRRA – Host Railroad; Additional Operators – Amtrak, BNSF)

Los Angeles

(Union 

Station-Soto)a

14 14 12 12 1 1 0.5 0.5 55

Western Section (BNSF – Host Railroad; Additional Operators – Amtrak, SCRRA, UP)

Los Angeles (Soto)a

–Fullerton

14 14 12 12 1 1 16 16 86

Fullerton-Atwood 5 4 0 0 1 1 16 16 43

Atwood-Riverside 13 12 0 0 1 1 17 17 61

Riverside-Highgrove 10 10 0 0 1 1 27 27 76

Highgrove-Colton 4 4 0 0 1 1 27 27 64
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-18

Endpoints

Eastbound

Commuter 

Trains 

(SCRRA)

Westbound

Commuter 

Trains 

(SCRRA)

Eastbound

Intercity 

Trains

(Amtrak, 

Pacific 

Surfliner)

Westbound

Intercity 

Trains

(Amtrak, 

Pacific 

Surfliner)

Eastbound

Long 

Distance 

Passenger 

Trains 

(Amtrak)

Westbound

Long 

Distance 

Passenger 

Trains 

(Amtrak)

Eastbound

Freight 

Trains 

(UP, BNSF)

Westbound

Freight 

Trains 

(UP, BNSF)

Total 

Average 

Daily 

Volume 

of 

Trains

Eastern Section (UP – Host Railroad; Additional Operator – Amtrak)

Colton-Coachella 0 0 0 0 0.5 0.5 21 21 43

Notes:

Daily train counts represent revenue train movements on a weekday (Monday-Friday). Freight train counts are based on Base Year (2013) daily freight train totals 

for the line segments shown above, as published in the 2018 California State Rail Plan, Appendix A.4, Table 20. Passenger and commuter train counts are based 

on the following public timetables in effect in September 2018: Metrolink “All Lines” timetable effective May 14, 2018, the 2018 LOSSAN Southern California 

Passenger Rail System Map and Timetables effective April 1, 2018, the Amtrak Southwest Chief timetable effective July 31, 2018, and the Amtrak Sunset Limited 

timetable effective March 11, 2018. 

a Soto interlocking (Milepost 144.4) in Los Angeles

LOSSAN=Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo; SCRRA=Southern California Regional Rail Authority; UP=Union Pacific Railroad
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-19

Passenger trains, such as commuter and intercity trains, are operated on specific schedules and 

operate at higher maximum authorized speeds than freight trains using the Program Corridor. The 

number of freight trains per day and their days and times of operation can vary depending on 

customer requirements, including volumes at the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach. Freight and 

commuter trains are required to sound horns within 0.25 mile of grade crossings. This safety 

measure warns motor vehicle operators of an approaching train and is required under FRA 

regulations. Several grade crossings along the Western and Eastern Sections are located near 

noise-sensitive uses.

Existing noise levels associated with rail operations within the Program Corridor are calculated using 

methods in the FTA Manual, based on the existing frequency of train events. Calculated ambient 

noise levels from total daily train operations were calculated for wayside and horn noise, based on 

the existing operations are summarized in Table 3.6-5. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-20

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-21

Table 3.6-5. Ambient Noise Levels within Program Corridor from Existing Train Operations 

Section Train Noise Source

Ranges of 

Distance from 

Track (feet)

Range of 

Total Average 

Daily Ldn

(dBA)

Range of 

Average Leq

(1 hour) 

(dBA)

Western Section

Los Angeles (Union Station-Sotoa) Wayside noise from train passbys 50 – 150 63.4 – 70.5 58.4 –65.5

Los Angeles (Union Station-Sotoa) Horn noise levels within 0.25 mile of grade crossings 50 – 150 68.7 – 81.0 69.8 – 77.0

Los Angeles (Sotoa-Fullerton) Wayside noise from train passbys 50 - 150 70.6 – 77.8 64.6 –71.8

Los Angeles (Sotoa-Fullerton) Horn noise levels within 0.25 mile of grade crossings 50 – 150 74.1 – 83.4 71.4 – 78.6

Fullerton-Atwood Wayside noise from train passbys 50 – 150 70.2 – 77.4 63.8 – 71.0

Fullerton‐Atwood Horn noise levels within 0.25 mile of grade crossings 50 – 150 73.1 – 81.3 67.8 – 75.0

Atwood-Riverside Wayside noise from train passbys 50 – 150 70.7 – 77.8 64.3 – 71.5

Atwood-Riverside Horn noise levels within 0.25 mile of grade crossings 50 – 150 73.8 – 82.4 69.6 – 76.8

Riverside‐Highgrove Wayside noise from train passbys 50 – 150 72.4 – 79.6 66.2 – 73.3

Riverside‐Highgrove Horn noise levels within 0.25 mile of grade crossings 50 – 150 75.4 – 83.5 70.5 – 77.6

Highgrove‐Colton Wayside noise from train passbys 50 – 150 72.4 – 79.5 66.0 – 73.2

Highgrove‐Colton Horn noise levels within 0.25 mile of grade crossings 50 – 150 75.3 – 82.9 69.6 – 76.8
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-22

Section Train Noise Source

Ranges of 

Distance from 

Track (feet)

Range of 

Total Average 

Daily Ldn

(dBA)

Range of 

Average Leq

(1 hour) 

(dBA)

Eastern Section

Colton-Coachella Wayside noise from train passbys 50 – 150 71.0 – 78.2 64.8 – 71.9

Colton-Coachella Horn noise levels within 0.25 mile of grade crossings 50 – 150 73.9 – 81.1 67.6 – 74.8

Notes:

a Soto interlocking (Milepost 144.4) in Los Angeles 

dBA=A-weighted decibel; Ldn=day-night average noise level; Leq=equivalent sound level
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-23

In addition to rail operation noise, traffic noise from cars and trucks is a primary source of ambient 

noise within the Program Corridor. Many highways and local roads serve commuter and heavy 

trucking demands in both the Western and Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, including 

I-10, SR 60, and SR 91 in the Western Section and I-10, SR 60, and SR 111 in the Eastern Section. 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Existing noise sources and levels within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build Alternative 

Option 1. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Existing noise sources and levels within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build Alternative 

Option 1. 

Existing Vibration Sources 

At higher frequencies, ground-borne vibration can be perceived as a noise source. At sufficiently 

high amplitudes, the propagation of vibration waves through the ground can couple with building 

elements and cause them to vibrate at a frequency that is audible to the human ear. Ground-borne 

noise could rattle windows, walls, or other items that are coupled to building surfaces. Ground-borne 

vibration levels that result in ground-borne noise are often experienced as a combination of 

perceptible vibration and low-frequency noise. 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Existing vibration sources in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area include train traffic in the 

Western and Eastern Sections of the Program Corridor and motor vehicle traffic on freeways and 

local arterial streets. Existing vibration levels were not quantified in this analysis since FTA 

classification of vibration events would not change under future conditions with implementation of the 

Build Alternative Options as described in Section 3.6.5. 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Existing vibration sources within Build Alternative Option 2 is the same as Build Alternative Option 1. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track)

Existing vibration sources within Build Alternative Option 3 is the same as Build Alternative Option 1. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-24

3.6.5 Environmental Consequences

Overview 

Effects as a result of implementing the Build Alternative Options can be broadly classified into 

construction and operational effects. Both short-term or temporary effects and long-term or 

permanent noise and vibration effects would be anticipated as a result of constructing any of the 

Build Alternative Options. 

Construction effects associated with noise and vibration are generally short term and are due to the 

use of construction equipment and vehicles, as well as operation of on-site materials processing and 

handling, such as concrete plants. The potential construction effects on noise and vibration are 

evaluated based on the intensity of the construction activities and the duration of construction of the 

Program. The longer the construction period and the more non-road construction equipment used 

(such as cranes, bulldozers, heavy duty trucks, and concrete batch plants), the greater the potential 

for construction noise and vibration effects.

Noise and vibration effects could also result from operation of any of the Build Alternative Options as 

the addition of two daily roundtrips would result in the increase of passenger rail trains traveling 

within the Program Corridor and the addition of new station facilities (e.g., new sources of mobile 

and stationary noise). 

Site-specific sensitive land uses potentially affected by the Program would be further identified as 

part of the Tier 2/Project-level environmental review process. Specific types and degrees of noise 

and vibration impacts on sensitive receptors would not be known until further design and 

construction information is known.

No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, of this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR, is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the 

Program associated with this service-level evaluation. Under the No Build Alternative, ambient noise 

and vibration levels from existing train operations and local traffic would continue. No 

Program-related construction or increase in service would occur; however, freight and intercity train 

trips would increase in frequency due to regional growth and demand from other projects. Under the 

No Build Alternative, ambient noise and vibration levels from existing train operations and local traffic 

would continue. While no Program-related construction or increase in service would occur, rail noise 

is anticipated to increase within the Program Corridor. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-25

The No Build Alternative assumes completion of those reasonably foreseeable transportation, 

development, and infrastructure projects that are already in progress or are programmed. These 

projects would result in an increase in freight service, as well as an increase in passenger rail 

services in the Program Corridor. 

In addition, an increase in traffic is anticipated with the No Build Alternative because more cars 

would be on the roadways compared with what would occur with implementation of the Program. 

These increases in traffic could result in localized increases in ambient noise levels along local 

roadways. 

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 

Rail and Station Noise Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or 

station infrastructure in the Western Section of the Program Corridor because the existing railroad 

and stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build Alternative, 

short-term/temporary effects associated with noise-level increases would be negligible because no 

additional construction activities are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative 

Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Construction activities required for infrastructure improvements (such as sidings, 

additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation structures) and station

facilities would result in short-term increases in noise in, and around, the construction site. Noise 

during construction would be generated by construction equipment and vehicles during soil 

disturbance, earthwork, and other construction activities. The noise that could be generated would 

vary depending on the length of the construction period, specific construction activity (e.g., grading, 

paving, pile driving), types of equipment, and number of personnel. Potential worst-case equipment 

noise levels from construction of rail infrastructure improvements were evaluated by combining the 

noise levels of up to three of the loudest pieces of equipment that would most likely operate at the 

same time during a given phase of construction. This worst-case scenario assumes a paving project, 

which would include a paver, a dump truck, and an excavator, with an overall noise level of 88 dBA 

Leq (8 hours) at 50 feet. However, estimated overall noise levels (not including impact construction 

equipment like a pile driver or blasting) can range from 88 dBA Leq at 50 feet to 62 dBA Leq at 

1,000 feet ground. The noise calculations conducted for construction equipment is described in 

further detail in Appendix F of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-26

Although construction equipment may operate in many different areas as rail infrastructure 

improvements and station facilities are constructed, the highest noise levels are expected at those 

sites where the duration and intensity of construction activities would be greatest. Construction may 

occur within areas containing sensitive noise receptors and could potentially generate noise that 

would affect these sensitive noise receptors. 

Potential noise levels from construction activities are predicted to exceed the FTA daytime 

construction noise criterion at nearby residences, lodging facilities, and institutional uses within 

120 feet of construction areas. The FTA nighttime noise criterion could be exceeded at residences 

and lodging facilities up to 400 feet from construction areas. The need for construction during 

nighttime hours has not been specified and is, therefore, assumed to occur as a worst-case 

scenario. Impact pile drivers produce a maximum noise level of up to 101 dBA at 50 feet. If impact 

pile driving is used, the FTA daytime criterion may be exceeded up to 275 feet, and the FTA 

nighttime criterion may be exceeded at up to 850 feet. The need for pile-driving during construction 

has not been specified and is, therefore, assumed to occur as a worst-case scenario. 

Construction at a given location would be intermittent and short term for the noise-sensitive 

receptors adjacent to construction sites. Construction noise would cease once the rail infrastructure 

improvement or station facility is complete. Site-specific noise impacts on sensitive receptors and 

mitigation measures would be considered during Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 could have a substantial 

construction noise effect on sensitive receptors within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. 

When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have slightly 

reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the 

magnitude of effects would be similar and considered substantial when compared with the No Build 

Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may 

have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, 

reduced station options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of 

effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and considered substantial when compared 

with the No Build Alternative. 

OPERATION

Western Section. Noise-level calculations for train operations were modeled as part of this Tier 

1/Program service-level evaluation assuming the addition of four daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) 

one-way intercity diesel-powered passenger train trips (two daily round-trips) per day within the 

Western Section of the Program Corridor. Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 

43 to 86 average daily trains per segment, where a substantial number of freight, passenger, and 

commuter trains operate. The addition of four daily intercity passenger trips would result in a total of 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-27

90 one-way trips per day on the Los Angeles to Fullerton segment, which carries the highest volume 

of trains. 

Based on the noise modeling conducted, wayside (engine and wheel/rail noise) and warning horn 

noise (at the at-grade crossings) that could be generated by Program operation would be lower than 

existing average daily rail noise that occur at Category 2 (residential/lodging) and Category 3 

(institutional) land uses. The noise calculations conducted for Category 2 and Category 3 land uses 

within the Western Section of the Program is described in further detail in Appendix F of this Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. 

Operation of the enhanced passenger rail system within the Western Section of the Program 

Corridor under the Build Alternative Options is not be anticipated to result in changes associated 

with operational noise from passenger rail trains or the continuation of operational activities at 

existing rail stations. Operational noise effects associated with the Western Section of the Program 

Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1 would be negligible when compared with the No Build 

Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would 

have the same magnitude of effect and be considered negligible when compared with the No Build 

Alternative.

Eastern Section. Noise-level calculations for train operations were modeled as part of this Tier 

1/Program service-level evaluation assuming the addition of four daytime (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) 

one-way intercity diesel-powered passenger train trips (two daily round-trips) per day within the 

Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. Current rail traffic volumes on the Eastern Section average 

43 one-way trains per day. The addition of 4 daily intercity passenger trips would result in a total of 

47 one-way trips per day on the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. 

Based on the noise modeling conducted, wayside (engine and wheel/rail noise) and warning horn 

noise (at the at-grade crossings) that could be generated by Program operation would be lower than 

existing average daily rail noise that occurs at Category 2 (residential/lodging) and Category 3 

(institutional) land uses. The noise calculations conducted for Category 2 and Category 3 land uses 

within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor are described in further detail in Appendix F of this 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 

Operation of the enhanced passenger rail system within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor 

under the Build Alternative Options is not anticipated to result in changes associated with operational 

noise from passenger rail trains. However, it is currently unknown if the operation of the enhanced 

passenger rail system would require rail infrastructure improvements that would change the existing 

noise environment (e.g., the provision of grade separations, bridges, or sidings). 

Depending on the configuration of, and amenities available at, rail station facilities, the type of 

operational noise varies. Station platform noise sources generally include a public announcement 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-28

system and chiming sounds from ticket vending machines. Announcement systems are typically 

designed to adjust volume levels automatically to a few dBs above ambient noise. Operation noise 

associated with these sources would occur for brief periods and would not likely result in an 

exceedance of FTA or local standards. However, the operation of new rail station facilities could also 

result in new sources of mobile (e.g., vehicles accessing the station) and stationary noise (e.g., 

building heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems and truck deliveries [if there are 

commercial uses included as part of the station facility]), which may result in exceedances of FTA or 

local standards on adjacent sensitive noise receptors. 

Design specifics and locations of the rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are not 

known at this time, so the operational noise that could be generated and potential sensitive 

receptors that could be affected during operational activities cannot be quantified at the Tier 

1/Program-level evaluation. Once detailed information for the site-specific rail infrastructure 

improvement or station facility is available, a quantitative estimate of the noise levels during 

operation and impacts on sensitive receptors evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis

would be conducted. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, operational noise effects could be moderate within 

the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 

1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have the same magnitude of effects and be considered moderate 

when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 

2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated 

with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. 

However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and considered 

moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Traffic Noise Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or 

station infrastructure in the Western Section because the existing railroad infrastructure and stations 

from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build Alternative, 

short-term/temporary traffic noise effects would be negligible because no additional construction 

activities are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Construction of rail infrastructure improvements, such as sidings, additional main

line track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation structures, and stations would generate 

construction traffic, which could contribute to localized increases in roadway noise levels. However, 

these increases in roadway noise generated by construction traffic would occur for brief periods and 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-29

would not likely result in an exceedance of FTA standards or local standards. When compared with 

the No Build Alternative, short-term/temporary noise effects related to roadways and vehicular traffic

would be negligible within the Eastern Section under Build Alternative Option 1. When compared 

with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have the same magnitude of effects 

and be considered negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with

Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to 

a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced 

third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative 

Option 3 and considered negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative.

OPERATION 

Western Section. During operation of the Program within the Western Section of the Program 

Corridor, access streets around each existing station would likely be affected because of additional 

automobile traffic generated by patrons accessing and departing from each station. However, these 

existing stations are located in urbanized areas that already experience moderate to high noise 

levels. The additional traffic trips that could be generated around the existing stations are not 

anticipated to result in a perceptible change in existing noise levels on local roadways. When 

compared with the No Build Alternative, traffic noise effects related to roadways and vehicular traffic 

would be negligible within the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1. When compared 

with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have the same magnitude of 

effects and be considered negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative. 

Eastern Section. New train ridership resulting from implementation of any of the Build Alternative 

Options is anticipated to affect the number of automobile trips within the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor. For the proposed stations within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, 

catchment areas have been identified, but no specific sites have been selected. Therefore, it is not 

known at the Tier 1/Program evaluation phase which local streets may be impacted by operation of 

station facilities. It is possible that the addition of automobile trips to the existing roadway network 

could result in increases of noise levels along these local roadways that would require mitigation. 

The location of Type I roadway projects (if any) would require an analysis of traffic noise based on 

procedures described in the Caltrans Protocol, on a case by case basis. A detailed assessment of 

operational traffic impacts would be conducted during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis once 

site-specific rail infrastructure or station facility details are known. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, traffic noise effects related to roadways and vehicular 

traffic would be moderate within the Eastern Section under Build Alternative Option 1. When 

compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have the same 

magnitude of effects and be considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-30

When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly 

reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station 

options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be 

similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and considered moderate when compared with the No Build 

Alternative.

Vibration Effects 

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or 

station infrastructure in the Western Section of the Program Corridor because the existing railroad 

and stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build Alternative, 

short-term/temporary vibration effects would be negligible because no additional construction 

activities are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Construction activities required for infrastructure improvements (such as sidings, 

additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation structures) and station 

facilities would result in short-term increases in vibration levels in, and around, the construction site. 

Vibration during construction would be generated by the use of construction equipment and vehicles 

during soil disturbance, earthwork, and other construction activities. The vibration that could be 

generated would vary depending on the length of the construction period, specific construction 

activity (e.g., grading, paving, pile driving), types of equipment, and number of personnel. Vibration 

levels that would be generated from various construction equipment (e.g., bulldozers, vibratory 

rollers, and pile drivers) at a range of distances were modeled as part of this Tier 1/Program 

service-level evaluation and are provided in Appendix F of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 

There are two types of construction vibration effects to consider during construction: human 

annoyance and building damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises 

significantly for extended periods. Fragile buildings, specifically historic structures, are generally 

more susceptible to damage from ground vibration than newer, less fragile buildings. The potential 

for moderate or substantial vibration effects during construction increases where construction 

activities are located adjacent to sensitive land uses. 

Based on the vibration modeling conducted for this Tier 1/Program service-level evaluation, 

ground-borne vibration from construction activities may periodically exceed the FTA vibration 

criterion at residences and lodging facilities (Category 2 land uses) within 110 feet of construction 

areas when using typical heavy equipment. If impact equipment, such as a pile driver, is used, the 

FTA vibration criterion would be exceeded at up to 230 feet. Although vibration from construction 

equipment may be intermittently perceptible at sensitive-receptor locations, the potential for 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-31

substantial annoyance of occupants at nearby building structures is unlikely and would occur only 

during short intervals when equipment is operated near structures.

Depending on where construction would occur within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, 

construction activities have the potential to cause vibration-induced damage to fragile or extremely 

fragile buildings. This vibration-induced damage could occur if ground-borne vibration levels exceed 

0.20 PPV for non-engineered timber and masonry buildings and 0.12 PPV for buildings that are 

extremely susceptible to vibration damage. 

Based on the vibration modeling conducted for this Tier 1/Program service-level evaluation, vibration 

levels from operation of a vibratory roller would exceed the 0.200-PPV threshold for fragile buildings 

25 feet from the building (0.210 PPV) and the 0.120-PPV threshold for extremely fragile buildings 

40 feet from the building (0.125 PPV). Vibration from operation of a pile driver would exceed the 

0.20-PPV threshold for fragile buildings 70 feet from the building (0.207 PPV) and the 0.120-PPV 

threshold for extremely fragile buildings 110 feet (0.126 PPV) from the building. 

Construction of any of the Build Alternative Options would have the potential to cause temporary 

vibration effects. However, potential vibration effects from each construction project would be short

term, occurring at a location only while construction work is in progress. In general, the degree of 

adverse construction effects is proportional to the length of new rail proposed to be constructed, 

number of grade separations, number and size of new facilities, proximity of the improvements and 

facilities to sensitive receptors, and the duration of construction at each site. Design specifics and 

locations of the rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are not known at this time, so 

the vibration levels that could be generated and potential sensitive receptors that could be affected 

during specific construction activities cannot be quantified at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. 

Once detailed construction information for the site-specific rail infrastructure improvement or station 

facility is available, a detailed estimate of the vibration levels that could be generated during 

construction would be conducted and impacts on sensitive receptors and resources would be 

evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, vibration effects could be moderate within the 

Program Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 

1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have the same magnitude of effects and be considered moderate 

when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 

2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated 

with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. 

However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and considered 

moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-32

OPERATION

Western and Eastern Section. As summarized in Table 3.6-2, the FTA classification of vibration 

events under existing conditions within the Program Corridor is frequent. Operation of the Program 

would increase the number of average daily rail trips within the Western Section from a maximum of 

86 rail trips per day to 90 rail trips per day and an increase from 43 rail trips per day to 47 rail trips 

per day within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. These increases in average daily rail 

trips would not result in a change in classification from frequent events (e.g., more than 70 events 

per day). Train speeds are not projected to increase under future conditions within the Program 

Corridor. 

If train traffic with implementation of the Build Alternative Options would exceed the vibration criteria 

for frequent events and increase vibration levels by 3 VdB or more, this would result in a significant 

vibration impact. However, train activity with implementation of the Program would involve commuter 

trains, which produce vibration levels that are more than 10 dB below freight trains in terms of VdB 

root-mean-square values. When compared with the No Build Alternative, vibration effects would be 

negligible within the Western and Eastern Sections of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative 

Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would 

have the same magnitude of effects and be considered negligible when compared with the No Build 

Alternative.

3.6.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects

Table 3.6-6 and Table 3.6-7 summarize the qualitative assessment of potential effects (negligible, 

moderate, or substantial) under NEPA for each of the Build Alternative Options. This service-level 

evaluation uses the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area to determine the relative magnitude of 

potential effects associated with noise and vibration under each of the Build Alternative Options. 

Specific mitigation measures to reduce effects would be identified during the Tier 2/Project-level 

environmental process.

Table 3.6-6. NEPA Summary of Noise Effects

Alternative Options

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: None 

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: None

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Substantial 

Operation: Moderate 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-33

Alternative Options

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Substantial

Operation: Moderate 

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with Limited Third 

Track) 

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Substantial

Operation: Moderate 

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and 

air travel facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, 

identifying levels of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on Tier 

2/Project-specific analysis.

EIS/EIR=environmental impact statement/environmental impact report; NEPA=National Environmental Policy Act

Table 3.6-7. NEPA Summary of Vibration Effects

Alternative Options

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: None 

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: None

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate 

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with Limited Third 

Track) 

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and 

air travel facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, 

identifying levels of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on Tier 

2/Project-specific analysis.

EIS/EIR=environmental impact statement/environmental impact report; NEPA=National Environmental Policy Act
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration 

May 2021 | 3.6-34

3.6.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts

Based on the information provided in Section 3.6.4 and 3.6.5, and considering the CEQA Guidelines 

Appendix G Checklist questions for noise and vibration, the Build Alternative Options would have 

potentially significant impacts on noise and vibration when reviewed on a Program-wide basis. 

Placing the rail infrastructure improvements and new station facilities largely within, or along, the 

existing ROW reduces the potential for significant noise and vibration impacts. However, because 

the sites have not been selected, some adjacent noise-sensitive uses may be significantly impacted. 

At the Tier/Program analysis level, it is not possible to know the location, extent, and particular 

characteristics of impacts on these areas. Proposed programmatic mitigation strategies discussed in 

Section 3.6.8 would be applied to reduce potential impacts. 

Table 3.6-8 summarizes the CEQA significance conclusions for the Build Alternative Options; the 

proposed programmatic mitigation strategies that could be applied to minimize, reduce, or avoid the 

potential impacts; and the significance determination after mitigation strategies are applied. The 

identification and implementation of additional site-specific mitigation measures necessary for 

Project implementation would occur as part of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-35

Table 3.6-8. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Noise and Vibration

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in excess of standards 

established in a local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies?

Construction 

Western Section – No Impact. No construction are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation level impacts under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 because no physical 

improvements are proposed or required within the Western Section.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potentially significant impacts may occur at the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. Potential 

impacts related to a substantial, temporary increase in ambient noise levels are dependent on 

the location of rail infrastructure improvements, station facilities, and the type of construction 

activities required. Construction at a given location would be intermittent and short term for the 

noise-sensitive receptors adjacent to construction sites, with construction noise ceasing once 

construction of a project is completed. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and 

evaluate impacts associated with site-specific construction noise on adjacent noise-sensitive 

receptors.

NOI-1

NOI-2 

LU-3 

Potentially Significant. NOI-1, NOI-2, 

and LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid

potential impacts associated with 

construction noise through design and 

further analysis during the Tier 

2/Project-level environmental process. 

However, impacts may remain significant 

and unavoidable as further analysis may 

determine that there is a temporary 

construction noise that cannot be mitigated 

between land uses.

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The increase in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use and 

would not result in a change in the existing noise environment within the existing rail corridor. 

Therefore, no operational impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation

level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-36

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potentially significant impacts may occur at the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. A permanent 

increase in ambient noise around new rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities 

could occur. This increase in ambient noise may result in potentially significant impacts on 

adjacent noise-sensitive land uses depending on the location of sensitive receptors. The Tier 

2/Project-level analysis would identify and evaluate impacts associated with noise levels 

increases on adjacent land uses.

NOI-2

LU-3 

Potentially Significant. NOI-2 and LU-3 

would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts associated with operational noise 

through design and further analysis during 

the Tier 2/Project-level environmental 

process. However, impacts may remain 

significant and unavoidable as further 

analysis may determine that there is a 

conflict that cannot be mitigated between 

land uses.

Would the Program result in generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 because no physical 

improvements are proposed or required within the Western Section.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potentially significant impacts may occur at the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. Potential 

impacts related to excessive ground-borne vibration or noise levels are dependent on the 

location of rail infrastructure improvements, station facilities, and the type of construction 

activities. Vibration from construction equipment may be intermittently perceptible at 

sensitive-receptor locations. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and evaluate 

impacts associated with excessive ground-borne vibration or noise levels.

NOI-2 Less than Significant. NOI-2 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts from excessive ground-borne 

vibration or noise through design and 

further analysis during the Tier 

2/Project-level environmental process. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-37

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The increase in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use and 

would not result in a change in the existing noise environment within the existing rail corridor. 

Therefore, no operational impacts under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated at 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potentially significant impacts may occur at the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. Potential 

impacts related to excessive ground-borne vibration or noise levels are dependent on the 

location of rail infrastructure improvements, station facilities, and the type of operational 

activities. Operation of station facilities or new rail infrastructure improvements may result in a 

new source of vibration within a particular site. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify 

and evaluate impacts associated with from excessive ground-borne vibration or noise levels 

during operation. 

NOI-2 Less than Significant. NOI-2 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts from excessive ground-borne 

vibration or noise through design and 

further analysis during the Tier 

2/Project-level environmental process. 

Would the Program be located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been 

adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport and expose people residing or working in the Program area to excessive 

noise levels?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. Although the Western Section of the Program Corridor 

contains areas that are located within an airport land use plan, no construction impacts are 

anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, 

or 3 because no physical improvements are proposed or required within the Western Section.

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-38

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potentially significant impacts may occur at the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. Potential

impacts associated with consistency with airport land use compatibility plans depend on the 

location of rail infrastructure improvements, station facilities, and type of construction activities, 

which are currently unknown. Portions the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor are located 

within the Banning Municipal Airport, Bermuda Dunes Executive Airport, Palm Springs 

International Airport, and Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport Influence Areas. A detailed 

analysis of the airport land use compatibility plans for these airports cannot be considered at 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR level as the locations of infrastructure and station facilities is 

unknown. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify conflicts with these airport land use 

compatibility plans.

LU-3 Less than Significant. LU-3 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts from conflicts with applicable 

airport land use consistency plans and 

policies through design and further 

analysis.

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The Western Section of the Program Corridor 

contains areas that are located within an airport land use plan. However, the increase in train 

service (two additional round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change 

existing land use and would not result in new safety hazards or excessive noise for people 

residing or working in the area. A less than significant impact is anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-39

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potentially significant impacts may occur at the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. Potential 

operational impacts associated with consistency with airport land use compatibility plans 

depend on the location of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are 

currently unknown. Portions the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor are located within the 

Banning Municipal Airport, Bermuda Dunes Executive Airport, Palm Springs International 

Airport, and Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport Influence Areas. A detailed analysis of the 

airport land use compatibility plans for these airports cannot be considered at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR level, as the locations of infrastructure and station facilities is unknown. 

The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify conflicts with these airport land use 

compatibility plans.

LU-3 Less than Significant. LU-3 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts from conflicts with applicable 

airport land use consistency plans and 

policies through design and further 

analysis.

Notes:

EIS/EIR=environmental impact statement/environmental impact report
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-40

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-41

3.6.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies

Identified below are proposed programmatic mitigation strategies for further consideration in the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and 

discussed during Tier 2/Project-level analysis after design details are known and specific impacts 

are identified. Potential mitigation measures and design features that would avoid or minimize noise

and vibration effects would be developed in consultation with the appropriate agencies with 

jurisdiction. Proposed programmatic mitigation strategies include, but are not limited to the following:

Mitigation Strategy NOI-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a site-specific construction noise 

management plan shall be prepared for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. 

The construction noise management plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

• A detailed construction schedule correlating to areas or zones of on-site Project construction 

activity(ies) and the anticipated equipment types and quantities involved. Information will 

include expected hours of actual operation per day for each type of equipment per phase 

and indication of anticipated concurrent construction activities on site.

• Identification of construction noise reduction methods such as shutting off idling equipment, 

construction of a temporary noise barrier, maximizing the distance between construction 

equipment staging areas and adjacent sensitive land use receptors. 

• Identification of construction hours, allowable workdays, and the phone number of the job 

superintendent shall be clearly posted at all construction entrances to allow surrounding 

property owners to contact the job superintendent if necessary. In the event the municipality 

with jurisdiction receives a complaint, the construction noise management plan shall include 

guidance to ensure the appropriate corrective actions are implemented and a report of the 

action is provided to the reporting party. Appropriate corrective actions may include stricter 

enforcement of construction schedule, re-location of stationary equipment further from 

adjacent noise-sensitive receptors, reduction in the number of equipment working 

simultaneously in proximity to the sensitive receptor, erection of temporary noise barriers, or 

a combination of the above.

Mitigation Strategy NOI-2: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a site-specific noise and vibration 

assessment shall be prepared for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The 

site-specific noise and vibration assessment shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

• Identification of adjacent noise sensitive land uses that would be impacted by construction 

and operation activities associated with the specific rail infrastructure or station facility. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.6 Noise and Vibration

May 2021 | 3.6-42

• Identification of construction equipment required to be within 50 feet of existing structures. If 

construction equipment is required within 50 feet, the assessment will demonstrate that the 

human annoyance threshold of 78 velocity in decibels (0.032 inches per second peak 

particle velocity) and structural damage thresholds of 0.2 inches per second peak particle 

velocity for nonengineered timber and masonry buildings and 0.12 inches per second peak 

particle velocity for historic-age buildings that are extremely susceptible to vibration damage 

is achieved.

• Identification of existing noise levels at the nearest noise sensitive land uses. 

• Identification of any on-site generated noise sources, including generators, mechanical 

equipment, and trucks and predicted noise levels at property lines from all identified 

equipment. 

• Recommended mitigation to be implemented (e.g., enclosures, barriers, site orientation), to 

ensure compliance with the local jurisdiction’s noise regulations or ordinances. Noise 

reduction measures shall include building noise-attenuating walls, reducing noise at the 

source by requiring quieter machinery or limiting the hours of operation, or other attenuation 

measures. Exact noise mitigation measures and their effectiveness shall be determined by 

the site-specific noise analyses.

Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency 

analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of 

the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general 

plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or 

environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall

be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or 

environmental resources.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-1

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

3.7.1 Introduction

This section identifies potential jurisdictional waters and wetlands within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Study Area and evaluates the effects of the No Build Alternative and Build Alternative Options on 

these resources. Wetlands provide wildlife habitat, but they can be further classified in terms of their 

level of wildlife/biological habitat and hydrologic and water quality function. Wetlands are defined by 

soil characteristics, hydrology, and dominance of vegetation adapted to wet environments. 

This service-level evaluation also focuses on wetlands and aquatic habitats associated with waters 

of the U.S. and waters of the state. Waters of the U.S. are defined in the Clean Water Act (CWA) 

and include waters such as those used in interstate or foreign commerce; interstate waters including 

wetlands; interstate waters such as lakes, rivers, and streams; impoundments of waters defined as 

waters of the U.S.; tributaries to the previously listed waters; and wetlands adjacent to the previously 

listed waters. Wetlands fed by or that feed into waters of the U.S. are considered jurisdictional 

waters and are protected under Section 404 of the CWA. Waters of the U.S. are also summarized in 

Section 3.9, Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality. 

Information contained in this section is summarized from the Biological and Wetland Resources 

Technical Memorandum (Appendix G of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). 

3.7.2 Regulatory Framework

In accordance with NEPA (42 USC Section 4321 et seq.), CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR Parts 1501-1508), FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR

28545, May 26, 1999) and CEQA, FRA identified jurisdictional waters and wetlands within the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area and evaluated the potential impacts on those resources as a result of 

implementing the Build Alternative Options. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-2

Federal

Clean Water Act

The CWA, as amended, serves as the primary federal law protecting the quality of the nation’s 

surface waters, including wetlands. The CWA prohibits any discharge of pollutants into the nation’s 

waters unless specifically authorized by a permit. The CWA (33 USC Section 1251 et seq.) defines 

waters of the U.S. as follows:

• All waters that are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in 

interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of 

the tide

• All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands

• All other waters, such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), 

mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or 

natural ponds, the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign 

commerce

• All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the U.S.

• Tributaries to the foregoing types of waters

• Wetlands adjacent to the foregoing waters (33 CFR Part 328.3 – the term adjacent means 

bordering, contiguous, or neighboring)

The applicable sections of the CWA are further discussed below: 

• Section 303 identifies and sets pollutant standards (total maximum daily load [TMDL]) for 

impaired waterbodies. TMDLs are the maximum amount of a pollutant that can be present in 

the waterbody and establishes restrictions for discharges to the waterbody.

• Under Section 401, activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the U.S. must 

obtain certification from the state in which the discharge would originate or from the interstate 

water pollution control agency with jurisdiction over affected waters. Project sponsors must 

obtain a 401 Water Quality Certification from the State Water Resources Control Board

(SWRCB). 

• Under Section 402, discharges, including, but not limited to, construction-related stormwater 

discharges to surface waters are regulated through the National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) program. Project sponsors must obtain an NPDES permit from 

the SWRCB. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-3

• Under Section 404, the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and U.S. EPA

regulate the discharge of dredged and fill materials into the waters of the U.S., including 

wetlands. Project sponsors must obtain a permit from USACE for discharges of dredged or 

fill materials into jurisdictional aquatic resources.

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands

EO 11990 states that federal agencies should ensure that their actions “minimize the destruction, 

loss or degradation of wetlands and to preserve and to enhance the natural and beneficial values of 

wetlands” in carrying out their responsibilities.

Presidential Wetland Policy, 1993; Reaffirmation of the Presidential Wetland Policy, 1995

The premise of this policy is for an improved federal wetlands regulatory program: “a goal of no net 

loss of the Nation’s remaining wetlands and increasing the quality and quantity of the Nation’s 

wetlands.”

United States Department of Transportation Order 5660.1A, Order on Preservation of the 

Nation's Wetlands

USDOT Order 5660.1A requires agencies within USDOT to assess their effects on wetlands and 

associated wildlife and directs them to evaluate alternatives and measures that avoid and minimize 

effects on wetlands.

State

Section 1600 et seq. (Lake and Streambed Alteration)

Section 1600 et seq. requires notifying the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) prior 

to any project activity that might (1) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, 

stream, or lake; (2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of any 

river, stream, or lake; or (3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing 

crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake.

If after this notification CDFW determines that the activity may substantially affect fish and wildlife 

resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement needs to be obtained.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act provides authority for the SWRCB and Regional 

Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) to regulate discharges to waters of the state, including 

wetlands.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-4

Waters of the state include all waters of the U.S. and any other waters within the state, regardless of 

their federal jurisdiction. It also provides for implementation of portions of the CWA by the 

SWRCB, including the development of basin plans with identified beneficial uses, issuance of 

Section 401 certifications, and issuance of Section 402 NPDES permits. 

Impacts on waters of the state are authorized through the issuance of Waste Discharge 

Requirements, which require documenting compliance with state water quality standards, including 

watershed plans, designated beneficial uses, and the TMDL program. Issuance of a 

Section 401 Water Quality Certification generally incorporates the waste discharge requirements for 

effects on waters of the state. However, those surface resources lacking CWA jurisdiction are 

regulated under the waste discharge requirement process.

As defined in Division 7, Chapter 2, Section 13050(e) of the California Water Code, waters of the 

state include “any surface or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the 

state.” In practice, waters of the state are delineated as any aquatic resource with an ordinary high 

water mark or that meets the description of wetlands as described above. Waters of the state include 

all waters of the U.S. and any isolated aquatic resources.

Regional

County General Plans

Applicable elements of the general plans for the four counties that the Build Alternative Options are

located in, which include Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino, are summarized in 

the Biological and Wetland Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix G of this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR). 

Local and Tribal Governments

Regulations from cities, local agencies, and tribal governments would be identified in the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis once site-specific rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are 

known.

3.7.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects

The methodology for the jurisdictional waters and wetlands evaluation consists of a service-level 

quantitative assessment, not a detailed evaluation of individual jurisdictional waters or wetlands. The 

quantification compares relative effects among the Build Alternative Options. A detailed Tier 

2/Project-level analysis would be completed as part of future NEPA and CEQA analyses and would 

identify permitting requirements for construction.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-5

The methodology for this evaluation consists of using existing data to identify jurisdictional and 

wetland resources that could be present within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area for each 

Build Alternative Option and evaluating the potential level of effect that each Build Alternative Option 

could have if constructed. Each Build Alternative Option is compared with other Build Alternative 

Options within the same geographical sections, as well as with the No Build Alternative. 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

This service-level evaluation is limited to a desktop evaluation of the data sources described in 

Section 3.7.3. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area was combined with GIS overlays to identify 

potential jurisdictional waters and wetlands resources that could be affected by the Program. These 

potential jurisdictional waters and wetland resources were identified on a broad scale using available 

mapping information. A detailed description of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area is provided in 

Section 3.1, Introduction to Environmental Analysis. 

For this evaluation, the estimated number and acreage of potential jurisdictional waters and 

wetlands were compared for each of the Build Alternative Options. The detailed footprints associated 

with each of the Build Alternative Options considered will not be determined until additional studies 

are conducted in the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. Therefore, the number and acreages associated 

with these resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area provide an estimate of the 

magnitude of potential effects. The intensity of an effect as a result of the route alternatives are 

characterized as negligible, moderate, or substantial compared with the No Build Alternative. 

In a Tier 2/Project-level analysis, impacts would be analyzed quantitatively using more detailed 

analytical methods, such as field surveys, mapping of jurisdictional waters and wetland resources, 

and use of GIS overlays of jurisdictional waters and wetland resources with the defined Project 

footprint to quantify impacts. In addition, a Tier 2/Project-level analysis would include a more detailed 

impact analysis of wetland areas, including field surveys and a jurisdictional wetland delineation to 

determine which areas meet U.S. EPA and USACE regulatory criteria and definition of a wetland 

and the types and boundaries of those wetland areas. As part of the Section 404 permitting process, 

additional coordination with USACE would be required to determine which wetland areas are 

jurisdictional or non-jurisdictional. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-6

Data Sources

Online GIS data available from United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS), CDFW, and a 

variety of other sources were used to identify jurisdictional waters and wetland resources with 

potential to occur within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. Specifically, the following resources 

were reviewed:

• Waters of the U.S.: To identify waters of the U.S., the USFWS National Wetland Inventory 

(NWI) maps (USFWS 2018) and National Hydrography Data (United States Geological 

Survey [USGS 2016]) were consulted.

• Wetlands: For this evaluation, the USFWS NWI database (USFWS 2018) was used to 

identify locations of potential wetland areas within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. 

The NWI maps are based on a classification system known as the Cowardin System, which 

classifies the types of ecosystems related to water resources. Typical wetland classifications 

in the Arid West include riverine, freshwater pond, and freshwater forested/shrub. According 

to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and 

the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West 

Region (Version 2.0) (USACE 2008), three criteria must be satisfied to classify an area as a 

wetland: (1) hydrophytic vegetation; (2) hydric soils; and (3) wetland hydrology. 

Related Resources

This evaluation incorporates data and evaluation from related resources to contribute to the 

assessment of effects on jurisdictional waters and wetland resources. These related resources are 

identified in Table 3.7-1. 

Table 3.7-1. Related Resource Inputs for Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

Resource Input for Biological Assessment

Land Use and Planning

(Section 3.2)

Land uses that correlate to terrestrial or aquatic habitats, such as open space 

and conservation areas, were identified.

Habitat conservation plans, etc. were identified.

Floodplains, Hydrology, and 

Water Quality 

(Section 3.9)

Freshwater resources that may provide aquatic habitat and/or support threatened 

and endangered species were identified.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-7

3.7.4 Affected Environment

The Program Corridor crosses a large geographic area within Southern California, spanning 

approximately 144 miles from its western terminus in Los Angeles to its eastern terminus in 

Coachella. The topography crossed by the Program Corridor ranges from relatively flat, urban 

landscapes in the Western Section of the Program Corridor to hilly canyons in the central portion, 

and flat, low desert habitat in the east. Elevations within the Program Corridor range from 300 feet 

above mean sea level at the western terminus in Los Angeles up to 600 feet in Corona, 1,000 feet in 

Colton, and 2,600 feet in Beaumont (highest elevation), and down to 75 feet below mean sea level at 

the eastern terminus in Coachella (lowest elevation). 

The Program Corridor traverses four major geographic regions: the Los Angeles Basin from Los 

Angeles to Corona, the Inland Empire from Corona to Redlands, the Peninsular Range from 

Redlands to Banning, and the northwestern Sonoran Desert from Banning to Coachella. 

The Program Corridor occurs within an existing railroad corridor that traverses areas that have 

predominately been heavily modified for urban purposes, especially in the Western Section of the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, although some areas occur in or adjacent to lands that are in a 

natural condition. Much of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area from Los Angeles to Redlands is 

urbanized, offering limited habitat value for most plant and wildlife species. 

Jurisdictional Waters

Six rivers, 26 named drainages, and 1 named lake are located within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Study Area. Table 3.7-2 provides a summary of these waterbodies located within each of the Build 

Alternative Options. In addition to the named waterbodies, numerous unnamed ephemeral washes 

also traverse the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. The descriptions and maps for waterbodies in 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area are included as part of Appendix G of this Tier 1/Program

EIS/EIR. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-8

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Most waterbodies located within the Western Section of Build Alternative Option 1 are characterized 

as creeks, washes, and channels. Rivers, lakes, and ponds are also present within the Western 

Section. For the Eastern Section of Build Alternative Option 1, the majority of the waterbodies are 

also characterized as creeks, washes, and channels. Similar to the Western Section, there are a 

limited number of rivers within the Eastern Section. Table 3.7-2 provides a summary of waterbodies 

located within the Build Alternative Options. 

Table 3.7-2. Summary of Waterbodies (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3) 

Waterbody Type

Number of 

Waterbody 

Types within 

Western Section

Number of 

Waterbody 

Types within 

Eastern Section

Total Number of 

Waterbody 

Types

Rivers 4 3 7

Streams/creeks 7 10 17

Washes/channels 7 6 13

Lakes/ponds 1 0 1

Reservoirs 0 0 0

Source: USFWS 2018

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Waterbodies within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build Alternative Option 1. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Waterbodies within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build Alternative Option 1. 

Wetlands 

Figure 3.7-1 shows the NWI-mapped wetlands located within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study 

Area. The following section describes potential wetlands associated with waters of the U.S. and 

waters of the state within the Western and Eastern Sections of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study 

Area for each of the Build Alternative Options.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-9

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

The largest wetland areas located within the Western Section of Build Alternative Option 1 are 

mainly composed of riverine wetlands. Other wetland types such as freshwater forested/shrub 

wetlands, freshwater pond wetlands, lake wetlands, and freshwater emergent wetlands are also 

present within the Western Section. For the Eastern Section of Build Alternative Option 1, the largest 

wetlands areas are mainly comprised of riverine wetlands. Similar to the Western Section, other 

wetland types such as freshwater forested/shrub wetlands, freshwater pond wetlands, and 

freshwater emergent wetlands are also present within the Eastern Section. Table 3.7-3 provides a 

summary of potential wetlands within Build Alternative Option 1.

Table 3.7-3. Summary of Wetland Types (Build Alternative Option 1)

Wetland Type

Number and Area 

of Wetland Types 

within Western 

Section

Number and Area 

of Wetland Types 

within Eastern 

Section

Total Number and 

Area of Wetland 

Types

Freshwater emergent wetland 6 

(2.15 acres) 

5

(4.43 acres)

11 

(6.58 acres)

Freshwater forested/shrub wetland 43 

(31.04 acres) 

8

(78.31 acres)

51 

(109.35 acres)

Freshwater pond 21 

(25.61 acres) 

29

(67.39 acres)

50 

(93.00 acres)

Lakes 7 

(24.80 acres)

0

(0.00 acres)

7 

(24.80 acres)

Riverine 114 

(150.07 acres)

122

(347.30 acres)

236 

(497.37 acres)

Source: USFWS 2018
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-10

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-11

Figure 3.7-1. National Wetland Inventory-Mapped Wetlands within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 1 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-12

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-13

Figure 3.7-1. National Wetland Inventory-Mapped Wetlands within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 2 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-14

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-15

Figure 3.7-1. National Wetland Inventory-Mapped Wetlands within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 3 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-16

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-17

Figure 3.7-1. National Wetland Inventory-Mapped Wetlands within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 4 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-18

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-19

Figure 3.7-1. National Wetland Inventory-Mapped Wetlands within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 5 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-20

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-21

Figure 3.7-1. National Wetland Inventory-Mapped Wetlands within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 6 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-22

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-23

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

The types of wetland areas that could be impacted by Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as for 

Build Alternative Option 1. Table 3.7-4 provides a summary of potential wetlands within Build 

Alternative Option 2. 

Table 3.7-4. Summary of Wetland Types (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) 

Wetland Type

Number and Area 

of Wetland Types 

within Western 

Section

Number and Area 

of Wetland Types 

within Eastern 

Section

Total Number and 

Area of Wetland 

Types

Freshwater emergent wetland 6 

(2.15 acres) 

4 

(3.51 acres)

10 

(5.66 acres)

Freshwater forested/shrub wetland 43 

(31.04 acres) 

8 

(78.31 acres)

51 

(109.35 acres)

Freshwater pond 21 

(25.61 acres) 

28 

(66.99 acres)

49 

(92.60 acres)

Lakes 7 

(24.80 acres)

0 

(0.00 acres)

7 

(24.80 acres)

Riverine 114 

(150.07 acres)

122 

(347.30 acres)

236 

(497.37 acres)

Source: USFWS 2018

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

As shown in Table 3.7-4, the types of wetland areas that could be impacted by Build Alternative 

Option 3 are the same as for Build Alternative Option 2. 

3.7.5 Environmental Consequences

Overview 

Effects as a result of implementing the Build Alternative Options can be broadly classified into 

construction and operational effects. Long-term or permanent effects and short-term or temporary 

effects on jurisdictional waters and wetland resources would be anticipated as a result of 

constructing any of the Build Alternative Options. Most effects on jurisdictional waters or wetlands 

would occur during construction when the ground is disturbed and when there could be temporary 

disturbance of wetland areas and functions. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-24

Effects could result from vegetation clearing, site grading, and filling for construction access to 

permanent facilities. These activities could decrease soil permeability, infiltration, water storage 

capacity, and vegetation regrowth, which may reduce wetland functions. Regulations require that 

these areas be revegetated and returned to natural conditions following construction. 

Additionally, fuel oils, chemicals, or concrete leachate could be spilled during construction activities. 

An increase in sediment loading and turbidity from grading and filing activities could contribute 

sediment-laden runoff into wetlands and degrade water quality. Invasive species could be introduced 

and spread as a result of disturbance, thus undermining the function of wetland vegetation. After 

construction is complete, operational effects on waters of the U.S. and waters of the state would be 

short term but recurring from maintenance of structures that cross waters of the U.S. and waters of 

the state. 

Operational or long-term effects would include the permanent placement of fill of wetlands and 

wetland buffers for the permanent rail structures and support infrastructure. In addition, permanent 

effects on wetlands that could persist throughout operation include the following: 

• Permanently removing wetland area and function, including wetlands buffer areas

• Generating runoff from new pollution-generating impervious surfaces (roadway 

modifications, station infrastructure, and maintenance facilities), potentially increasing 

pollutant loads to wetlands

• Potentially spilling fuel, oil, or chemical spills at stations or maintenance facilities

No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, is used as the baseline 

for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the proposed Program associated 

with this service-level evaluation. Therefore, the No Build Alternative is anticipated to have no effect 

on jurisdictional waters or wetland resources. 

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Effects 

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. Although the Western Section contains areas that could be considered 

jurisdictional waters or wetlands, the Western Section of the Program Corridor would utilize existing 

rail infrastructure, and no additional track improvements, station improvements or new stations

would be required to accommodate the proposed service. When compared with the No Build 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-25

Alternative, short-term/temporary effects on jurisdictional waters or wetland resources would be 

considered negligible because no additional construction activities would occur within the Western 

Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. 

Eastern Section. The Eastern Section of Build Alternative Option 1 would require infrastructure 

improvements such as sidings, additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, 

grade-separation structures, and stations to accommodate the proposed service; however, the 

location of these improvements has not yet been identified. Construction activities associated with 

the Eastern Section could include vegetation removal; ground clearing; placement of fill material; 

new, replaced, or extended culverts; and station facility development. These type of construction 

activities could result in short-term/temporary effects associated with the temporary disturbance of 

wetland areas and functions. 

Waterbodies that may run parallel to the Eastern Section route, such as San Timoteo Creek, could 

be affected by longer stretches of cut, fills, or diversions required to construct ballast, embankments, 

drainage slopes, or other railway or station infrastructure components. Waterbodies adjacent to the 

Eastern Section route may also be relocated or even truncated to accommodate the new railway and 

station infrastructure. The placement of fill required for major infrastructure, such as sidings, spurs, 

yards, and stations, could further increase effects within jurisdictional waters and wetland areas.

Effects on jurisdictional waters, including wetlands, in the Eastern Section are anticipated to be 

unavoidable given the number of waterways and drainages. However, effects on jurisdictional 

waters, including wetlands, would be minimized through regulatory compliance with Sections 401 

and 404 of the CWA. Jurisdictional waters that run perpendicular to the rail line would be affected for 

the length and width of the culvert(s) required to allow water flows to pass beneath the rail line, plus 

any erosion or scour control constructed within the watercourse. 

In some locations, effects could be further minimized by using a bridge structure to clear-span the 

watercourse. Effects on wetlands would be dependent on the placement of new rail infrastructure 

(tracks, ballast, embankments, stations, etc.) in relation to wetlands. In addition, avoidance of 

NWI-mapped wetlands identified for the various station area study areas (Figure 3.7-1) would help 

minimize effects on those resources. Regulatory agencies like USACE and RWQCB have rules and 

guidance that require no net loss of wetland functions and values when such resources may be 

impacted. It is anticipated that regulatory compliance with Section 401 and 404 of the CWA would 

require avoidance, minimization, or compensatory mitigation that would meet the goal of no net loss 

of wetland functions and values. Therefore, effects associated with the Eastern Section of Build 

Alternative Option 1 on jurisdictional waters and wetland resources would be moderate when 

compared with the No Build Alternative. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-26

Site-specific short-term/temporary and long-term/permanent effects would be considered at the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis once details for the needed rail and station infrastructure are known. 

Overall, as compared with Build Alternative Option 1, implementation of Build Alternative Option 

2 could potentially have a lesser effect on jurisdictional waters and associated wetlands because 

Build Alternative Option 2 contains fewer locations of jurisdictional waters and fewer acres of 

wetlands. However, while the acres of jurisdictional waters and wetlands differs between Build 

Alternative Option 1 and Build Alternative Option 2, the magnitude of effects would be similar and 

would be considered of moderate intensity when compared with the No Build Alternative. When 

compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced 

effects on jurisdictional waters and wetlands due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter 

route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the 

magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and would be considered 

moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.

OPERATION

Western Section. Under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, passenger train frequencies proposed 

as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two daily round-trip intercity diesel-powered 

passenger trains operating the entire length of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and 

Coachella. During operation, existing maintenance activities that would occur within the ROW along 

the Western Section route would be in areas where the natural ecosystem has already been 

disturbed and the Program Corridor is heavily trafficked. Effects associated with the Western Section 

of Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 on jurisdictional waters and wetland resources would be 

similar and negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative. 

Eastern Section. Operational effects are anticipated to be limited to maintenance of culverts, 

bridges, embankments, and station areas. Efforts during the design phase to avoid wetlands would 

help to minimize potential operational effects because fewer jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands

would be in proximity to a future rail line or station area. In addition, maintenance BMPs would be 

developed and implemented for future station areas to ensure that maintenance materials such as 

oils, lubricants, and fuels are handled in an appropriate regulatory manner and kept away from 

sensitive areas such as waterbodies or wetlands. Operational/long-term effects associated with the 

Eastern Section of Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 would be similar and moderate when 

compared with the No Build Alternative. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-27

3.7.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects

Table 3.7-5 summarizes the qualitative assessment of potential effects (negligible, moderate, or 

substantial) under NEPA for each of the Build Alternative Options. This service-level evaluation uses 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area to determine the types of resources that may be affected 

and, more importantly, the relative magnitude of resources that may be affected. For jurisdictional 

waters and wetland resources, the level of intensity for effects is based on volume of habitat or 

wetlands potentially affected and that most wetland effects can be mitigated through wetland 

replacement or wetland mitigation banks. Specific mitigation measures to avoid and minimize effects 

would be analyzed at the Tier 2/Project-level phase. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-28

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-29

Table 3.7-5. NEPA Summary of Effects on Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

Alternative Options

Total Number 

and Acreage of 

Wetlands

Freshwater 

Emergent 

Wetland 

(acres)

Freshwater 

Forested/ 

Shrub 

Wetland 

(acres)

Freshwater 

Pond 

(acres)

Lake 

(acres)

Riverine 

(acres)

Potential Intensity 

of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of 

Effect: 

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea 0

(0.00 acres)

0 0 0 0 0 Construction: 

None 

Operation: 

None

Construction: 

None

Operation: 

None

Build Alternative 

Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

355

(731.10 acres)

6.58 109.35 93.00 24.80 497.37 Construction: 

Negligible

Operation: 

Negligible

Construction: 

Moderate

Operation: 

Moderate

Build Alternative 

Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

353

(729.78 acres)

5.66 109.35 92.60 24.80 497.37 Construction: 

Negligible

Operation: 

Negligible

Construction: 

Moderate

Operation: 

Moderate 

Build Alternative 

Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with 

Limited Third Track) 

353

(729.78 acres)

5.66 109.35 92.60 24.80 497.37 Construction: 

Negligible

Operation: 

Negligible

Construction: 

Moderate

Operation: 

Moderate 

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel facilities within the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be 

dependent on Tier 2/Project-level analysis.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-30

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-31

3.7.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts

Based on the information provided in Section 3.7.4 and 3.7.5, and considering the CEQA Guidelines 

Appendix G Checklist questions for jurisdictional waters and wetland resources, the Build Alternative

Options are considered to have a potentially significant impact on jurisdictional waters and wetland 

resources when reviewed on a Program-wide basis. 

Placing the infrastructure improvements and new stations largely within or along the existing ROW 

reduces the potential for significant impacts on these resources. However, because the precise sites

for rail infrastructure and station facilities have not been selected, some jurisdictional waters and 

wetland resources may be significantly impacted. At the programmatic level of analysis, it is not 

possible to precisely know the location, extent, and characteristics of impacts on these resources. 

Proposed programmatic mitigation strategies discussed in Section 3.7.8 will be applied to reduce 

these impacts on jurisdictional waters and wetland resources. 

Table 3.7-6 describes the CEQA significance conclusions for the Build Alternative Options; the 

proposed programmatic mitigation strategies that could be applied to reduce, avoid, or minimize the 

potential impacts; and the significance determination after mitigation strategies are applied. The 

identification and implementation of additional site-specific mitigation measures necessary for 

Project implementation will occur as part of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-32

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-33

Table 3.7-6. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources 

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program have a substantial adverse effect on federally or protected wetlands 

as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, 

vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or 

other means?

Construction 

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed within the Western 

Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential construction impacts on wetlands 

depend on the location of infrastructure improvements and station locations, which are 

currently unknown. Some construction impacts, like placement of fill, would be considered 

permanent and subject to permitting by USACE and mitigation of impacts. Construction 

activities could impact water quality by creating debris and pollutants like concrete waste and 

sediment. Due to the variety of construction techniques and numerous waterways and 

drainages in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, specific impacts and associated BMPs to 

minimize or reduce impacts cannot be determined at this time for Build Alternative Option 1, 2, 

or 3. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and mitigate impacts on waters of the 

state and waters of the U.S., including wetlands.

BIO-1, BIO-5, 

HWQ-1, 

HWQ-2 

Less than Significant. Mitigation 

Strategies BIO-1, BIO-5, HWQ-1, and 

HWQ-2 would minimize, reduce, or avoid 

potential impacts on wetlands by 

identifying resources during Tier 

2/Project-level analysis and by providing a 

program for avoiding, replacing, or 

compensating for temporary or permanent 

impacts on wetlands.

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. No operational impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed within the Western 

Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-34

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential operational impacts on wetlands depend 

on the location of infrastructure improvements and station locations, which are currently 

unknown. Some operational impacts could result in an increase in pollutants, such as fuel and 

oils, that could enter surface waterways. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and 

analyze any impacts on waters of the state and waters of the U.S., including wetlands during 

operational activities under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

HWQ-3, 

HAZ-2 

Less than Significant. Mitigation 

Strategies HWQ-3 and HAZ-2 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts related to violating water quality 

standards and waste discharge 

requirements by requiring compliance with 

applicable regulations. During Tier 

2/Project-level analysis, site specific BMPs 

would be identified and implemented to 

protect potentially impacted wetlands. 

Notes:

BMP=best management practice; EIR=environmental impact report; EIS=environmental impact statement; U.S.=United States; USACE=United States Army Corps 

of Engineers
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-35

3.7.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies

The environmental planning and review process typically involves considerations of avoidance, 

minimization, and compensatory mitigation with regard to waters of the U.S. and waters of the state. 

Measures to avoid, minimize, and provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts follow 

USACE rules and guidance, with the goal of no net loss of wetland functions and values. Avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation strategies would be considered in evaluating impacts related to waters 

of the U.S. and waters of the state. Avoidance and minimization of effects will be incorporated when 

feasible. If effects cannot be avoided or minimized, mitigation strategies will be implemented. 

Identified below are proposed programmatic mitigation strategies for further consideration in the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis. Examples of programmatic mitigation strategies for wetland resources 

include those designed to avoid effects and impacts, when possible, and minimize effects and 

impacts where complete avoidance is not feasible, particularly to jurisdictional waters. In addition to 

those mitigation strategies proposed below, mitigation for unavoidable effects and impacts on 

wetland resources (if identified in the Tier 2/Project-level analysis) could include in-lieu fees and 

on- or off-site mitigation such as habitat or vegetation restoration or payment into a conservation 

bank. Coordination with USACE, RWQCB, USFWS, and CDFW would occur to develop 

Project-specific mitigation measures during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis after design details are 

known. Proposed programmatic mitigation strategies, consistent with state and federal regulations, 

include, but are not limited to, the following:

Mitigation Strategy BIO-1: During the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a preliminary biological resource 

screening shall be performed as part of the environmental review process to determine whether the 

specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed has any potential to impact biological resources. 

If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed has no potential to impact biological 

resources, no further action will be required. If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility 

proposed has the potential to impact biological resources, a qualified biologist shall conduct a 

biological resources assessment report to document the existing biological resources within the Tier 

2/Project-level study area. The report shall include, but not be limited to, analysis and 

recommendations on the following topics: 

• Special-status species

• Nesting birds

• Wildlife movement

• Sensitive plant communities and critical habitat

• Jurisdictional waters
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-36

• Applicable habitat conservation plans

• Other biological resources identified as sensitive by local, state and/or federal agencies 

Pending the results of the biological resources assessment, design alterations; further technical 

studies (e.g., protocol surveys); and/or consultations with the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other local, state, and federal agencies may 

be required. If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed cannot be designed without 

complete avoidance, the lead agency shall coordinate with the appropriate resource agency to 

obtain regulatory permits and implement Project-specific mitigation prior to any construction 

activities. 

Mitigation Strategy BIO-5: Prior to initiation of construction activities (including staging and 

mobilization), all personnel associated with Project construction shall attend worker environmental 

awareness program training, conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in recognizing 

special-status resources that may occur in the Tier 2/Project-level study area. The specifics of this 

program shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

• Identification of the sensitive species and habitats

• Description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive 

resources

• Review of the limits of construction and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts on

biological resources within the work area

• Preparation of a fact sheet conveying this information shall for distribution to all contractors, 

their employers, and other personnel involved with construction of the Project

• Employee documentation associated with worker environmental awareness program

attendance and acknowledgment

Mitigation Strategy HAZ-2: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a site-specific hazardous materials 

management program shall be prepared for the specific rail infrastructure or station facilities 

proposed. The hazardous materials management program shall provide for safe storage, 

containment, and disposal of chemicals and hazardous materials related to Project construction and 

operation, including the proper disposal of waste materials. The hazardous materials management 

program shall include, but should not be limited to, the following:

• A description of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes used (29 Code of Federal 

Regulations 1910.1200)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-37

• A description of handling, transport, treatment, and disposal procedures, as relevant for each 

hazardous material or hazardous waste (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.120)

• Preparedness, prevention, contingency, and emergency procedures, including emergency 

contact information (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.38)

• A description of personnel training including, but not limited to: (1) recognition of existing or 

potential hazards resulting from accidental spills or other releases; (2) implementation of 

evacuation, notification, and other emergency response procedures; (3) management, 

awareness, and handling of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes, as required by their 

level of responsibility (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910)

• Instructions on keeping Safety Data Sheets for each on-site hazardous chemical (29 Code of 

Federal Regulations 1910.1200)

• Identification of the locations of hazardous material storage areas, including temporary 

storage areas, which shall be equipped with secondary containment sufficient in size to 

contain the volume of the largest container or tank (29 Code of Federal Regulations

1910.120)

Mitigation Strategy HWQ-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, additional floodplain hydrology 

documentation shall be conducted to determine if the siting of specific rail infrastructure or station 

facility proposed would encroach into a floodplain. If the siting of specific rail infrastructure or station 

facilities requires encroachment into a floodplain, a floodplain assessment shall be conducted to 

evaluate the impacts of specific designs on water surface elevations and flood conveyance and 

evaluate potential flooding risk. Any project that would result in floodplain encroachment shall 

coordinate with the governing agency or local jurisdiction. Any additional requirements that may be 

needed shall be determined in coordination with the applicable regulatory agencies. 

Mitigation Strategy HWQ-2: Based on the results of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis and 

recommendations, the construction of specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed shall

comply with the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit 

for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order 

Number 2009-0009-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Number CAS000002) 

and any subsequent amendments (Order Number 2010-0014-DWQ and Order Number 

2012-0006-DWQ). These provisions shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 

• Construction activities shall not commence until a waste discharger identification number is 

received from the State Water Resources Control Board Stormwater Multiple Application and 

Report Tracking System. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.7 Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resources

May 2021 | 3.7-38

• Identification of good housekeeping, erosion control, and sediment control best management 

practices shall be utilized during construction activities. 

• A stormwater pollution prevention plan shall be prepared.

• A rain event action plan shall be prepared.

• A notice of termination shall be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board within 

90 days of completion of construction and stabilization of the site.

These requirements, and any additional approvals, shall be determined in coordination with the 

governing agencies or local jurisdiction before construction on a project commences.

Mitigation Strategy HWQ-3: Based on the results of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis and 

recommendations, the operation of specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed shall comply 

with the provisions of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Separate 

Storm Sewer System Program. These provisions shall include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Low impact, site design, and source control best management practices shall be identified to 

be utilized during operational activities. 

• A water quality management plan shall be prepared that will be implemented and maintained 

throughout the life of a project and used by property owners, facility operators, tenants, 

facility employees, and maintenance contractors.

These requirements, and any additional approvals, shall be determined in coordination with the 

governing agencies or local jurisdiction before operation on a project commences.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-1

3.8 Biological Resources

3.8.1 Introduction

This section identifies biological resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area and 

provides an evaluation of biological resource effects associated with implementing the No Build 

Alternative and the Build Alternative Options. Information contained in this section is summarized 

from the Biological and Wetland Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix G of this 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). 

3.8.2 Regulatory Framework

In accordance with NEPA (42 USC Section 4321 et seq.), CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR Parts 1501-1508), FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 

28545, May 26, 1999) and CEQA, FRA identified biological resources within the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Study Area and evaluated the potential impacts on those resources as a result of 

implementing the Build Alternative Options. 

Federal

Federal Endangered Species Act

The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973, as amended (16 USC Section 1531 et seq.) 

provides a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend 

may be conserved and provides a program for the conservation of such endangered and threatened 

species (Section 1531[b], Purposes). All federal agencies are to seek to conserve endangered and 

threatened species and utilize applicable authorities in furtherance of the purposes of FESA (Section 

1531[c][1], Policy). 

USFWS has primary administrative responsibility under FESA for terrestrial and freshwater 

organisms. Species listed as threatened or endangered, or proposed, have specific protections 

under FESA. All federal agencies are required to consult (or confer) with USFWS (and/or the 

National Marine Fisheries Service for marine species) in accordance with Section 7 of FESA if the 

agency determines that any proposed action may affect a listed species. Each agency must ensure 

that any federal action or activity is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species 

listed or proposed to be listed under FESA or result in the destruction or modification of designated 

or proposed critical habitat (Section 1536[a], Interagency Cooperation, and 50 CFR Part 402). 

Section 9 of FESA prohibits any “take” (as defined in FESA: to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-2

wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct) of a listed species. 

Section 10 of FESA allows for exemptions to the take prohibition, based on incidental take 

statements issued in accordance with biological opinions issued under Section 7 consultation or 

other authorized permits.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918, as amended (16 USC Section 703-712), is the 

domestic law that affirms, or implements, the U.S.' commitment to four international conventions 

(with Canada, Japan, Mexico, and Russia) for the protection of a shared migratory bird resource. 

Each of the conventions protects selected species of birds that occur in both countries at some point 

during their annual life cycle. The MBTA protects migratory birds and their nests, eggs, young, and 

parts from possession, sale, purchase, barter, transport, import, export, and take. For purposes of 

the MBTA, take is defined as “to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt 

to pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” (50 CFR Part 10.12). The MBTA applies 

to migratory birds identified in 50 CFR Part 10.13.

The MBTA protects all birds occurring in the U.S., except for several non-native species (e.g., house 

sparrow, European starlings, and rock pigeons) and non-migratory upland game birds. USFWS 

implements and enforces the MBTA; is the lead federal agency for managing and conserving 

migratory birds in the U.S.; regulates the take of migratory birds for educational, scientific, and 

recreational purposes; and requires that harvests be limited to levels that prevent overutilization. 

Special purpose permits under 50 CFR Part 2I.27 of the MBTA are required if an action would take, 

possess, or involve the sale or transport of birds protected by the MBTA.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act

The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, and as amended (16 USC Section 668-668d), 

prohibits anyone without a permit issued by USFWS from taking bald or golden eagles, including 

their parts, nests, or eggs. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act defines take as “pursue, 

shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest or disturb.” For purposes of these 

guidelines, disturb means “to agitate or bother a bald or golden eagle to a degree that causes, or is 

likely to cause, based on the best scientific information available, (1) injury to an eagle, (2) a 

decrease in its productivity, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or sheltering 

behavior, or (3) nest abandonment, by substantially interfering with normal breeding, feeding, or 

sheltering behavior.”
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-3

Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species

EO 13112 requires federal agencies to identify actions that may affect invasive species; use relevant 

programs to prevent the introduction of invasive species; detect, respond, and control such species; 

monitor invasive species populations; provide for restoration of native species; conduct research on 

invasive species; and promote public education on the spread of invasive species. 

Executive Order 13186, Protection on Migratory Bird Populations

EO 13186 directs each federal agency taking actions that have or may have effects on migratory 

bird populations to work with USFWS to develop a memorandum of understanding that will promote 

the conservation of migratory bird populations.

State

California Endangered Species Act

The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) prohibits the take of any fish, wildlife, or plant 

species listed as endangered or threatened, or designated as candidates for listing, under CESA. 

Take refers to mortality or injury of the listed species itself and not the modification of a listed 

species habitat. Compared with the FESA process, CESA contains a procedure for CDFW to issue a 

Section 2081 incidental take permit authorizing the take of listed and candidate species incidental to 

an otherwise lawful activity, subject to specified conditions, including that the effects of the take are 

fully mitigated. 

Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act

The Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act encourages broad-based planning to provide 

for effective protection and conservation of the state’s wildlife resources while continuing to allow 

appropriate development and growth. Natural community conservation plans identify measures 

necessary to conserve and manage natural biological diversity within the planning area while 

allowing compatible and appropriate economic development, growth, and other human uses.

California Fish and Game Code

SECTIONS 3511, 4700, 5050, AND 5515 (FULLY PROTECTED)

The California Fish and Game Code designates 37 fully protected species and prohibits the take or 

possession at any time of such species with certain limited exceptions.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-4

SECTIONS 3503, 3503.5, AND 3513 (BIRD PROTECTIONS)

Section California Fish and Game Code 3503 states it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly 

destroy the nest or eggs of any bird, except as otherwise provided by code or any regulation made 

pursuant thereto. Section 3503.5 prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of any 

nests, eggs, or birds in the orders Falconiformes (New World vultures, hawks, eagles, ospreys, and 

falcons, among others) or Strigiformes (owls). Section 3513 prohibits the take or possession of any 

migratory non-game bird or part thereof, as designated in the MBTA. To avoid violation of the take 

provisions, it is generally required that project-related disturbance at active nesting territories be 

reduced or eliminated during the nesting cycle. 

California Native Plant Protection Act 

The California Native Plant Protection Act requires all state agencies to use their authority to carry 

out programs to conserve endangered and rare native plants. Under the California Native Plant 

Protection Act, the Fish and Game Commission may designate native plants as endangered or rare 

and prohibit the take of such plants, with certain exceptions.

Regional

Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan

The Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is a comprehensive, 

multijurisdictional habitat conservation plan focusing on the conservation of species and their 

associated habitats in the Coachella Valley region of Riverside County. It covers 27 sensitive plant 

and wildlife species, as well as 27 natural communities. The approval of the Coachella Valley 

MSHCP and execution of the Implementing Agreement allows signatories to the Implementing 

Agreement to issue take authorizations for all species covered by the Coachella Valley MSHCP, 

including federally and state-listed species, as well as other identified covered species and/or their 

habitats.

Each participating city or local jurisdiction within the Coachella Valley imposes a development 

mitigation fee for new development projects within its boundaries. With payment of the mitigation fee 

and compliance with the requirements of the Coachella Valley MSHCP, full mitigation in compliance 

with CEQA, NEPA, FESA, and CESA is granted. The plan is administered by the Coachella Valley 

Conservation Commission. Coverage under this plan is limited to the plan participants. RCTC is not 

a participant to the Coachella Valley MSHCP.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-5

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan

Similar to the Coachella Valley MSHCP, the Western Riverside County MSHCP is a comprehensive, 

multijurisdictional habitat conservation plan focusing on conservation of species and their associated 

habitats in western Riverside County and is managed by the Regional Conservation Authority. 

RCTC is a signatory to the Implementing Agreement for the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Any 

individual, business, or public agency wishing to construct a project within the criteria area of the 

Western Riverside County MSHCP must obtain an approval from the Regional Conservation 

Authority and a permit for the project from the local agency responsible. 

County General Plans

Applicable elements of the general plans for the four counties that the Program Corridor crosses 

(Los Angeles County, Orange County, Riverside County, and San Bernardino County) are 

summarized in the Biological and Wetland Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix G of this 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). 

Local and Tribal Governments

Regulations from cities, local agencies, and tribal governments would be identified in the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis once site-specific rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are 

known.

3.8.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects

The methodology for the biological resource evaluation consists of a service-level quantitative 

assessment, not a detailed evaluation of individual biological resources. The quantification compares 

relative effects among the Build Alternative Options. A detailed Tier 2/Project-level analysis would be 

completed and identify permitting requirements for construction.

The methodology for this evaluation consists of using existing data to identify biological resources, 

such as special-status plant and wildlife species, sensitive vegetation communities, and suitable 

habitat for federally and state-listed species, that could be present within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Study Area. Each Build Alternative Option is compared with other Build Alternative Options within 

the same geographical sections, as well as with the No Build Alternative.

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

This service-level evaluation is limited to a desktop evaluation of the data sources described in 

Section 3.8.3. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area was combined with GIS overlays to identify 

potential biological resources (special-status plant and wildlife species, sensitive vegetation 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-6

communities, and suitable habitat for federally and state-listed species) that could be affected by the 

Program. These potential biological resources were identified on a broad scale using available 

mapping information. A detailed description of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area is provided in 

Section 3.1, Introduction to Environmental Analysis.

For this evaluation, the estimated number and acreage of sensitive vegetation communities and 

habitat were compared for each of the Build Alternative Options. The detailed footprints associated 

with each of the Build Alternative Options considered would not be determined until additional 

studies are conducted in the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. Therefore, the number and acreages 

associated with these resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area provide an estimate 

of the magnitude of potential effects. The intensity of an effect as a result of the Build Alternative 

Options are characterized as negligible, moderate, or substantial compared with the No Build 

Alternative. 

In a Tier 2/Project-level analysis, impacts would be analyzed quantitatively using more detailed 

analytical methods, such as field surveys, mapping of biological resources, and use of GIS overlays 

of biological resources with the defined Project footprint to quantify impacts. 

Data Sources

Online GIS data available from USFWS, CDFW, and a variety of other sources were used to identify 

biological resources with potential to occur within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. 

Specifically, the following resources were reviewed:

• USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation website: A list of federal candidate, 

proposed, threatened, and endangered plant and wildlife species was obtained for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area from the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation

website. The list was generated on June 21, 2018 (Appendix G of this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR). 

• California Natural Diversity Database RareFind: Lists of special-status plant and wildlife 

species were prepared through a two-fold inquiry of the California Natural Diversity Database

RareFind 5 database. A standard quad search was performed using the RareFind program 

(CDFW 2018) that included 28 USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles including and surrounding the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area (provided in Appendix G of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). 

In addition, a GIS mapping exercise captured all California Natural Diversity Database

occurrences for special-status species with the potential to occur within the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Study Area. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-7

• California Native Plant Society’s Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of 

California: The California Native Plant Society’s Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered 

Plants of California was queried for special-status plant species that occur in Los Angeles, 

Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties (California Native Plant Society 2018). 

• eBird database: This list was consulted to identify bird observations in or near the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area (eBird 2017).

• Critical habitat: To identify proposed and designated critical habitat within 1 mile of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, GIS layers from the USFWS Ventura and Carlsbad field 

office websites were reviewed in June 2018.

• Areas of protected habitat: To identify areas of protected habitat, the California Protected 

Areas Database 2017 was consulted. 

• Wildlife movement linkages: To identify wildlife movement linkages, the South Coast 

Missing Linkage Project: A Linkage Design for the San Bernardino-San Jacinto Connection 

(Penrod et al. 2005) and California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project (Spencer et al. 

2010) were consulted.

Related Resources

This evaluation incorporates data and evaluation from related resources to contribute to the 

assessment of effects on biological resources. These related resources are identified in

Table 3.8-1. 

Table 3.8-1. Related Resource Inputs for Biological Resources

Resource Input for Biological Assessment

Land Use and Planning

(Section 3.2)

Land uses that correlate to terrestrial or aquatic habitats, such as open space 

and conservation areas, were identified.

Applicable habitat conservation plans were identified.

Noise and Vibration

(Section 3.6)

Areas where noise and vibration effects exceed allowable thresholds and that 

correlate to terrestrial or aquatic habitats or threatened and endangered species’ 

habitats were identified.

Jurisdictional Waters and 

Wetland Resources 

(Section 3.7)

Jurisdictional waters and wetland resources that may provide aquatic habitat 

and/or support threatened and endangered species were identified.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-8

Resource Input for Biological Assessment

Floodplains, Hydrology, and 

Water Quality 

(Section 3.9)

Freshwater resources that may provide aquatic habitat and/or support threatened 

and endangered species were identified.

3.8.4 Affected Environment

The Program Corridor crosses a large geographic area within Southern California, spanning 

approximately 144 miles from its western terminus in Los Angeles to its eastern terminus in 

Coachella. The topography crossed by the Program Corridor ranges from relatively flat, urban 

landscapes in the Western Section to hilly canyons in the central portion, and flat, low desert habitat 

in the Eastern Section. Elevations within the Program Corridor range from 300 feet above mean sea 

level at the western terminus in Los Angeles up to 600 feet in Corona, 1,000 feet in Colton, and 

2,600 feet in Beaumont (highest elevation), and down to 75 feet below mean sea level at the eastern

terminus in Coachella (lowest elevation). 

The Program Corridor traverses four major geographic regions: the Los Angeles Basin from Los 

Angeles to Corona, the Inland Empire from Corona to Redlands, the Peninsular Range from 

Redlands to Banning, and the northwestern Sonoran Desert from Banning to Coachella. 

The Program Corridor occurs within an existing railroad corridor that traverses areas that have 

predominately been heavily modified for urban purposes, especially in the Western Section of the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, although some areas occur in or adjacent to lands that are in a 

natural condition. Much of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area from Los Angeles to Redlands is 

urbanized, offering limited habitat value for most plant and wildlife species. 

Areas of natural habitat occur mainly along the Santa Ana River basin, which provides riparian 

woodland and wetland habitat for a number of special-status plant and wildlife species. San Timoteo 

Canyon dominates the region between Redlands and Banning. Most of this region is marked by 

natural areas of riparian woodland, grasslands, and wetlands that provide habitat for a number of 

special-status plants and wildlife. The Program Corridor east of Banning occurs within the Sonoran 

Desert and is a mixture of developed and undeveloped desert scrub dominated by creosote (Larrea 

tridentata). Transportation facilities such as interstate highways, state highways, local roadways, and 

existing railroads are present within or adjacent to the Program Corridor. 

Vegetation Communities and Other Land Cover Types

Figure 3.8-1 shows the vegetation communities located within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study 

Area. Detailed descriptions of these vegetation communities and other land cover types are provided 

in Appendix G of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-9

Figure 3.8-1. Vegetation Communities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 1 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-10

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-11

Figure 3.8-1. Vegetation Communities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 2 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-12

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-13

Figure 3.8-1. Vegetation Communities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 3 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-14

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-15

Figure 3.8-1. Vegetation Communities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 4 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-16

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-17

Figure 3.8-1. Vegetation Communities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 5 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-18

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-19

Figure 3.8-1. Vegetation Communities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 6 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-20

This page is intentionally blank. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-21

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Table 3.8-2 summarizes vegetation communities or land cover types within the Program Corridor 

under Build Alternative Option 1. As indicated in Table 3.8-2, the dominant vegetation communities 

or land cover types in the Western Section of the Program Corridor are urban (9,379.67 acres), 

annual grassland (316.28 acres), and barren (158.46 acres), which equals approximately 98 percent 

of the total area within the Western Section of Build Alternative Option 1. For the Eastern Section of 

the Program Corridor, the dominant vegetation communities or land cover types are urban 

(9,529.88 acres), desert scrub (7,112.92 acres), annual grassland (1,513.91 acres), and

cropland/orchard/vineyard (1,886.18 acres), which equals approximately 93 percent of the total area 

within the Eastern Section of Build Alternative Option 1.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-22

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-23

Table 3.8-2. Summary of Vegetation Communities (Build Alternative Option 1) 

Vegetation Community 

Western 

Section 

(acres)

Eastern 

Section: 

Non-Station 

Area 

(acres)

Eastern 

Section: 

Loma Linda 

Station Area 

(acres)

Eastern 

Section: 

Pass Area 

Station Area 

(acres)

Eastern 

Section: 

Mid-Valley 

Station Area 

(acres)

Eastern 

Section: 

Indio 

Station Area 

(acres)

Eastern 

Section: 

Coachella 

Station Area 

(acres)

Total Area 

of 

Vegetation 

Community 

(acres)

Alkali desert scrub — 4.04 — — — — 23.56 27.60

Annual grassland 316.28 922.41 281.77 309.73 — — — 1,830.19

Barren 158.46 77.28 69.20 — — — — 304.93

Coastal oak woodland 35.90 3.52 — — — — — 39.41

Coastal scrub 65.43 100.74 5.35 189.96 — — — 361.48

Cropland/orchard/vineyard 30.30 504.27 182.53 78.82 — 471.68 648.88 1,916.48

Desert scrub — 3,077.75 — 324.54 2,947.17 752.95 10.51 7,112.92

Desert wash — 10.40 — 407.73 — — — 418.13

Eucalyptus woodland 13.94 24.08 — — — — — 38.02

Freshwater emergent 

Wetland

15.14 26.20 — — — — — 41.34

Lacustrine 14.05 35.59 — — — — — 49.64

Mixed chaparral 1.19 30.45 — 6.57 — — — 38.20

Montane riparian 12.33 29.60 — — — — — 41.93
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-24

Vegetation Community 

Western 

Section 

(acres)

Eastern 

Section: 

Non-Station 

Area 

(acres)

Eastern 

Section: 

Loma Linda 

Station Area 

(acres)

Eastern 

Section: 

Pass Area 

Station Area 

(acres)

Eastern 

Section: 

Mid-Valley 

Station Area 

(acres)

Eastern 

Section: 

Indio 

Station Area 

(acres)

Eastern 

Section: 

Coachella 

Station Area 

(acres)

Total Area 

of 

Vegetation 

Community 

(acres)

Pasture 5.90 49.08 70.00 — — — — 124.98

Riverine — 43.89 — 14.18 — — — 58.08

Urban 9,379.67 1,317.54 898.06 3,948.19 670.08 2508.12 187.90 18,909.55

Valley foothill riparian 58.53 380.37 — 5.72 — — — 444.63

Source: Appendix G of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-25

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Table 3.8-3 summarizes vegetation communities or land cover types within the Program Corridor 

under Build Alternative Option 2. As indicated in Table 3.8-3, the dominant vegetation communities 

or land cover types in the Western Section of the Program Corridor are urban (9,379.67 acres), 

annual grassland (316.28 acres), and barren (158.46 acres), which equals approximately 98 percent 

of the total area within the Western Section of Build Alternative Option 2. For the Eastern Section of 

the Program Corridor, the dominant vegetation communities or land cover types are urban 

(9,274.01 acres), desert scrub (7,100.51 acres), annual grassland (1,513.91 acres), and 

cropland/orchard/vineyard (1,116.54 acres), which equals approximately 93 percent of the total area 

within the Eastern Section of Build Alternative Option 2.

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

As summarized in Table 3.8-3, the types of vegetation communities and land cover types within 

Build Alternative Option 3 would be the same as those identified for Build Alternative Option 2. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-26

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-27

Table 3.8-3. Summary of Vegetation Communities (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3)

Vegetation Community 

Western 

Section 

(acres)

Eastern 

Section: 

Non-Station 

Area 

(acres)

Eastern 

Section: 

Loma Linda 

Station Area 

(acres)

Eastern 

Section: 

Pass Area 

Station Area 

(acres)

Eastern 

Section: 

Mid-Valley 

Station Area 

(acres)

Eastern Section: 

Indio Station 

Area 

(acres)

Total Area of 

Vegetation Community 

(acres)

Alkali desert scrub — — — — — — —

Annual grassland 316.28 922.41 281.77 309.73 — — 1,830.19

Barren 158.46 77.28 69.20 — — — 304.93

Coastal oak woodland 35.90 3.52 — — — — 39.41

Coastal scrub 65.43 100.74 5.35 189.96 — — 361.48

Cropland/orchard/vineyard 30.30 383.51 182.53 78.82 — 471.68 1,146.84

Desert scrub — 3,075.85 — 324.54 2,947.17 752.95 7,100.51

Desert wash — 10.40 — 407.73 — — 418.13

Eucalyptus woodland 13.94 24.08 — — — — 38.02

Freshwater emergent 

wetland

15.14 26.20 — — — — 41.34

Lacustrine 14.05 35.59 — — — — 49.64

Mixed chaparral 1.19 30.45 — 6.57 — — 38.20

Montane riparian 12.33 29.60 — — — — 41.93
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-28

Vegetation Community 

Western 

Section 

(acres)

Eastern 

Section: 

Non-Station 

Area 

(acres)

Eastern 

Section: 

Loma Linda 

Station Area 

(acres)

Eastern 

Section: 

Pass Area 

Station Area 

(acres)

Eastern 

Section: 

Mid-Valley 

Station Area 

(acres)

Eastern Section: 

Indio Station 

Area 

(acres)

Total Area of 

Vegetation Community 

(acres)

Pasture 5.90 49.08 70.00 — — — 124.98

Riverine — 43.89 — 14.18 — — 58.08

Urban 9,379.67 1,249.55 898.06 3,948.19 670.08 2,508.12 18,653.68

Valley foothill riparian 58.53 380.37 — 5.72 — — 444.63

Source: Appendix G of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-29

Sensitive Natural Communities

Sensitive natural communities represent rare vegetation types or have limited distribution statewide 

or within a county or region. These communities include riparian areas that are jurisdictional to 

CDFW under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, and they are often vulnerable to 

the environmental effects of projects. A list of sensitive natural communities in California is 

maintained by CDFW in the Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program—Natural Communities 

List. Table 3.8-4 lists the sensitive natural communities with potential to occur within the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. A description of each of these communities is provided in Appendix 

G of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Mapping of sensitive natural communities requires a field 

assessment of the dominant plant species within each vegetation community type. Therefore, the 

potential presence of sensitive natural communities in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area was 

assessed based on the broader vegetation community categories for which mapping exists. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-30

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-31

Table 3.8-4. Sensitive Natural Communities with Potential to Occur within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

Sensitive Natural 

Community 

(Alliance)a

State 

Rarity 

Rankb

Vegetation 

Community

Western 

Section

Eastern 

Section: 

Non-Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Loma Linda 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Pass Area 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Mid-Valley 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Indio 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Coachella 

Station 

Area

Juglans californica 

Woodland Alliance

California walnut 

woodland

S3 Valley foothill 

riparian, coastal 

sage, mixed 

chaparral

P P P P — — —

Lepidospartum 

squamatum Shrubland 

Alliance

Scalebroom scrub

S3 Desert wash — P — P — — —

Platanus racemosa 

Woodland Alliance

California sycamore 

woodland

S3 Valley foothill 

riparian

P P — P — — —

Populus fremontii 

Forest Alliance

Fremont cottonwood 

forest

S3 Valley foothill 

riparian

P P — P — — —
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-32

Sensitive Natural 

Community 

(Alliance)a

State 

Rarity 

Rankb

Vegetation 

Community

Western 

Section

Eastern 

Section: 

Non-Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Loma Linda 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Pass Area 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Mid-Valley 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Indio 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Coachella 

Station 

Area

Salix gooddingii 

Woodland Alliance

Black willow thickets

S3 Valley foothill 

riparian

P P — P — — —

Notes:

a Alliances names follow A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009).

b Rarity ranks are taken from A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer et al. 2009). Ranks of S1, S2, and S3 are considered rare and threatened statewide 

(Sawyer et al. 2009, p. 46) and of special concern by CDFW.

CDFW=California Department of Fish and Wildlife; P=potential to occur
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-33

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

As summarized in Table 3.8-3, five sensitive natural communities have the potential to occur within 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area under Build Alternative Option 1. These sensitive natural 

communities include California walnut woodland, scalebroom scrub, California sycamore woodland, 

Fremont cottonwood forest, and black willow thickets. All have state rarity ranks of S3, which 

indicates that they are “vulnerable and at moderate risk of extinction or elimination due to a restricted 

range, relatively few populations or occurrences, recent and widespread declines, or other factors.”

These sensitive natural communities have the potential to occur in valley foothill riparian, coastal 

scrub, mixed chaparral, and desert wash habitats, respectively. Within the Western Section, 

California walnut woodland, California sycamore woodland, Fremont cottonwood forest, and black 

willow thickets have the potential to occur based on the vegetation community present. Within the 

Eastern Section, specifically the non-station areas and the Pass Area Station Area, all five sensitive 

natural communities have the potential to occur. Within the Loma Linda Station Area, California 

walnut woodland has the potential to occur. Within the Mid-Valley Station Area, Indio Station Area, 

and Coachella Station Area, none of the five sensitive natural communities have the potential to 

occur based on the vegetation community present. 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Sensitive natural communities within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build Alternative 

Option 1. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Sensitive natural communities within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build Alternative 

Option 1. 

Special-Status Plant Species

Federal and state regulations protect imperiled plant species and facilitate the recovery of such 

species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Federal and state regulations also provide 

guidance on how a species is listed and designations (endangered, threatened, etc.) of a species’ 

sensitivity. 

Table 3.8-5 lists the special-status plant species with the potential to occur within the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Study Area. Figure 3.8-2shows the critical habitat for listed special-status plant species 

located within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-34

This page is intentionally blank. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-35

Table 3.8-5. Special-Status Plant with Potential to Occur within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal/

State/ 

CRPR 

Statusa

Western 

Section

Eastern 

Section: 

Non-Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Loma 

Linda 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Pass Area 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Mid-Valley 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Indio 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Coachella 

Station 

Area

Abrams’ spurge (Euphorbia abramsiana) CRPR 2B.2 P P — P P P P

Brand’s star phacelia (Phacelia stellaris) CRPR 1B.1 P — — — — — —

Braunton’s milk-vetch (Astragalus 

brauntonii) 

FE, CRPR 

1B.1 

P P — — P P —

Chaparral sand-verbena (Abronia villosa

var. aurita) 

CRPR 1B.1 P P P P — — —

Cliff spurge (Euphorbia misera) CRPR 2B.2 — P — — — — —

Coachella Valley milk-vetch (Astragalus 

lentiginosus var. coachellae) 

FE, CRPR 

1B.2 

— P — P P P P

Desert spike-moss (Selaginella 

eremophila) 

CRPR 2B.2 — P — — — — —

Flat-seeded surge (Euphorbia 

platysperma) 

CRPR 1B.2 — P — — P — —

Harwood’s eriastrum (Eriastrum 

harwoodii) 

CRPR 1B.2 — P — — P — —

Intermediate mariposa lily (Calochortus 

weedii var. intermedius) 

CRPR 1B.2 P — — — — — —
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-36

Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal/

State/ 

CRPR 

Statusa

Western 

Section

Eastern 

Section: 

Non-Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Loma 

Linda 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Pass Area 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Mid-Valley 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Indio 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Coachella 

Station 

Area

Latimer's woodland-gilia (Saltugilia 

latimeri) 

CRPR 1B.2 — P — P — — —

Little San Bernardino Mtns. Linanthus 

(Linanthus maculatus ssp. maculatus) 

CRPR 1B.2 — P — — P — —

Many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya 

multicaulis) 

CRPR 1B.2 P — — — — — —

Nevin’s barberry (Berberis nevinii) FE, 

SE/CRPR 

1B.1 

P P P — — — —

Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi

var. parryi) 

CRPR 1B.1 P P P P — — —

Purple stemodia (Stemodia durantifolia) CRPR 2B.1 — P — — P — —

Santa Ana River woollystar (Eriastrum 

densifolium ssp. sanctorum) 

FE, 

SE/CRPR 

1B.1 

P P — — — — —

Smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens

ssp. laevis) 

CRPR 1B.1 P P — P — — —

Snake cholla (Cylindropuntia californica

var. californica) 

CRPR 1B.2 P — — — — — —

Three-ribbed milk-vetch (Astragalus 

tricarinatus) 

FE, CRPR 

1B.2 

— P — — P — —
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-37

Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal/

State/ 

CRPR 

Statusa

Western 

Section

Eastern 

Section: 

Non-Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Loma 

Linda 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Pass Area 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Mid-Valley 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Indio 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Coachella 

Station 

Area

White-bracted spineflower (Chorizanthe 

xanti var. leucotheca)

CRPR 1B.2 — P — P — — —

Yucaipa onion (Allium marvinii) CRPR 1B.2 — P — P — — —

Notes:

CRPR=California Rare Plant Rank; P=potential to occur

a Federal

FE=Federally listed as Endangered 

FP=Federally listed as Protected

State 

SE=State listed as Endangered

CRPR

1B=Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere

2B=Rare or endangered in California, more common elsewhere

Threat Ranks: 

.1=seriously endangered in California

.2=fairly endangered in California
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-38

This page is intentionally blank. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-39

Figure 3.8-2. Critical Habitat within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 1 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-40

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-41

Figure 3.8-2. Critical Habitat within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 2 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-42

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-43

Figure 3.8-2. Critical Habitat within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 3 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-44

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-45

Figure 3.8-2. Critical Habitat within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 4 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-46

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-47

Figure 3.8-2. Critical Habitat within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 5 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-48

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-49

Figure 3.8-2. Critical Habitat within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 6 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-50

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-51

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

As summarized in Table 3.8-5, 22 special-status plant species have the potential to occur within the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area under Build Alternative Option 1. Of these 22 special-status 

plant species, five special-status plant species (Nevin’s barberry, Santa Ana River woollystar, 

Three-ribbed milk-vetch, Braunton’s milk-vetch, and the Coachella Valley milk-vetch) are federally 

endangered and two special-status plant species (Nevin’s barberry and Santa Ana River woollystar) 

are state endangered. There were no federally or state threatened species identified within the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area under Build Alternative Option 1.

Within the Western Section, Nevin’s barberry, Santa Ana River woollystar, and Brauton’s milk-vetch 

have the potential to be present. Within the Eastern Section, the following endangered special-status 

plant species have the potential to be present: 

• Non-Station Areas. All five federally endangered and two state endangered plant species 

have the potential to be present. Designated critical habitat for the Coachella Valley 

milk-vetch is present within the non-station area between the Pass Area Station Area and 

Mid-Valley Station Area.

• Loma Linda Station Area. Nevin’s barberry has the potential to be present. No designated 

critical habitat for special-status plant species is located within the Loma Linda Station Area.

• Pass Area Station Area. Coachella Valley milk-vetch has the potential to be present. No 

designated critical habitat for special-status plant species is located within the Pass Area 

Station Area.

• Mid-Valley Station Area. Braunton’s milk-vetch, Coachella Valley milk-vetch, and 

Three-ribbed milk-vetch have the potential to be present. Designated critical habitat for the 

Coachella Valley milk-vetch is present within the Mid-Valley Station Area.

• Indio Station Area. Braunton’s milk-vetch and Coachella Valley milk-vetch have the 

potential to be present. Designated critical habitat for the Coachella Valley milk-vetch is 

present within the Indio Station Area.

• Coachella Station Area. Coachella Valley milk-vetch has the potential to be present. No 

designated critical habitat for special-status plant species is located within the Coachella 

Station Area.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-52

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Although Build Alternative Option 2 would not include the Coachella Station Area, which contains the 

potential for the Coachella Valley milk-vetch to be present, there are other Eastern Section stations 

that also have the potential for the Coachella Valley milk-vetch to be present. Therefore, 

special-status plant species with the potential to occur within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same 

as Build Alternative Option 1. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Although Build Alternative Option 3 would not include the Coachella Station Area, which contains the 

potential for the Coachella Valley milk-vetch to be present, there are other Eastern Section stations 

that also have the potential for the Coachella Valley milk-vetch to be present. Therefore, 

special-status plant species with the potential to occur within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same 

as Build Alternative Option 1. 

Special-Status Wildlife Species

Federal and state regulations protect imperiled wildlife species and facilitate the recovery of such 

species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Federal and state regulations also provide 

guidance on how a species is listed and designations (endangered, threatened, etc.) of a species’ 

sensitivity. Table 3.8-6 lists the special-status wildlife species as having potential to occur within the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. Figure 3.8-2 shows the critical habitat for listed special-status 

wildlife species located within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-53

Table 3.8-6. Special-Status Wildlife with Potential to Occur within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal/ State 

Statusa

Western 

Section

Eastern 

Section: 

Non-Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Loma 

Linda 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Pass Area 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Mid-Valley 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Indio 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Coachella 

Station 

Area

Invertebrates

Delhi Sands flower-loving fly 

(Rhaphiomidas terminates 

abdominalis) 

FE P P — — — — —

Riverside fairy shrimp 

(Streptocephalus woottoni) 

FE P — — — — — —

Vernal pool fairy shrimp 

(Branchinecta lynchi) 

FT P P — — — — —

Fish

Arroyo chub (Gila orcuttii) SSC P P — — — — —

Desert pupfish (Cyprinodon 

macularius) 

FE, SE — P — P — — —

Santa Ana speckled dace 

(Rhinichthys osculus) 

SSC P P — P — — —

Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus 

santaanae) 

ST P P — — — — —

Amphibians

California red-legged frog (Rana 

draytonii) 

FT, SSC P P P — — — —
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-54

Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal/ State 

Statusa

Western 

Section

Eastern 

Section: 

Non-Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Loma 

Linda 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Pass Area 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Mid-Valley 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Indio 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Coachella 

Station 

Area

Coast Range newt (Taricha 

torosa) 

SSC P — — — — — —

Western spadefoot (Spea 

hammondii) 

SSC P P P — — — —

Reptiles

California glossy snake (Arizona 

elegans occidentalis) 

SSC P P — P — P —

Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard 

(Uma inornata) 

FT, SE — P — — P P —

Coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma 

blainvillii) 

SSC P P — — P — —

Coast patched-nosed snake 

(Salvadora hexalepis virgultea) 

SSC P P P P — — —

Coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis 

tigris stejnegeri) 

SSC P P P P — — —

Desert tortoise (Gopherus 

agasizzii) 

FT, ST — P — P P P P

Flat-tailed horned lizard 

(Phrynosoma mcallii) 

SSC — P — P P — —

Red diamond rattlesnake 

(Crotalus ruber) 

SSC P P P P — — —
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-55

Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal/ State 

Statusa

Western 

Section

Eastern 

Section: 

Non-Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Loma 

Linda 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Pass Area 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Mid-Valley 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Indio 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Coachella 

Station 

Area

San Diego mountain kingsnake 

(Lampropeltis zonata pulchra)

SSC P — — — — — —

Southern California legless lizard 

(Anniella stebbinsi) 

SSC P P P — — — —

Two-striped garter snake 

(Thamnophis hammondii) 

SSC P P P — — — —

Western pond turtle (Emys 

marmorata) 

SSC P P P — — — —

Birds

American peregrine falcon (Falco 

peregrinus anatum) 

FP P P P P P P P

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) 

Bald and 

Golden Eagle 

Protection Act, 

F Delisted

SE/FPS 

P P — — — — —

Coastal cactus wren 

(Campylorhynchus 

brunneicapillus sandiegensis) 

SSC P — — — — — —

Coastal California gnatcatcher 

(Polioptila californica californica) 

FT, SSC P P P — — — —

Ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis) SSC P P P P P P P
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-56

Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal/ State 

Statusa

Western 

Section

Eastern 

Section: 

Non-Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Loma 

Linda 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Pass Area 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Mid-Valley 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Indio 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Coachella 

Station 

Area

Golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) Bald and 

Golden Eagle 

Protection Act

FP

P P P — — — —

Grasshopper sparrow 

(Ammodramus savannarum 

perpallidus) 

SSC P — — — — — —

Least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii 

pusillus) 

FE, SE P P — — — — —

Least bittern (Ixobrychus exilis) SSC P P — — — — —

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius 

ludovicianus) 

SSC P P P P P P P

Long-eared owl (Asio otus) SSC P P — — — — —

Northern harrier (Circus 

hudsonius) 

SSC P P P — — — —

Purple martin (Progne subis) SSC P P — — — — —

Southwestern willow flycatcher 

(Empidonax trallii extimus) 

FE, SE P P — — — — —

Swainson’s hawk (Buteo 

swainsoni) 

ST P P P P P P P
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-57

Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal/ State 

Statusa

Western 

Section

Eastern 

Section: 

Non-Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Loma 

Linda 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Pass Area 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Mid-Valley 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Indio 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Coachella 

Station 

Area

Tricolored blackbird (Agelais 

tricolor) 

ST P P — — — — —

Western burrowing owl (Athene 

cunicularia) 

SSC P P P P P P P

Western yellow-billed cuckoo 

(Coccyzus americanus 

occidentalis) 

FE, SE P — — — — — —

White-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) FP P P — — — — —

Yellow rail (Coturnicops 

noveboracensis) 

SSC P — — — — — —

Yellow warbler (Setophaga 

petechia) 

SSC P P P — — — —

Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria 

virens) 

SSC P P — — — — —

Mammals

American badger (Taxidea taxus) SSC P P P P P P P

Big free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops 

macrotis) 

SSC — P — P — — —

Desert bighorn sheep (Ovis 

canadensis nelsoni) 

FP — P — P — — —
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-58

Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal/ State 

Statusa

Western 

Section

Eastern 

Section: 

Non-Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Loma 

Linda 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Pass Area 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Mid-Valley 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Indio 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Coachella 

Station 

Area

Dulzura pocket mouse 

(Chaetodipus californicus 

femoralis)

SSC P P — — — — —

Los Angeles pocket mouse 

(Perognathus longimembris 

brevinasus) 

SSC P P — — — — —

Mexican long-tongued bat 

(Choeronycteris mexicana) 

SSC — P — P — — —

Northwestern San Diego pocket 

mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax)

SSC P P — P P P P

Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus) SSC P P P — — — —

Pallid San Diego pocket mouse 

(Chaetodipus fallax pallidus)

SSC P P — P P P P

Palm Springs pocket mouse 

(Perognathus longimembris 

bangsi) 

SSC — P — P P — —

Palm Springs round-tailed ground 

squirrel (Xerospermophilus 

tereticaudu chlorus) 

SSC — P — P P — —

Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis 

canadensis nelsoni pop. 2)

FE, ST/FPS — P — P — — —
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-59

Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal/ State 

Statusa

Western 

Section

Eastern 

Section: 

Non-Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Loma 

Linda 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Pass Area 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Mid-Valley 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Indio 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Coachella 

Station 

Area

Pocketed free-tailed bat 

(Nyctinomops femorosaccus) 

SSC — P — P — — —

San Bernardino kangaroo rat 

(Dipodomys merriami parvus) 

FE, SSC P P — — — — —

San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit

(Lepus californicus bennettii) 

SSC P P P P P P P

San Diego desert woodrat

(Neotoma lepida intermedia) 

SSC P P — P P P P

Southern grasshopper mouse 

(Onychomys torridus ramona) 

SSC P P — P P P P

Stephen’s kangaroo rat 

(Dipodomys stephensi) 

FE, ST P P — P — — —

Townsend’s big-eared bat 

(Corynorhinus townsendii)

SSC — P — P — — —

Western mastiff bat (Eumops 

perotis californicus) 

SSC — P — P — — —

Western red bat (Lasiurus 

blossevillii) 

SSC P P — — — — —
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-60

Common Name 

(Scientific Name)

Federal/ State 

Statusa

Western 

Section

Eastern 

Section: 

Non-Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Loma 

Linda 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Pass Area 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Mid-Valley 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Indio 

Station 

Area

Eastern 

Section: 

Coachella 

Station 

Area

Western yellow bat (Lasiurus 

xanthinus) 

SSC P P P P P P P

Notes:

P=potential to occur

a Federal

FE=Federally listed as Endangered 

FP=Federally listed as Protected

FT=Federally listed as Threatened

State 

SE=State listed as Endangered 

ST=State Candidate for listing as Threatened 

FPS=Fully Protected Species in California

SSC=Species of Special Concern in California
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-61

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

As summarized in Table 3.8-6, 66 special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur within 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area under Build Alternative Option 1. Of these 66 special-status 

wildlife species, 9 special-status wildlife species (Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, Riverside fairy 

shrimp, Desert pupfish, Least Bell’s vireo, Southwestern willow flycatcher, Western yellow-billed 

cuckoo, Peninsular bighorn sheep, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, and Stephen’s kangaroo rat) are 

federally endangered and five special-status wildlife species (Vernal pool fairy shrimp, California 

red-legged frog, Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, Desert tortoise, and Coastal California 

gnatcatcher) are federally threatened. Six special-status wildlife species (Desert pupfish, Coachella 

Valley fringe-toed lizard, Bald eagle, Least Bell’s vireo, Southwestern willow flycatcher, and Western 

yellow-billed cuckoo) are state endangered and six special-status wildlife species (Santa Ana 

sucker, Desert tortoise, Swainson’s hawk, Tricolored blackbird, Peninsular bighorn sheep, and 

Stephen’s kangaroo rat) are state threatened. 

Within the Western Section, the following endangered and threatened special-status wildlife species 

have the potential to be present: 

• Delhi Sands flower-loving fly

• Riverside fairy shrimp

• Vernal pool fairy shrimp

• Santa Ana sucker

• California red-legged frog

• Bald eagle

• Coastal California gnatcatcher

• Least Bell’s vireo

• Southwestern willow flycatcher

• Swainson’s hawk

• Tricolored blackbird

• Western yellow-billed cuckoo

• San Bernardino kangaroo rat

• Stephen’s kangaroo rat
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-62

The Western Section also crosses through designated critical habitat for Santa Ana sucker, Coastal 

California gnatcatcher, and Southwestern willow flycatcher. 

Within the Eastern Section, the endangered and threatened special-status wildlife species have the 

potential to be present within the following areas: 

• Non-Station Areas: Delhi Sands flower-loving fly, Vernal pool fairy shrimp, Desert pupfish, 

Santa Ana sucker, California red-legged frog, Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, Desert 

tortoise, Bald eagle, Coastal California gnatcatcher, Least Bell’s vireo, Southwestern willow 

flycatcher, Swainson’s hawk, Tricolored blackbird, Peninsular bighorn sheep, San 

Bernardino kangaroo rat, and Stephen’s kangaroo rat have the potential to be present. 

Designated critical habitat for the Southwestern willow flycatcher is present within the 

non-station area between the Loma Linda Station Area and Pass Area Station Area.

• Loma Linda Station Area: California red-legged frog, Coastal California gnatcatcher, and 

Swainson’s hawk have the potential to be present. No designated critical habitat for 

special-status wildlife species is located within the Loma Linda Station Area.

• Pass Area Station Area: Desert pupfish, Desert tortoise, Swainson’s hawk, Peninsular 

bighorn sheep, and Stephen’s kangaroo rat have the potential to be present. No designated 

critical habitat for special-status wildlife species is located within the Pass Area Station Area.

• Mid-Valley Station Area: Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, Desert tortoise, and 

Swainson’s hawk have the potential to be present. No designated critical habitat for 

special-status wildlife species is located within the Mid-Valley Station Area.

• Indio Station Area: Coachella Valley fringe-toed lizard, Desert tortoise, and Swainson’s 

hawk have the potential to be present. Designated critical habitat for the Coachella Valley 

milk-vetch is present within the Indio Station Area.

• Coachella Station Area: Desert tortoise and Swainson’s hawk have the potential to be 

present. No designated critical habitat for special-status wildlife species is located within the 

Coachella Station Area.

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Although Build Alternative Option 2 would not include the Coachella Station Area, which contains the 

potential for Desert tortoise and Swainson’s hawk to be present, there are other Eastern Section 

stations that also have the potential for these special-status wildlife species to be present. Therefore, 

special-status wildlife species with the potential to occur within Build Alternative Option 2 are the 

same as Build Alternative Option 1. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-63

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Although Build Alternative Option 3 would not include the Coachella Station Area, which contains the 

potential for Desert tortoise and Swainson’s hawk to be present, there are other Eastern Section 

stations that also have the potential for these special-status wildlife species to be present. Therefore, 

special-status wildlife species with the potential to occur within Build Alternative Option 3 are the 

same as Build Alternative Option 1.

Wildlife Movement Corridors 

Wildlife movement corridors are linear features connecting large patches of natural open space and 

provide for animal dispersal or migration, as well as plant dispersal. Movement is essential to wildlife 

survival, whether it is daily movements to find food, water, and shelter or seasonal migration to find 

favorable seasonal conditions and mates. Movement is also essential for gene flow, recolonizing 

unoccupied habitat, and species to shift their geographic range in response to climate change. Large 

mammals—such as mule deer, desert bighorn sheep, coyote, and mountain lion—may range widely 

across the landscape in search of food and water or following seasonal movement patterns. 

Drainage channels are often used as corridors for wildlife movement, providing both cover and 

forage. Natural and man-made barriers to wildlife movement may prevent animals from reaching 

important resources and/or limit the availability of habitats that would otherwise become occupied. 

Man-made features such as highways, fences, railroads, and canals found throughout the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area may become partial or complete barriers to movement of some 

wildlife species. Major transportation corridors in the vicinity of the Build Alternative Options include 

I-10, Highway 111, Highway 79, and the existing railroad track. The effect of highways as barriers to 

large mammal movements may be attributed to ROW fencing, traffic volume, noise, human 

presence, and possibly the speed of traffic. Additionally, surrounding land uses may reduce wildlife 

access to traditional movement corridors. Animal movements may be restricted by areas of sparse 

vegetation cover, especially in areas of human activity. Though most animals would typically move 

across the landscape using natural corridors such as washes, some individuals are also likely to 

cross open roadways and railroads, increasing the potential for vehicle/train-wildlife collisions.

Several planning efforts have been undertaken to address the effects of development on wildlife 

movement corridors and identify opportunities to preserve and restore habitat connectivity. One of 

these planning efforts, known as the South Coast Missing Linkages Project, was developed through 

a collaboration between federal, state, and local partners to identify and conserve the highest-priority 

wildlife movement linkages in the South Coast Ecoregion, which encompasses portions of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. This planning effort incorporated advanced planning techniques and 

the collaboration of experts in biology and conservation design, resulting in the development of a 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-64

comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan identified a regional network that would maintain and 

restore critical linkages between existing blocks of habitat that are either currently protected or could 

be protected in the future. Figure 3.8-2 shows where these potential linkages are located in relation 

to the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

There are no identified linkages within the Western Section of the Program Corridor under Build 

Alternative Option 1. Within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative 

Option 1, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area crosses or bisects through San Bernardino-San 

Jacinto Connection (generally in the area between the Loma Linda Station Area and Mid-Valley 

Station Area for approximately 13 miles). The San Bernardino-San Jacinto Connection was identified 

as a key wildlife movement linkage between the San Bernardino Mountains and the San Jacinto 

Mountains (Penrod et al. 2005). The linkage design of the San Bernardino-San Jacinto Connection 

has five routes to accommodate diverse species and ecosystem functions and connect large habitat 

blocks within the San Bernardino National Forest in the San Bernardino Mountains and the San 

Jacinto Mountains. Approximately 29 percent of the lands within the linkage are under some form of 

protection. Much of the unprotected lands within the linkage could be protected through the Western 

Riverside MSHCP and the Coachella Valley MSHCP, as the Western Riverside County Regional 

Conservation Authority (for the Western Riverside MSHCP) and the Coachella Valley Association of 

Governments (for the Coachella Valley MSHCP) continue to acquire lands over the life of each 

MSHCP to meet the MSHCP objectives. Although there are transportation facilities that pose 

barriers to wildlife movement in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, there are several existing 

structures that accommodate various levels of animal movement within the San Bernardino-San 

Jacinto Connection. There are several crossing structures where the San Gorgonio River flows 

under I-10, a series of undercrossings for Stubbe Wash, and a series of undercrossings to 

accommodate the Whitewater River crossing under I-10. 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Wildlife movement corridors within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build Alternative 

Option 1. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Wildlife movement corridors within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build Alternative 

Option 1. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-65

3.8.5 Environmental Consequences

Overview 

Effects as a result of implementing the Build Alternative Options can be broadly classified into 

construction and operational effects. Long-term or permanent effects and short-term or temporary 

effects related to biological resources would be anticipated as a result of constructing any of the 

Build Alternative Options. 

Most effects related to biological resources would occur during construction when sensitive plant 

communities or habitat is disturbed from clearing for construction; placement of permanent 

structures (e.g., track, stations); staging of equipment; and stockpiling of soil, ballast, or other 

construction materials. Other short-term construction-related effects on adjacent habitats and 

corresponding wildlife could be caused by noise, vibration, and air pollutions from construction 

equipment and activities. Operational effects on biological resources could result in an increased 

strike risk to wildlife from the additional rail traffic along the rail line. Additionally, construction of new 

tracks on railbeds elevated above areas crossing floodplains could create barriers to wildlife 

movement. 

No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, is used as the baseline 

for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program of rail improvements 

associated with this service-level evaluation. Because no physical changes would occur, no effects 

on biological resources are anticipated beyond those that could occur due to other approved 

projects. 

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3

Sensitive Vegetation Community Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or 

station infrastructure in the Western Section of the Program Corridor because the existing railroad 

and stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build Alternative, 

short-term/temporary effects associated with sensitive vegetation communities would be negligible 

because no additional construction activities are planned within the Western Section under Build 

Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-66

Eastern Section. As summarized in Table 3.8-2 and Table 3.8-3, there are multiple sensitive 

vegetation communities with the potential to occur within the Eastern Section of the Build Alternative 

Options. Depending on the location of the rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities, there 

is the potential for construction activities to affect these sensitive vegetation communities. Effects on 

sensitive vegetation communities may include: 

• Erosion, siltation, and runoff into natural and constructed watercourses

• Soil and water contamination from construction equipment leaks

• Construction dust affecting plants by reducing their photosynthetic capability (especially 

during flowering periods)

• Altered hydrology that could change the wetland functions of aquatic habitats

• Changes in surface water resources potentially resulting from changes in groundwater flow

• Increased risk of fire (e.g., construction equipment use and smoking by construction workers) 

in adjacent open spaces

• Habitat degradation through fragmentation and changes in habitat heterogeneity

• Introduction of noxious plant species (non-native, detrimental species) resulting from ground 

disturbance

If a passenger rail system is constructed and operated within the existing rail ROW, no ROW 

acquisitions would be required. However, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area allows for 

infrastructure and station facilities to be located beyond the limits of the existing rail ROW, which 

would require acquisition of land that may contain sensitive vegetation communities. The properties 

that would be affected by the future construction and operation of a passenger rail system, and to 

what extent, cannot be determined at this time. Therefore, this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation 

does not identify the specific effects on sensitive vegetation communities at specific sites because 

the sites where infrastructure and station improvements would be constructed have not yet been 

selected.

The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would evaluate site-specific impacts associated with sensitive 

vegetation communities. When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 

1 could have a substantial effect on sensitive vegetation communities within the Eastern Section 

of the Program Corridor. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative 

Option 2 would have slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station 

options. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar and considered substantial when 

compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build 

Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-67

shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, 

the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and would be considered 

substantial when compared with the No Build Alternative.

OPERATION

Western Section. Under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, passenger train frequencies proposed 

as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two daily round-trip intercity diesel-powered 

passenger trains operating the entire length of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and 

Coachella. During operation, existing maintenance activities that would occur within the ROW along 

the Western Section route would be in areas where the natural ecosystem has already been 

disturbed and the Program Corridor is heavily trafficked. Effects associated with the Western Section 

of Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 on sensitive vegetation communities would be negligible 

when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Eastern Section. Operational effects are anticipated to be limited to maintenance of culverts, 

bridges, embankments, and station areas under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. Operation and 

maintenance activities are unlikely to have effects on sensitive vegetation communities because 

these activities would occur where the vegetation communities have already been removed or 

disturbed during construction activities. 

Maintenance of rail infrastructure provides additional opportunities for establishment and/or spread 

of invasive species. Soil erosion, sedimentation, and oil and lubricant runoff from rail infrastructure 

and station facilities could result in these substances entering adjacent drainage channels and 

exposing vegetation communities to polluted runoff and chemicals. However, operational 

maintenance requires vegetation and pest control through a variety of methods, including the 

application of herbicides and pesticides. Pesticides and herbicides would be applied by certified 

pesticide applicators in accordance with all requirements of the California Department of Pesticide 

Regulation and County Agricultural Commissioners. Effects associated with the Eastern Section of 

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 on sensitive vegetation communities would be moderate when 

compared with the No Build Alternative.

Special-Status Plant Species Effects

CONSTRUCTION

The Western Section of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 has areas 

where special-status plant species have the potential to occur. However, the Western Section of the 

Program Corridor would utilize existing rail infrastructure, and no additional track improvements, 

station improvements or new stations would be required to accommodate the proposed service. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-68

When compared with the No Build Alternative, short-term/temporary effects on special-status plant 

species would be considered negligible because no additional construction activities would occur 

within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. The potential for special-status plant species to occur in a habitat is linked to the 

physical characteristics of the landscape, including elevation, soils, and microhabitat. As 

summarized in Table 3.8-7, there are multiple special-status plant species with the potential to occur 

within the Eastern Section of the Build Alternative Options. These special-status plant species each 

have a specific set of habitat requirements. Depending on where the rail infrastructure improvements 

and station facilities are located, there is the potential for construction activities to affect these 

special-status wildlife species. Table 3.8-7 provides the number of special-status plant species with 

potential to occur within the Eastern Section. 

Table 3.8-7. Number of Special-Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur within the 

Eastern Section 

Non-Station 

Area

Loma Linda 

Station Area

Pass Area 

Station Area

Mid-Valley 

Station Area

Indio Station 

Area

Coachella 

Station Area

18 3 8 8 3 2

Effects on special-status plant species may result from the removal of vegetation for the placement 

of new permanent rail infrastructure or station facilities within the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor. Additional construction effects may result from construction vehicles and personnel 

disturbing vegetation (i.e., trampling, covering, and crushing individual plants, populations, or 

suitable potential habitat for special-status plant species). Other construction effects include clearing, 

grubbing, covering, undercutting and damaging roots, or unearthing of individual plants. Dust and 

airborne soil, which may settle on plants, particularly herbs, may inhibit their ability to 

photosynthesize or reproduce through pollination. Soil compaction and the placement of fill may 

directly affect special-status plant species by causing decreased fitness or death by root compaction, 

decreased germination from the seed bank, and/or the plants being covered with soil. Chemical 

spills have the potential to contaminate the soil and groundwater, resulting in mortality, habitat 

degradation, or reduced reproductive success of special-status plant species.

If a passenger rail system is constructed and operated within the existing rail ROW, no ROW 

acquisitions would be required. However, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area allows for 

infrastructure and station facilities to be located beyond the limits of the existing rail ROW, which 

would require acquisition of land that may contain suitable habitat that would support special-status 

plant species. The properties that would be affected by the future construction and operation of a 

passenger rail system, and to what extent, cannot be determined at this time. Therefore, this Tier 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-69

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation does not identify the specific effects on special-status plant species at 

specific sites because the sites where infrastructure and station improvements would be constructed 

have not yet been selected.

The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would evaluate site-specific impacts associated with special-status 

plant species. When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 could have a 

substantial effect on special-status plant species within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. 

When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have slightly 

reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the 

magnitude of effects would be similar and considered substantial when compared with the No Build 

Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may 

have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, 

reduced station options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of 

effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and would be considered substantial when 

compared with the No Build Alternative.

OPERATION

Western Section. Under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, passenger train frequencies proposed 

as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two daily round-trip intercity diesel-powered 

passenger trains operating the entire length of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and 

Coachella. During operation, existing maintenance activities that would occur within the ROW along 

the Western Section route would be in areas where the natural ecosystem has already been 

disturbed and the Program Corridor is heavily trafficked. Effects associated with the Western Section 

of Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 on special-status plant species would be negligible when 

compared with the No Build Alternative.

Eastern Section. Operational effects are anticipated to be limited to maintenance of culverts, 

bridges, embankments, and station areas under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. Operation and 

maintenance activities are unlikely to have effects on special-status plant species because these 

activities would occur where the vegetation communities (i.e., areas with potential habitat for 

special-status plant species) has already been removed or disturbed during construction activities. 

Maintenance of rail infrastructure provides additional opportunities for establishment and/or spread 

of invasive species. Soil erosion, sedimentation, oil and lubricant runoff from rail infrastructure and 

station facilities could result in these substances entering adjacent drainage channels and exposing 

special-status plant species to chemicals. However, operational maintenance requires vegetation 

and pest control through a variety of methods, including the application of herbicides and pesticides. 

Pesticides and herbicides would be applied by certified pesticide applicators in accordance with all 

requirements of the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and County Agricultural 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-70

Commissioners. Effects associated with the Eastern Section of Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 

3 on special-status plant species would be moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Special-Status Wildlife Species Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. The Western Section of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative 

Options 1, 2, and 3 has areas where special-status wildlife species have the potential to occur. 

However, the Western Section of the Program Corridor would utilize existing rail infrastructure, and 

no additional track improvements, station improvements, or new stations would be required to 

accommodate the proposed service. When compared with the No Build Alternative, 

short-term/temporary effects on special-status wildlife species would be considered negligible 

because no additional construction activities would occur within the Western Section under Build 

Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. 

Eastern Section. Construction activities associated with development of a passenger rail system, 

including vegetation removal; ground clearing; placement of fill material for track; new, replaced, or 

extended culverts and bridges; and station facility development in the Eastern Section could 

potentially result in disturbance to, and mortality of, special-status wildlife species. Staging areas, 

access roads, and development of other facilities needed to support construction activities could 

result in permanent loss of habitat or reduction of habitat values. Disturbance during construction, 

and later reclamation of such areas, would result in a temporary loss of habitat; although in desert 

systems, restoration of disturbed areas to previous conditions may take decades. 

As summarized in Table 3.8-8, there are multiple special-status wildlife species with the potential to 

occur within the Eastern Section of the Build Alternative Options. These special-status wildlife 

species include invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals, each with a specific 

set of habitat requirements. Depending on the location of the rail infrastructure improvements and 

station facilities, there is the potential for construction activities to affect these special-status wildlife 

species. Table 3.8-8 provides the number of special-status wildlife species for the Eastern Section. 

Table 3.8-8. Number of Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur within the 

Eastern Section 

Special-Status 

Wildlife Species

Non-Station 

Area

Loma 

Linda 

Station 

Area

Pass Area 

Station 

Area

Mid-Valley 

Station 

Area

Indio 

Station 

Area

Coachella 

Station 

Area

Invertebrates 2 0 0 0 0 0
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-71

Special-Status 

Wildlife Species

Non-Station 

Area

Loma 

Linda 

Station 

Area

Pass Area 

Station 

Area

Mid-Valley 

Station 

Area

Indio 

Station 

Area

Coachella 

Station 

Area

Fish 4 0 2 0 0 0

Amphibians 2 2 0 0 0 0

Reptiles 11 6 6 4 3 1

Birds 18 9 5 5 5 5

Mammals 22 4 17 9 7 7

Total 59 21 30 18 15 13

For special-status aquatic species (invertebrates, fish, amphibians), construction activities may result 

in aquatic habitats being disturbed, penetrated, filled, polluted, or otherwise destroyed or degraded 

by construction equipment, siltation, and sedimentation. Construction equipment traveling off road in 

suitable aquatic habitats could cause erosion, soil compaction, increased siltation, destruction of 

native vegetation, and alteration of hydrology, which could negatively affect special-status aquatic 

species through loss of the acreage and quality of suitable habitat. 

Construction effects on special-status aquatic species may also consist of physical disturbance, 

temporary interruptions to fish passage, sedimentation, turbidity, altered water temperatures, oxygen 

depletion, and contaminants. 

Construction of bridges would likely require work below the ordinary high-water mark of water bodies 

that support, or have the potential to support, special-status aquatic species. Dewatering during 

construction, if needed, may result in the stranding and mortality of special-status aquatic species. 

Pile driving in areas when surface water is present could lead to behavioral changes, injury, and 

possible mortality as a result of vibrations. Changes in sedimentation and nutrient loading caused by 

soil eroding into occupied habitat related to construction disturbance of channel sediments and 

adjacent soils may result in habitat degradation or reduced reproductive success. Chemical spills 

from construction equipment (e.g., fuel, transmission fluid, lubricating oil, and motor oil) could 

contaminate the water column, resulting in habitat degradation or reduced reproductive success of 

special-status aquatic species in downstream habitats. 

For special-status terrestrial species (invertebrates, reptiles, birds, mammals), construction activities 

may result in effects on suitable habitat that could cause mortality, injury, or harassment of adults or 

juveniles. Construction activities may also result in the temporary destruction, degradation, or 

pollution of habitat and the temporary loss of nesting areas, burrows, or other refugia. Construction 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-72

effects also include the permanent conversion of occupied habitat to rail infrastructure improvement 

or station facility use and fragmentation of habitats and landscapes resulting from construction of the 

Program. Mortality, injury, or harassment may also occur if these special-status terrestrial species 

become trapped in open, excavated areas or are stuck by construction vehicles driving on and off 

roads. Vibration from construction equipment could collapse inhabited burrows located within or in 

the vicinity of the construction site. 

Construction activities requiring soil compaction and the placement of fill in suitable habitat may also 

affect special-status terrestrial species by prohibiting burrowing or changing the frequency of 

vegetative cover. Construction activities could result in temporary shifts in foraging patterns or 

territories and the use of daily or seasonal refugia. 

Effects during the construction period may include the permanent or temporary displacement of 

special-status terrestrial species to avoid disturbance (e.g., noise, vibration, visual stimuli); such 

displacement could also result from fragmentation of the landscape caused by the construction of 

Program features (e.g., security fences, elevated structures, railbeds, and associated facilities). 

Construction effects on special-status terrestrial species may occur either through direct mortality or 

habitat modifications if there would be a permanent reduction in the acreage and quality of suitable 

habitat for these species. 

For special-status avian and bat species, construction activities could result in the removal or 

disturbance of potential nesting habitat, mortality or injury; the permanent conversion of occupied 

nesting and foraging habitat to rail or station infrastructure; and fragmentation of habitats and 

landscapes resulting from construction of the Program. If construction occurs during the breeding 

season for birds (generally February 1 to September 1), active nests could also be disturbed, 

potentially causing the loss of eggs or developing young (i.e., nest abandonment during the 

incubation, nestling, or fledgling stages), and noise could cause birds to avoid adjacent suitable 

nesting habitat. 

If construction occurs during the bat maternity season (generally April 15 to August 31), bat roosts 

could also be disturbed, which could disrupt bat breeding or roosting activity. In addition, increased 

lighting after sunset could disrupt foraging activities by special-status bat species, causing them to 

leave an area that has prolonged disturbance. Nocturnal insects are drawn by lighting, which in turn 

attracts foraging bats. Special-status bats that are attracted to lighted construction areas could have 

higher potential mortality through disorientation and effects with construction equipment.

If a passenger rail system is constructed and operated within the existing rail ROW, no ROW 

acquisitions would be required. However, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area allows for 

infrastructure and station facilities to be located beyond the limits of the existing rail ROW, which 

would require acquisition of land that may contain suitable habitat that would support special-status 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-73

wildlife species. The properties that would be affected by the future construction and operation of a 

passenger rail system, and to what extent, cannot be determined at this time. Therefore, this Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation does not identify the specific effects on special-status wildlife species 

at specific sites because the sites where infrastructure and station improvements would be 

constructed have not yet been selected.

The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would evaluate site-specific impacts associated with special-status 

wildlife species. When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 could have 

a substantial effect on special-status wildlife species within the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have 

slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the 

magnitude of effects would be similar and considered substantial when compared with the No Build 

Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may 

have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, 

reduced station options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of 

effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and would be considered substantial when 

compared with the No Build Alternative.

OPERATION

Western Section. Under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, passenger train frequencies proposed 

as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two daily round-trip intercity diesel-powered 

passenger trains operating the entire length of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and 

Coachella. During operation, existing maintenance activities that would occur within the ROW along 

the Western Section route would be in areas where the natural ecosystem has already been 

disturbed and the Program Corridor is heavily trafficked. Effects associated with the Western Section 

of Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 on special-status wildlife species would be negligible when 

compared with the No Build Alternative.

Eastern Section. Operational effects are anticipated to be limited to maintenance of culverts, 

bridges, embankments, and station areas under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. The number of 

structural features, such as culverts, bridges, and switchyards, may influence the frequency and 

nature of maintenance activities, the removal of vegetation from the ROW, and disturbances due to 

the presence of maintenance crews and equipment. Soil erosion, sedimentation, oil and lubricant 

runoff from rail infrastructure and station facilities, and the potential for spills during maintenance 

activities, could result in these substances entering adjacent drainage channels and exposing wildlife 

to toxic chemicals. 

Efforts during the design phase to avoid sensitive vegetation communities or critical habitat would 

help to minimize potential operational effects on special-status wildlife species. In addition, 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-74

maintenance BMPs would be developed and implemented for future station areas to ensure that 

maintenance materials such as oils, lubricants, and fuels are handled in an appropriate regulatory 

manner and kept away from sensitive areas to minimize effects on special-status wildlife species. 

Under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the 

Program would consist of the addition of two daily round-trip intercity diesel-powered passenger 

trains operating the entire length of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and Coachella (Build 

Alternative Option 1), and Los Angeles to Indio (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3), respectively. The 

Program Corridor within the Eastern Section generally parallels existing transportation infrastructure, 

including I-10 and the UP railroad. Freight and passenger trains currently travelling on the existing 

rail line make approximately 43 trips per day through the Eastern Section between Coachella and 

Colton with existing train traffic ranging between 30 and 70 miles per hour. Wildlife that may be 

present in the vicinity of the existing highway and rail lines have been exposed, to some extent, to 

disturbances associated with railroad operations and highway traffic. 

While habituation to transportation noise, such as at airports, highways, and urban centers, is 

commonly seen in some species and individuals of wildlife, the effect of train noise and associated 

vibration on wildlife is unclear. The passage of a train may not cause habitat degradation; however, 

wildlife, especially larger mammals such as bighorn sheep, may have behavioral and physiological 

responses to this type of disturbance. The magnitude of these effects on wildlife is not always clear 

and reflects individual animals’ experiences and habituation to similar events. Therefore, the 

diversity of effects that noise may have among and between wildlife species complicates the 

interpretation of the effect of noise on wildlife as a whole. Some wildlife species that live near active 

railroad tracks may become accustomed to noise and vibration from trains. Migratory species and 

species that do not consistently inhabit the rail corridor may be more affected by trains. 

Operational/long-term effects associated with the Eastern Section of Build Alternative Options 

1, 2, and 3 would have a noticeable and inevitable effect on wildlife; however, the effects could be 

mitigated by the use of mitigation strategies as described in Section 3.8.8. In addition, regulatory 

agencies like USFWS and CDFW have rules and guidance that are applied when such resources 

may be impacted during operation. It is anticipated that regulatory compliance would require 

avoidance, minimization, or compensatory mitigation that reduce effects on special-status wildlife 

species. Therefore, operational effects associated with the Eastern Section of Build Alternative 

Option 1 on special-status wildlife species would be moderate when compared with the No Build 

Alternative.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-75

When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, implementation of Build Alternative Option 2 could 

result in fewer effects on special-status wildlife species during operation. This would be attributed 

to a smaller study area for Build Alternative Option 2. When compared with Build Alternative 

Option 2, implementation of Build Alternative Option 3 could result in a similar effect on 

special-status wildlife species during operation. 

Overall, as compared with Build Alternative Option 1, implementation of Build Alternative Option 

2 could potentially have a lesser effect on special-status wildlife species because Build Alternative 

Option 2 contains fewer locations of sensitive vegetation communities that could be impacted. 

However, while the number of special-status wildlife species that could be impacted differs between 

Build Alternative Option 2 and Build Alternative Option 1, the magnitude of effects would be similar 

and would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared 

with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects 

due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and 

reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build 

Alternative Option 3 and would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build 

Alternative.

Wildlife Movement Corridors Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. The Western Section of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Options 

1, 2, and 3 would utilize existing rail infrastructure, and no additional track improvements, station 

improvements or new stations would be required to accommodate the proposed service. When 

compared with the No Build Alternative, short-term/temporary effects on wildlife movement corridors 

would be considered negligible because no additional construction activities would occur within the 

Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. 

Eastern Section. Construction of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities within the 

Eastern Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 has the potential to result in 

impediments to the movement of wildlife across the landscape. The existing rail alignment crosses 

drainages, roadways, and culverts that serve as crossing structures for wildlife movement corridors. 

Construction activities often deter wildlife from entering construction work areas, and work occurring 

near existing crossing structures—such as underpasses, overpasses, or culverts—could deter use 

of those structures by wildlife. 

The presence of construction personnel and the operation of construction equipment would result in 

increased noise, dust, vehicle traffic, and human activity, which could temporarily deter wildlife from 

using movement corridors that may be located within a specific site. Additionally, the removal of 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-76

vegetation in temporary work areas near existing and proposed undercrossings would have 

temporary effects on wildlife movement for some species by leaving them exposed as they approach 

the underpasses and potentially deterring them from using the crossings until the vegetation has 

regenerated. However, effects on wildlife movement corridors would be dependent on the placement 

of new rail infrastructure (tracks, ballast, embankments, stations, etc.) in relation to existing wildlife 

movement corridors. 

Effects associated with the Eastern Section portion of Build Alternative Option 1 on wildlife 

movement corridors would be substantial when compared with the No Build Alternative. When 

compared with Build Alternative Option 1, implementation of Build Alternative Option 2 could result in 

fewer wildlife movement corridors that could be affected during construction. This would be 

attributed to a smaller study area for Build Alternative Option 2. When compared with Build 

Alternative Option 2, implementation of Build Alternative Option 3 could result in a similar effect on 

wildlife movement corridors during construction.

Overall, as compared with Build Alternative Option 1, implementation of Build Alternative Options 

2 and 3 could potentially have a lesser effect on wildlife movement corridors because the study area 

for Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 contains fewer locations where wildlife movement corridors may 

be present. However, while the number of wildlife movement corridors may differ between Build 

Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, the magnitude of effects would be similar and considered substantial 

when compared with the No Build Alternative. Site-specific effects would be identified and evaluated 

during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis once details for the needed rail infrastructure improvements 

and station facilities are known. 

OPERATION

Western Section. Under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, passenger train frequencies proposed 

as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two daily round-trip intercity diesel-powered 

passenger trains operating the entire length of the Program Corridor. During operation, existing 

maintenance activities that would occur within the ROW along the Western Section would be in 

areas where the natural ecosystem has already been disturbed and the Program Corridor is heavily 

trafficked. Effects associated with the Western Section of Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 on 

wildlife movement corridors would be negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Eastern Section. Operation of any of the Build Alternative Options would include the addition of two 

daily round-trip intercity passenger trains and operation of various station facilities within the Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor. During operation, existing maintenance activities that would occur 

within the ROW along the Eastern Section would be in areas where the natural ecosystem has 

already been disturbed. Wildlife present in the vicinity of these existing railroad lines within the 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-77

Eastern Section of the Program Corridor have been exposed, to some degree, to disturbances 

associated with railroad operations and vehicular traffic on the interstates and highways.

Operation of the new stations in the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor would result in 

increased human activity, including new lighting and noise sources, which may impact the use of 

adjacent wildlife movement corridors. Though wildlife in the Program Corridor have been habituated 

to existing noise and vibrations from existing rail and roadway traffic in the Program Corridor, the 

operation of permanent and stationary noise and lighting sources from stations may interfere with 

wildlife movement between habitats and result in changes in wildlife behavioral and physiological 

responses. However, effects on wildlife movement corridors would be dependent on the placement 

of new rail infrastructure (tracks, ballast, embankments, stations, etc.) in relation to existing wildlife 

movement corridors. 

Effects associated with the Eastern Section portion of Build Alternative Option 1 on wildlife 

movement corridors would be moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. When 

compared with Build Alternative Option 1, implementation of Build Alternative Option 2 could result in 

fewer wildlife movement corridors that could be affected during operation. This would be attributed to 

a smaller study area for Build Alternative Option 2. When compared with Build Alternative Option 

2, implementation of Build Alternative Option 3 could result in a similar effect on wildlife movement 

corridors during operation. 

Overall, as compared with Build Alternative Option 1, implementation of Build Alternative Options 

2 and 3 could potentially have a lesser effect on wildlife movement corridors because the study area 

for Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 contains fewer locations where wildlife movement corridors may 

be present. However, while the number of wildlife movement corridors may differ between Build 

Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, the magnitude of effects would be similar and considered moderate 

when compared with the No Build Alternative. Site-specific effects would be identified and evaluated 

during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis once details for the needed rail infrastructure improvements 

and station facilities are known. 

3.8.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects 

Table 3.8-9 summarizes the qualitative assessment of potential effects (negligible, moderate, or 

substantial) under NEPA for each of the Build Alternative Options. This service-level evaluation uses 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area to determine the types of resources that may be affected 

and, more importantly, the relative magnitude of resources that may be affected. For habitat 

resources, the level of intensity is based on volume of habitat potentially affected, and most habitat 

effects can be mitigated through habitat replacement or habitat mitigation banks. Specific mitigation 

measures to avoid and minimize effects would be analyzed at the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-78

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-79

Table 3.8-9. NEPA Summary of Effects on Biological Resources 

Alternative Options

Sensitive 

Vegetation 

Communities 

(number of 

communities)

Critical 

Habitat 

(number of 

species)

Special-Status 

Plants 

(number of 

species)

Special-Status 

Wildlife 

(number of 

species)

Potential Intensity of 

Effect: 

Western Section

Potential Intensity of 

Effect: 

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea 0 0 0 0 Construction: None 

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: None

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

5 6 22 66 Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: 

Substantial 

Operation: Moderate

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

5 6 22 66 Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: 

Substantial

Operation: Moderate 

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with Limited 

Third Track) 

5 6 22 66 Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: 

Substantial

Operation: Moderate 

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study 

Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on

the Tier 2/Project-level analysis.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-80

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-81

3.8.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts

Based on the information provided in Sections 3.8.4 and 3.8.5, and considering the CEQA 

Guidelines Appendix G Checklist questions for biological resources, the Build Alternative Options

are considered to have a potentially significant impact on biological resources when reviewed on a 

Program-wide basis. 

Placing the infrastructure improvements and new stations largely within or along the existing ROW 

reduces the potential for significant impacts to these resources. However, because the precise sites

for rail infrastructure and station facilities have not been selected, some biological resources may be 

significantly impacted. At the programmatic analysis level, it is not possible to precisely know the 

location, extent, and characteristics of impacts on these resources. Proposed programmatic 

mitigation strategies discussed in Section 3.8.8 will be applied to reduce these impacts on biological 

resources. 

Table 3.8-10 summarizes CEQA significance conclusions for the Build Alternative Options; the 

proposed programmatic mitigation strategies that could be applied to minimize, reduce, or avoid the 

potential impacts; and the significance determination after mitigation strategies are applied. The 

identification and implementation of additional site-specific mitigation measures necessary for 

Project implementation would occur as part of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-82

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-83

Table 3.8-10. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Biological Resources 

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, including designated critical habitat, on 

any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by USFWS or 

CDFW?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 because 

no physical improvements are proposed or required within the Western Section.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts on special-status plant 

and wildlife species depend on the location of infrastructure improvements and 

station locations, which are currently unknown. Special-status plants and wildlife 

species and habitat that supports these species, including critical habitat, occur in 

within Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. Impacts on special-status plant and wildlife 

species may result from the removal of vegetation or the placement of new 

permanent infrastructure improvements during construction activities and could 

result in a potentially significant impact. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would 

identify and evaluate construction impacts on special-status plant and wildlife 

species.

BIO-1

BIO-2 

BIO-3 

BIO-4 

BIO-5 

LU-3 

Potentially Significant. BIO-1 through BIO-5 and 

LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts on special-status plant and wildlife species 

by identifying resources in the Tier 2/Project-level

Study Area and measures to minimize impacts on 

habitat through worker environmental awareness 

program training, limiting disturbance areas, 

controlling non-native and invasive species, and 

replacing or compensating for habitat loss.

However, impacts may remain significant and 

unavoidable as further analysis may determine that 

there is a conflict that cannot be mitigated. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-84

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land 

use that would result in habitat modifications. No operational impacts are anticipated 

at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 

3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts on special-status plant 

and wildlife species depend on the location of infrastructure improvements and 

station locations, which are currently unknown. Special-status plants and wildlife 

species and habitat that supports these species, including critical habitat, occur 

within Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. Impacts on special-status plant and 

wildlife species may result from operation of new stations and could result in a 

potentially significant impact. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and 

evaluate operational impacts on special-status plant and wildlife species.

BIO-1

BIO-2 

BIO-3 

BIO-4 

LU-3 

Potentially Significant. BIO-1 through BIO-4 and 

LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts on special-status plant and wildlife species 

by identifying resources in the Tier 2/Project-level

Study Area and measures to minimize impacts on 

habitat through limiting disturbance areas, 

controlling non-native and invasive species, and 

replacing or compensating for habitat loss. 

However, impacts may remain significant and 

unavoidable as further analysis may determine that 

there is a conflict that cannot be mitigated.

Would the Program have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or 

regional plans, policies, or regulations by USFWS or CDFW?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 because 

no physical improvements are proposed or required within the Western Section.

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-85

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts on riparian habitats 

under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 depend on the location of infrastructure 

improvements and station locations, which are currently unknown. Impacts on 

riparian habitats or sensitive natural communities may result from the removal of 

vegetation or the placement of new permanent infrastructure improvements during 

construction and could result in a potentially significant impact. The Tier 

2/Project-level analysis would identify and evaluate any impacts on sensitive natural 

communities during construction. 

BIO-1

BIO-2 

BIO-3 

BIO-4 

BIO-5 

LU-3 

Potentially Significant. BIO-1 through BIO-5 and 

LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts on special-status plant and wildlife species 

by identifying resources in the Tier 2/Project-level

Study Area and measures to minimize impacts on 

habitat through worker environmental awareness 

program training, limiting disturbance areas, 

controlling non-native and invasive species, and 

replacing or compensating for habitat loss. 

However, impacts may remain significant and 

unavoidable as further analysis may determine that 

there is a conflict that cannot be mitigated.

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land 

use that would result in habitat modifications. No operational impacts are anticipated 

at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 

3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-86

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts on riparian habitat or 

sensitive natural communities depend on the location of infrastructure improvements 

and station locations, which are currently unknown. Riparian habitat or sensitive 

natural communities occur within Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. Impacts on 

riparian habitat or sensitive natural communities may result from operation of new 

stations and could result in a potentially significant impact. The Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis would identify and evaluate operational impacts on riparian habitat or 

sensitive natural communities. 

BIO-1

BIO-2 

BIO-3 

BIO-4 

LU-3 

Potentially Significant. BIO-1 through BIO-4 and 

LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts on riparian habitat or sensitive natural 

communities by identifying resources in the Tier 

2/Project-level Study Area and measures to 

minimize impacts on habitat through limiting 

disturbance areas, controlling non-native and 

invasive species, and replacing or compensating 

for habitat loss. However, impacts may remain 

significant and unavoidable as further analysis may 

determine that there is a conflict that cannot be 

mitigated.

Would the Program interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established 

native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts under are anticipated at the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 

because no physical improvements are proposed or required within the Western 

Section.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts on wildlife movement 

corridors depend on the location of infrastructure improvements and station 

locations, which are currently unknown. Construction activities that may occur in the 

Eastern Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 may deter wildlife from 

entering construction work areas and work occurring near existing crossing 

structures, which would deter use of these structures. The Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis would identify and evaluate impacts on wildlife movement corridors.

BIO-1 Less Than Significant. BIO-1 would minimize, 

reduce, or avoid potential impacts on wildlife 

corridors through design and further analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-87

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land 

use that would result in changes to established wildlife corridor or impede the use of 

wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, no operational impacts under Build Alternative 

Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts on wildlife movement 

corridors depend on the location of infrastructure improvements and station 

locations, which are currently unknown. Operational activities in the Eastern Section 

under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 may deter wildlife from using existing wildlife 

movement corridor structures or impeding wildlife movement through an increase in 

human activity within the area. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and 

evaluate impacts on wildlife movement corridors.

BIO-1 Potentially Significant. BIO-1 would identify 

would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts 

from conflicts with wildlife movement corridors 

through design and further analysis. However, 

impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as 

further analysis may determine that there is a

conflict that cannot be mitigated between land 

uses. 

Would the Program conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree-preservation policy or 

ordinance?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 because 

no physical improvements are proposed or required within the Western Section. 

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-88

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts associated with 

conflict with local policies protecting biological resources depend on the location of 

infrastructure improvements, which is currently unknown. The Eastern Section under 

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 crosses multiple local jurisdictions that may 

have biological resources policies that may conflict with construction activities. The 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and evaluate impacts related to conflicts 

with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources.

BIO-1 

LU-3 

Potentially Significant. BIO-1 and LU-3 would 

identify would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts from conflicts with plans and policies 

through design and further analysis. However, 

impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as 

further analysis may determine that there is a 

conflict that cannot be mitigated between land 

uses. 

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land 

use that would result in conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological 

resources. Therefore, no operational impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts associated with 

conflicts associated with local biological resource policies depend on the location of 

infrastructure improvements, which are currently unknown. The Eastern Section 

under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 crosses multiple local jurisdictions that 

may have biological resources policies that may conflict with operational activities. 

The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and evaluate impacts related to 

conflict with the provisions of locally adopted biological resource policies. 

BIO-1

LU-3 

Potentially Significant. BIO-1 and LU-3 would 

identify would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts from conflicts with plans and policies 

through design and further analysis. However, 

impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as 

further analysis may determine that there is a 

conflict that cannot be mitigated between land

uses. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-89

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, NCCP, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation 

plan?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 because 

no physical improvements are proposed or required within the Western Section.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts associated with 

conflict with an HCP or NCCP depend on the location of infrastructure 

improvements, which are currently unknown. The Eastern Section under Build 

Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 is located within the Coachella Valley MSHCP and 

Western Riverside County MSHCP. Construction activities may conflict with the 

provisions of a habitat conservation plan. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would 

identify and evaluate impacts related to conflict with the provisions of an adopted 

HCP or NCCP.

BIO-1

LU-3 

Potentially Significant. BIO-1 and LU-3 would 

identify would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts from conflicts with plans and policies 

through design and further analysis. However, 

impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as 

further analysis may determine that there is a 

conflict that cannot be mitigated between land

uses. 

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land 

use that would result in conflicts with adopted habitat conservation plans. Therefore, 

no operational impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation 

level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-90

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. The Eastern Section under Build 

Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 is located within the Coachella Valley MSHCP and 

Western Riverside County MSHCP. Operational activities may conflict with the 

provisions of a habitat conservation plan; therefore, there is potential for operational 

impacts. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and evaluate impacts 

related to conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP or NCCP.

BIO-1

LU-3 

Potentially Significant. BIO-1 and LU-3 would 

identify would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts from conflicts with plans and policies 

through design and further analysis. However, 

impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as 

further analysis may determine that there is a 

conflict that cannot be mitigated between land

uses. 

Notes:

CDFW=California Department of Fish and Wildlife; EIR=environmental impact report; EIS=environmental impact statement; HCP=Housing and Urban 

Development Consolidated Plan; MSHCP=Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan; NCCP=Natural Communities Conservation Planning; USFWS=United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-91

3.8.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies

Identified below are proposed programmatic mitigation strategies for further consideration in the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified 

and discussed during Tier 2/Project-level analysis after design details are known and specific 

impacts are identified. Examples of programmatic mitigation strategies for biological resources 

include avoiding effects and impacts, when possible, and minimizing effects and impacts where 

complete avoidance is not feasible, particularly on protected and sensitive species and their 

associated habitats, and wildlife movement corridors and linkages. Additionally, mitigation strategies 

for unavoidable effects and impacts on biological resources could include in-lieu fees and on- or 

off-site mitigation, such as habitat or vegetation restoration or payment into a conservation bank. 

Coordination with USFWS and CDFW would occur to develop Tier 2/Project-level mitigation 

measures during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis after design details are known. Proposed 

programmatic mitigation strategies, include, but are not limited to, the following:

Mitigation Strategy BIO-1: During the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a preliminary biological resource 

screening shall be performed as part of the environmental review process to determine whether the 

specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed has any potential to impact biological resources. 

If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed has no potential to impact biological 

resources, no further action will be required. If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility 

proposed has the potential to impact biological resources, a qualified biologist shall conduct a 

biological resources assessment report to document the existing biological resources within the Tier 

2/Project-level Study Area. The report shall include, but not be limited to, analysis and 

recommendations on the following topics: 

• Special-status species

• Nesting birds

• Wildlife movement

• Sensitive plant communities and critical habitat

• Jurisdictional waters

• Applicable habitat conservation plans

• Other biological resources identified as sensitive by local, state and/or federal agencies

Pending the results of the biological resources assessment, design alterations; further technical 

studies (e.g., protocol surveys); and/or consultations with the United States Fish and Wildlife 

Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and other local, state, and federal agencies may 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-92

be required. If the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed cannot be designed without 

complete avoidance, the lead agency shall coordinate with the appropriate resource agency to 

obtain regulatory permits and implement Project-specific mitigation prior to any construction 

activities. 

Mitigation Strategy BIO-2: If completion of the Project-specific biological resources assessment 

determines that special-status plant species have potential to occur on site, surveys for 

special-status plants shall be completed prior to any vegetation removal, grubbing, or other 

construction activity of each project (including staging and mobilization). The surveys shall be 

floristic in nature and shall be seasonally timed to coincide with the target species identified in the 

Project-specific biological resources assessment. All plant surveys shall be conducted by a qualified 

biologist approved by the implementing agency no more than 2 years prior to Project 

implementation. All special-status plant species identified on site shall be mapped onto a 

site-specific aerial photograph or topographic map. Surveys shall be conducted in accordance with 

the most current protocols established by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or the 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service. A report of the survey results shall be submitted to the 

implementing agency for review. If special-status plant species are identified, Mitigation Strategy 

BIO-3 shall apply.

Mitigation Strategy BIO-3: If federally or state-listed and/or California Rare Plant Rank 1 and 2 

species are found during special-status plant surveys (pursuant to Mitigation Strategy BIO-1), the 

specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed shall be redesigned to avoid impacting these 

plant species where feasible based on coordination with the local jurisdiction and applicable 

resource agencies. If California Rare Plant Rank 3 and 4 species are found, the biologist shall 

evaluate to determine if they meet criteria to be considered special status. If so, the same process 

as identified for California Rare Plant Rank 1 and 2 species shall apply. If special-status plants 

species cannot be avoided and would be impacted by the specific rail infrastructure or station facility 

proposed, all impacts shall be mitigated for each species as a component of habitat restoration. A 

restoration plan shall be prepared and submitted to the lead agency and/or the local jurisdiction 

overseeing the Project for approval. The restoration plan shall include, at a minimum, the following 

components: 

• Description of the Project/impact site (i.e., location, responsible parties, areas to be impacted 

by habitat type)

• Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project (type(s) and area(s) of habitat to be 

established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and values of habitat 

type(s) to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-93

• Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size, ownership 

status, existing functions and values)

• Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for expecting 

implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation, planting plan)

• Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal as appropriate 

(activities, responsible parties, schedule)

• Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including performance standards, target 

functions and values, target acreages to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or 

preserved, annual monitoring reports

• Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives (said criteria to include 

numeric criteria to be selected based on the scale of the restoration effort and the restoration 

technique used) 

• An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address any shortcomings in 

meeting success criteria

• Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency confirmation 

• Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for contingency 

compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism)

Mitigation Strategy BIO-4: Specific habitat assessment and survey protocol surveys are 

established for several federally and/or state endangered or threatened species. If the results of the 

biological resources assessment determine that suitable habitat may be present for any such 

species, protocol habitat assessments/surveys shall be completed in accordance with the California 

Department of Fish and Wildlife and/or United States Fish and Wildlife Service protocols prior to 

issuance of any construction permits/Project approvals. Alternatively, in lieu of conducting protocol 

surveys, the implementing agency may choose to assume presence within the Project footprint and 

proceed with development of appropriate avoidance measures, consultation, and permitting, as 

applicable. If the target species is detected during protocol surveys, or protocol surveys are not 

conducted and presence assumed based on suitable habitat, additional coordination shall apply. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.8 Biological Resources

May 2021 | 3.8-94

Mitigation Strategy BIO-5: Prior to initiation of construction activities (including staging and 

mobilization), all personnel associated with Project construction shall attend worker environmental 

awareness program training, conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in recognizing 

special-status resources that may occur in the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area. The specifics of this 

program shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

• Identification of the sensitive species and habitats

• Description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of sensitive 

resources

• Review of the limits of construction and mitigation measures required to reduce impacts on

biological resources within the work area

• Preparation of a fact sheet conveying this information shall for distribution to all contractors, 

their employers, and other personnel involved with construction of the Project

• Employee documentation associated with worker environmental awareness program

attendance and acknowledgment

Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency 

analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of 

the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general 

plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or 

environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall

be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or 

environmental resources.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-1 

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

3.9.1 Introduction

This section identifies potential floodplains, hydrologic, and water quality resources within the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area and evaluates the effects associated with implementing the No Build 

Alternative and Build Alternative Options. 

3.9.2 Regulatory Framework

In accordance with NEPA (42 USC Section 4321 et seq.), CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR Parts 1501 through 1508), FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts 

(64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999) and CEQA, FRA identified potential floodplains, water quality, and 

hydrologic resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area and evaluated the potential 

impacts that could occur from implementation of the Build Alternative Options.

Federal 

Clean Water Act

The CWA, as amended, serves as the primary federal law protecting the quality of the nation’s 

surface waters, including wetlands. The CWA prohibits any discharge of pollutants into the nation’s 

waters unless specifically authorized by a permit. The CWA (33 USC Section 1251 et seq.) defines 

waters of the U.S., as follows:

• All waters that are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in 

interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of 

the tide

• All interstate waters, including interstate wetlands

• All other waters, such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), 

mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or 

natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign 

commerce

• All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the U.S.

• Tributaries to the foregoing types of waters
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-2 

• Wetlands adjacent to the foregoing waters (33 CFR Part 328.3 – the term adjacent means 

bordering, contiguous, or neighboring)

The applicable sections of the CWA are further discussed below: 

• Section 303 identifies and sets pollutant standards (TMDL) for impaired waterbodies. TMDLs 

are the maximum amount of a pollutant that can be present in the waterbody and establishes 

restrictions for discharges to the waterbody.

• Under Section 401, activities that may result in a discharge into waters of the U.S. must 

obtain certification from the state in which the discharge would originate or from the interstate 

water pollution control agency with jurisdiction over affected waters. Project sponsors must 

obtain a 401 Water Quality Certification from the SWRCB. 

• Under Section 402, discharges, including, but not limited to, construction-related stormwater 

discharges to surface waters, are regulated through the NPDES program. Project sponsors 

must obtain an NPDES Permit from the SWRCB. 

• Under Section 404, USACE and the U.S. EPA regulate the discharge of dredged and fill 

materials into the waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Project sponsors must obtain a 

permit from USACE for discharges of dredged or fill materials into jurisdictional aquatic 

resources.

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management 

EO 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid, to the extent possible, the short- and long-term 

adverse effects associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. Federal agencies are 

to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable 

alternative.

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the National Flood Insurance 

Program. FEMA identifies flood hazard areas throughout the U.S. and its territories and produces 

Flood Hazard Boundary Maps and Flood Insurance Rate Maps. These maps are used for floodplain 

management and to determine risk-based flood insurance premiums for the National Flood 

Insurance Program.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-3 

Floodplain Management Department of Transportation Order 5650.2, Floodplain Management 

and Protection

The purpose of USDOT Order 5650.2 is to ensure that proper consideration is given to the 

avoidance and mitigation of adverse floodplain effects by USDOT actions, planning programs, and 

budget requests.

State

California Department of Transportation National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

Statewide Stormwater Permit

Caltrans operates under a permit (Order Number 2012-0011-DWQ, NPDES Number

CAS000003, as amended by 2014-0006-EXEC, 2014-0077-DWQ, 2015-0036-EXEC, and Order WQ 

2017-0026-EXEC) that regulates stormwater discharge from Caltrans properties, facilities, and 

activities and requires the Caltrans construction program to comply with the adopted statewide 

General Construction Permit. The permit requires Caltrans to implement a year-round program in all 

parts of the state to control stormwater and non-stormwater discharges from Caltrans’ properties and 

facilities, and discharges associated with operation and maintenance of the state highway system.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Construction Permit

Under the CWA, discharges of stormwater from construction sites must comply with the conditions of 

an NPDES permit. The SWRCB is the permitting authority in California and has adopted the General 

Construction Permit that applies to projects resulting in 1 or more acres of soil disturbance. For 

projects disturbing more than 1 acre of soil, the SWRCB requires permittees to prepare a stormwater 

pollution prevention plan. The stormwater pollution prevention plan specifies site management 

activities that permittees or their construction contractors must implement during site development. 

These management activities include construction stormwater BMPs, erosion and sedimentation 

controls, dewatering (nuisance-water removal), runoff controls, and construction equipment 

maintenance. 

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (California Water Code, Section 13000 et seq.)

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act requires the regulation of all pollutant discharges, 

including wastes in project runoff that could affect the quality of the state’s water. Any entity 

proposing to discharge a waste must file a Report of Waste Discharge with the appropriate RWQCB 

or SWRCB. The RWQCBs are responsible for implementing CWA Sections 401, 402, and 303(d). 

Because the Program is of statewide importance, any Report of Waste Discharge will be filed with 

the SWRCB. The act also provides for the development and periodic review of basin plans that 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-4 

designate beneficial uses for California’s major rivers and groundwater basins and establish water 

quality objectives for those waters. 

Regional

Regional Water Quality Control Board Water Quality Control Plans (Basin Plans) 

The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act combined the State Water Rights Board and the 

SWRCB and created the nine RWQCBs. CWA Section 102 requires the planning agency of each 

state (in California, the SWRCB and, by extension, the RWQCBs) to prepare a water quality control 

plan known as a basin plan. The basin plan establishes the beneficial uses of water within the 

region; the water quality objectives necessary to protect those uses, including an antidegradation 

policy; the prohibitions, policies, and action plans, by which protections are implemented; and the 

monitoring, which is conducted to ensure attainment of water quality standards. The Program 

Corridor crosses three RWQCBs: Region 4 (Los Angeles), Region 7 (Colorado River), and Region

8 (Santa Ana) and would be subject to these RWQCBs basin plans. 

Stormwater Management Programs

Stormwater discharges are permitted under the NPDES program. Section 402(p) of the CWA 

requires that Stormwater Management Programs be developed and implemented for municipalities 

to meet the requirements for stormwater discharges from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System 

(MS4) Permits. Stormwater Management Programs limit, to the maximum extent practicable, the 

discharge of pollutants from storm sewer systems. A single state agency or a coalition, often 

consisting of more than one municipality (such as cities and counties), may implement these 

programs. Each program includes BMPs intended to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of 

stormwater discharged to the stormwater system. Discharges to storm sewer systems must comply 

with the Stormwater Management Program’s requirements.

In compliance with this requirement to develop a Stormwater Management Program, the county and 

Cities in Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties developed Stormwater 

Management Programs. 

LOS ANGELES COUNTY MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM PERMIT 

The Los Angeles County MS4 Permit identifies programs and objectives associated with municipal 

discharges of stormwater and non-stormwater by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, the 

County of Los Angeles, and 84 incorporated cities within Los Angeles County. For construction 

activities and new development/redevelopment, the Los Angeles County MS4 Permit requires the 

co-permittees to prepare a Stormwater Quality Management Plan, which includes identification and 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-5 

implementation of BMPs that would be used to reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater to 

the maximum extent practicable. 

ORANGE COUNTY MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM PERMIT 

The Orange County MS4 Permit identifies programs and objectives associated with municipal 

discharges of stormwater and non-stormwater by the Orange County Flood Control District, the 

County of Orange, and 25 incorporated cities within Orange County. For construction activities and 

new development/significant redevelopment, the Orange County MS4 Permit requires the 

co-permittees to prepare a Local Implementation Plan, which includes identification and 

implementation of the BMPs that would be used to reduce the discharge of pollutants in stormwater 

to the maximum extent practicable. 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY (SANTA ANA REGION) MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM PERMIT 

The Riverside County (Santa Ana Region) MS4 Permit identifies programs and objectives 

associated with municipal discharges of stormwater and non-stormwater by the Riverside County 

Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the County of Riverside, and 14 incorporated cities 

within Western Riverside County. For construction activities and new development/significant 

redevelopment, the Riverside County (Santa Ana Region) MS4 Permit requires development of a 

standard design and post-development BMP guidance to guide application of low impact 

development BMPs to the maximum extent practicable on streets, roads, or highways. 

RIVERSIDE COUNTY (COLORADO RIVER REGION) MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM

PERMIT 

The Riverside County (Colorado River Region) MS4 Permit identifies programs and objectives 

associated with municipal discharges of stormwater and non-stormwater by the Riverside County 

Flood Control and Water Conservation District, the County of Riverside, Coachella Valley Water 

District, and 10 incorporated cities within Eastern Riverside County. For construction activities and 

new development/significant redevelopment, identification, and implementation of site design BMPs

and source control BMPs are required to prevent or minimize water quality impacts from new 

development and redevelopment projects to the maximum extent practicable. 

SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY (SANTA ANA REGION) MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEM

PERMIT 

The San Bernardino County (Santa Ana Region) MS4 Permit identifies programs and objectives 

associated with municipal discharges of stormwater and non-stormwater by the San Bernardino 

County Flood Control District, the County of San Bernardino, and 16 incorporated cities within San 

Bernardino County. The San Bernardino County (Santa Ana Region) MS4 Permit prohibits the 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-6 

discharges of urban runoff from the permittees’ MS4 to waters of the U.S. containing pollutants that 

have not been reduced to the maximum extent practicable and requires project proponents to first 

consider preventative and conservation techniques (e.g., preserve and protect natural features to the 

maximum extent practicable) prior to considering mitigation (structural treatment, such as infiltration 

systems). 

Local and Tribal Governments

Regulations from cities, local agencies, and tribal governments would be identified in the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis once site-specific rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are 

known. Floodplain regulations are adopted and enforced at the local level with floodplain permits 

issued from the local participating community. 

3.9.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects

The methodology for this service-level evaluation assesses the effects on floodplains, water 

resources, and hydrologic resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. 

GIS layers, USGS topographic maps, and aerial photography from web mapping services were 

overlaid on the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area to identify the existing Special Flood Hazard 

Areas and water resources that could be affected within the Program Corridor. The GIS layers were 

used to identify where the Build Alternative Options would be in or cross floodplains or water 

resources such as rivers and creeks. 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

This service-level evaluation is limited to a desktop evaluation of the data sources described in 

Section 3.9.3. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area was combined with GIS overlays to identify 

potential floodplains and hydrologic zones or areas that could be affected by the Program. These 

potential areas were identified on a broad scale using available mapping information. A detailed 

description of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area is provided in Section 3.1, Introduction to 

Environmental Analysis. 

Data Sources

Data sources included U.S. Department of Agriculture, USGS, FEMA, the SWRCB, and the 

RWQCBs. The location of watersheds and surface waters were identified using data from the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service National Cartography and 

Geospatial Center and the USGS National Hydrology Dataset. Floodplains and flood zones were 

identified using FEMA floodplain maps. A list of beneficial uses that may be potentially affected by 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-7 

the Build Alternative Options were identified from the basin plans for the Los Angeles, Santa Ana, 

and Colorado RWQCBs. 

Related Resources

This evaluation incorporates data from related resources to inform the assessment of effects related 

to floodplains, hydrology, and water quality impacts. These related resources are identified in 

Table 3.9-1 and include jurisdictional waters and wetland resources and the effects on these

resources that overlap with identified water resources. 

Table 3.9-1. Related Resource Inputs for Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

Resource Input for Floodplain, Hydrology, and Water Quality Assessment

Jurisdictional Waters and 

Wetland Resources 

(Section 3.7)

Supplemental information related to the location of potential jurisdictional waters 

and wetlands resources was used.

3.9.4 Affected Environment

The Program Corridor crosses a large geographic area within Southern California, spanning a 

distance of approximately 144 miles from its western terminus in Los Angeles to its eastern terminus 

in Coachella. The topological characteristics within the Program Corridor largely determines the 

hydrology of the region. 

Climatic conditions within the Western Section of the Program Corridor are characterized by 

generally warm summers and mild winters with moderate humidity and breezes. Within the Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor, climatic conditions become increasingly drier and warmer with 

larger temperature swings from day to night. The area between the Los Angeles Basin and the 

Coachella Valley experiences variable climatic patterns that are largely driven by the topology of the 

region. Orographic lift is responsible for much of the precipitation on mountain ranges close to the 

coast, while the rain shadow effect leads to drier conditions on interior slopes. Overall, the region 

experiences less precipitation in the summer months than the winter months, which can lead to 

periods of drought and flooding, sometimes severe. 

Floodplains

A floodplain is composed of two major parts: the floodway and the area between the floodway and

the limit of the floodplain. The floodway is the main channel of a watercourse that must be kept free 

of encroachment to discharge flood waters. The minimum standards of the National Flood Insurance 

Program prohibit development within the floodway unless it can be shown that the development 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-8 

would not increase the water surface elevation during the 1 percent annual chance flood. 

Development outside the floodway, but still within the floodplain, is permitted provided the 

development meets National Flood Insurance Program and any local floodplain regulations. If a 

portion of the floodplain is also considered a water of the U.S. under Section 404 of the CWA, a 

USACE permit is required prior to the placement of dredged or fill material.

Flooding is common in Southern California where large amounts of precipitation can fall in a short 

period of time. Because of the arid climate, vegetation is often sparse, and soils tend to be thin and 

discontinuous. With little soil to absorb water and little vegetation to hold it back, precipitation runs 

off quickly and can result in floods. The potential for flooding is higher in urban areas where most of 

the land is covered with buildings and pavement. 

Most major rivers and washes along with smaller washes within the Program Corridor have 

1 percent annual chance floodplains and floodways (also known as Zone A areas) mapped by 

FEMA. The Program Corridor crosses or runs parallel to several valley floodplains and floodways. In 

some cases, the Program Corridor crosses floodplains and floodways of a single waterbody in 

multiple locations. 

The Special Flood Hazard Areas include Zones A include AO, AH, A1-A30, AE, A99, and AR. These 

categories reflect the flood risk for that location in the Special Flood Hazard Area. For purposes of 

this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation, anything within a 1 percent annual chance of flooding (Zone 

A) category is included in the definition of a floodplain.

Figure 3.9-1 depicts the location of floodplains with a 1 percent annual chance of flooding within the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-9 

Figure 3.9-1. Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Areas within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 1 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-10

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-11

Figure 3.9-1. Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Areas within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 2 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-12

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-13

Figure 3.9-1. Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Areas within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 3 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-14

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-15

Figure 3.9-1. Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Areas within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 4 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-16

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-17

Figure 3.9-1. Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Areas within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 5 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-18

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-19

Figure 3.9-1. Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Areas within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 6 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-20

This page is intentionally blank. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-21

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

As shown on Figure 3.9-1, for the Western Section of Build Alternative Option 1, approximately 

637.4 acres of land is mapped as being within a 1 percent annual chance of flooding. For the 

Eastern Section of Build Alternative Option 1, approximately 4,401.3 acres of land is mapped as 

being within a 1 percent annual change of flooding. Table 3.9-2 provides a summary of mapped 

floodplain areas within Build Alternative Option 1.

Table 3.9-2. Summary of Floodplains (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3) 

Floodplain Zone

Area of Zone 

within Western 

Section (acres)

Area of Zone 

within Eastern 

Section (acres)

Total Area of Zone 

(acres)

Zone A 235.7 2,900.5 3,136.2

Zone AE 317.2 101.8 419.0

Zone AH 40.5 0.2 40.7

Zone AO 44.0 1,319.2 1,363.2

Zone AE in floodway 101.4 79.6 181.0

Source: FEMA 2020

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Floodplain zones within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build Alternative Option 1. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Floodplain zones within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build Alternative Option 1. 

Watersheds 

USGS divided the U.S. into hydrologic units that are arranged or nested within each other, from the 

largest geographic area to the smallest geographic area. Each hydrologic unit is identified by a 

unique hydrologic unit code consisting of 2 to 12 digits based on the levels of classification in the 

hydrologic unit system (region [2], subregion [4], basin [6], subbasin [8], watershed [10], and 

subwatershed [12]). 

As shown on Figure 3.9-2, the Program Corridor crosses five subbasins: Los Angeles River 

Watershed, San Gabriel River Watershed, Santa Ana River Watershed, San Jacinto River 

Watershed, and Salton Sea Watershed. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-22

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Table 3.9-4 summarizes the major water features and watersheds located within Build Alternative 

Option 1. 

Table 3.9-3. Subbasins and Watersheds (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3) 

Subbasin Watershed Major Water Features 

Los Angeles River Watershed Lower Los Angeles River; Rio 

Hondo

Los Angeles River, Rio Hondo

San Gabriel River Watershed Lower Santa Ana River; 

Middle Santa Ana River; 

Upper Santa Ana River; 

Temescal Wash; San 

Timoteo Wash

San Gabriel River, Coyote Creek

San Jacinto River Watershed Middle San Jacinto River —a

Santa Ana River Watershed Colorado Lagoon-Frontal 

Alamitos Bay; Lower San 

Gabriel River; 

Santa Ana River, San Timoteo Creek

Salton Sea Watershed San Gorgonio River; 

Headwaters Whitewater 

River; Little Morongo 

Creek-Morongo Wash; Upper 

Whitewater River; Middle 

Whitewater River; Lower 

Whitewater River

San Gorgonio River, Whitewater River

Source: USGS 2016

Notes:

a The Program Corridor passes through a small portion of the San Jacinto River Watershed Subbasin and Middle 

San Jacinto River Watershed. Within this small portion, no major water features are present. 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Subbasins and watersheds within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build Alternative 

Option 1. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-23

Figure 3.9-2. Subbasins and Watersheds within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

Source: Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2019
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-24

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-25

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Subbasins and watersheds within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build Alternative 

Option 2.

Surface Waters

For purposes of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, surface waters include freshwater bodies, such as 

creeks, streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds, that are above ground. Creeks, streams, and rivers 

typically run within a defined channel. Lakes and ponds are inundations of water that may or may not 

be connected to other waterbodies. Surface water quality refers to physical, chemical, and biological 

characteristics of a waterbody. Water quality determines what activities or functions (drinking, 

recreation, etc.) are suitable for the waterbody. A waterbody that has poor water quality is referred to 

as impaired. Streams identified as impaired have established TMDLs. A TMDL is a calculation of the 

maximum amount of a pollutant that a waterbody can receive and still safely meet water quality 

standards. 

For surface waters within the Program Corridor, natural flows in river and stream headwaters are 

generally relatively free of pollutants. As water flows from the headwaters through mountain streams 

and into the valley or basin, streams and rivers tend to accumulate both natural and anthropogenic 

pollutants. In relation to water quality, pollutant sources typically fall into two broad categories: point 

sources, such as outfalls or direct discharges, and non-point sources, which are sources of pollution 

diffused across the landscape. As natural flow volumes decrease seasonally during the dry summer 

months, concentrations of pollutants increase. Stormwater and irrigation runoff enter streams directly 

as overland subsurface flows or direct discharges; therefore, surrounding land uses affect surface

water quality. Urban development, industry, wastewater treatment facilities, dams and reservoirs, 

and many other human activities have substantial effects on water quality. Urban and irrigation 

runoff can carry the dissolved or suspended residue of both natural and human land use practices 

within the watershed. Pollutant sources in urban areas include parking lots and streets; residential, 

commercial, and industrial development; rooftops; exposed earth at construction sites; 

non-landscaped, undeveloped areas; and petroleum-fueled railroads. 

Water quality is determined and enforced at the state level, based on standards set by both the state 

and federal government. The water quality of surface water features within the Program Corridor is

regulated through regional water quality control plans known as a basin plan. To protect these 

features, the Los Angeles, Santa Ana, and Colorado RWQCBs have established the beneficial uses 

and water quality objectives for each surface water feature. Water quality objectives are levels of 

pollutants above or below which that pollutant would reasonably expect to impair a beneficial use. 

When beneficial uses are impaired by a pollutant that chronically exceeds its water quality objective, 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-26

the RWQCBs place the waterbody and pollutant on the CWA Section 303(d) list of water quality 

impairments. Once a waterbody is placed on the 303(d) list, the RWQCBs must begin developing a 

TMDL program that provides a programmatic response to the impairment for the waterbody to meet 

the water quality objective and continue to support its beneficial uses. 

Table 3.9-4 provides the definitions for the beneficial uses within these basin plans. 

Table 3.9-5 summarizes the beneficial uses of waterbodies in the Program Corridor. 

Table 3.9-4. Water Resource Beneficial Use Definitions

Beneficial Use Beneficial Use Definition

MUN Uses of water for community, military, or individual water supply systems, including, but not 

limited to, drinking water supply

AGR Uses of water for farming, horticulture, or ranching, including, but not limited to, irrigation, 

stock watering, and support of vegetation for range grazing

IND Uses of water for industrial activities that do not depend primarily on water quality, including, 

but not limited to, mining, cooling water supply, hydraulic conveyance, gravel washing, fire 

protection, and oil well repressurization

FRSH Uses of water for natural or artificial maintenance of surface water quantity or quality

PROC Uses of water for industrial activities that depend primarily on water quality

GWR Uses of water for natural or artificial recharge of groundwater for purposes of future extraction, 

maintenance of water quality, or halting of saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers

WARM Uses of water that support warmwater ecosystems, including, but not limited to, preservation 

or enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates

COLD Uses of water that support cold water ecosystems, including, but not limited to, preservation 

or enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates

WILD Uses of water that support terrestrial ecosystems, including, but not limited to, preservation 

and enhancement of terrestrial habitats, vegetation, wildlife (e.g., mammals, birds, reptiles, 

amphibians, invertebrates), or wildlife water and food sources

RARE Uses of water that support habitats necessary, at least in part, for the survival and successful 

maintenance of plant or animal species established under state or federal law as rare, 

threatened, or endangered

POW Uses of water for hydropower generation
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-27

Beneficial Use Beneficial Use Definition

WET Uses of water that support wetland ecosystems, including, but not limited to, preservation or 

enhancement of wetland habitats, vegetation, fish, shellfish, or wildlife; and unique wetlands 

functions that enhance water quality, such as providing flood and erosion control, streambank 

stabilization, and filtration and purification of naturally occurring contaminants

REC1 Uses of water for recreational activities involving body contact with water where ingestion of 

water is reasonably possible, including, but not limited to, swimming, wading, water skiing, 

skin and scuba diving, surfing, white water activities, fishing, or use of natural hot springs

REC2 Uses of water for recreational activities involving proximity to water but not normally involving 

body contact with water where ingestion of water is reasonably possible, including, but not 

limited to, picnicking, sunbathing, hiking, beachcombing, camping, boating, tide pool and 

marine life study, hunting, sightseeing, or aesthetic enjoyment in conjunction with the above 

activities

Sources: Los Angeles RWQCB 2014; Santa Ana RWQCB 2016; Colorado River RWQCB 2017

Notes:

AGR=agriculture supply; COLD=cold freshwater habitats; FRSH=freshwater replenishment; GWR=groundwater 

recharge; IND=industrial service supply; MUN=municipal and domestic water supply; POW=hydropower generation; 

PROC=industrial process supply; RARE=rare, threatened, or endangered species; REC1=water contact recreation; 

REC2=non-contact water recreation; WARM=warm freshwater habitat; WET=wetland habitat; WILD=wildlife habitat
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-28

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-29

Table 3.9-5. Beneficial Uses of Potentially Affected Surface Waters within the Program Corridor

Potentially 

Affected 

Waterbody MUN AGR IND FRSH PROC GWR WARM COLD WILD RARE POW WET REC1 REC2

Los Angeles River P* — P — — E E — P — — — E E

Rio Hondo P* — — — — I P — I — — — P E

San Gabriel River P* — P — P I I — E E — — E E

La Mirada Creek P* — P — P — P — P E — — P I

Coyote Creek P* — P — P — P — P E — — P I

Brea Creek P* — P — P — P — P E — — P I

Fullerton Creek P* — P — P — P — P E — — P I

Anaheim Lake + — — — — E/P E/P — E/P — — — E/P E/P

Carbon Canyon 

Creek

E/P — E/P — — — E/P — E/P E/P — — E/P E/P

Santa Ana River + — — — — — E/P — E/P E/P — — E/P E/P

Temescal Wash + E/P E/P — — E/P E/P — E/P — — — E/P E/P

Tequesquite Arroyo + — — — — E/P E/P — E/P — — — E/P E/P

San Timoteo 

Wash/Creek

+ — — — — E/P E/P — E/P — — — E/P E/P
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-30

Potentially 

Affected 

Waterbody MUN AGR IND FRSH PROC GWR WARM COLD WILD RARE POW WET REC1 REC2

Yucaipa Creek + — — — — E/P E/P — E/P — — — E/P E/P

Little San Gorgonio 

Creek

+ — — — — E/P E/P — E/P — — — E/P E/P

Noble Creek + — — — — E/P E/P — E/P — — — E/P E/P

San Gorgonio River P E — — — E — E E — — — E E

Potrero Creek P E — — — E E — E — — — E E

Mission Creek P E — — — E E — E — — — E E

Morongo Wash P E — — — E E — E — -- — E E

Whitewater River E E — — — E I E E — E — E E

Unlisted Perennial 

and Intermittent 

Streams 

P — — E — I — — — — — — — —

Sources: Los Angeles RWQCB 2014; Santa Ana RWQCB 2016; Colorado River RWQCB 2017

Notes:

* Asterisked MUN designations are exempted

+ The waterbody has been specifically excepted from the MUN designation

AGR=agriculture supply; COLD=cold freshwater habitats; E=existing beneficial use; FRSH=freshwater replenishment; GWR=groundwater recharge; I=intermittent 

beneficial use; IND=industrial service supply; MUN=municipal and domestic water supply; P=potential beneficial use; POW=hydropower generation; 

PROC=industrial process supply; RARE=rare, threatened, or endangered species; REC1=water contact recreation; REC2=non-contact water recreation; 

WARM=warm freshwater habitat; WET=wetland habitat; WILD=wildlife habitat
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-31

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Six rivers, 26 named drainages, and 1 named lake are within Build Alternative Option 1. In addition 

to the named waters, numerous unnamed ephemeral washes traverse Build Alternative Option 

1. The descriptions and maps for waterbodies are included as part of Appendix G of this Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. 

Table 3.9-6 provides a summary of the named waters with water quality impairments (TMDLs) within 

Build Alternative Option 1.

Table 3.9-6. Named Surface Waters with Pollutant Impairments (Build Alternative 

Options 1, 2, and 3) 

Waterbody Name Pollutant Impairment

Los Angeles River Ammonia, coliform bacteria, copper, lead, nutrients (algae), oil, and trash

Rio Hondo Cyanide, coliform bacteria, copper, lead, toxicity, trash, zinc, and potential of hydrogen

San Gabriel River Temperature, cyanide, and lead

Coyote Creek Indicator bacteria, Iron, malathion, potential of hydrogen, and toxicity

Santa Ana River Lead, bacteria, and copper

Warm Creek Bacteria

San Timoteo 

Wash/Creek

Bacteria 

Source: USGS 2017; SWRCB 2018

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Waterbodies with identified pollutant impairments within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as 

Build Alternative Option 1.

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Waterbodies with identified pollutant impairments within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as 

Build Alternative Option 1. 

Groundwater

Groundwater is a component of the hydrologic cycle and is found in subsurface water-bearing 

formations. A groundwater basin is defined as a hydrogeologic unit containing one large aquifer or 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-32

several connected and interrelated aquifers. Further, a groundwater basin is an area underlain by 

permeable materials capable of furnishing a significant supply of groundwater to wells or storing a 

significant amount of water and has reasonably well-defined boundaries in a lateral direction and a 

definable bottom. Groundwater basins may be recharged naturally as precipitation infiltrates and/or 

artificially with imported or reclaimed water. Alternately, groundwater may discharge naturally by 

flowing into a stream, lake, or ocean, by flowing to the surface as a spring or seep or extracted by a 

well. The Program Corridor crosses multiple groundwater basins. 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Table 3.9-7 provides a summary of the groundwater basins located within Build Alternative Option 1.

Table 3.9-7. Groundwater Basins (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3) 

Groundwater Basin Name Beneficial Use Designations

Coastal Plan of Los Angeles – Central MUN, IND, PROC, AGR

Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass MUN, IND, AGR

Coachella Valley - Indio MUN, IND, AGR

San Jacinto MUN, IND, PROC, AGR

San Gabriel Valley MUN, IND, PROC, AGR

Upper Santa Ana Valley MUN, IND, PROC, AGR

Upper Santa Ana Valley – Chino MUN, IND, PROC, AGR

Upper Santa Ana Valley – Riverside-Arlington MUN, IND, PROC, AGR

Upper Santa Ana Valley – Rialto-Colton MUN, IND, PROC, AGR

Upper Santa Ana Valley – San Bernardino MUN, IND, PROC, AGR

Upper Santa Ana Valley – San Timoteo MUN, IND, PROC, AGR

Source: Los Angeles RWQCB 2014; Santa Ana RWQCB 2016; Colorado River RWQCB 2017

Notes:

AGR=agriculture supply; IND=industrial service supply; MUN=municipal and domestic water supply; PROC=industrial 

process supply

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Groundwater basins within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build Alternative Option 1.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-33

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third track)

Groundwater basins within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build Alternative Option 1. 

Tsunami Inundation and Seiche Areas

Tsunamis are most commonly associated with oceans, which can generate waves of massive and 

devasting height upon hitting coastlines. Official tsunami inundation maps prepared by the California 

Geological Survey (CSG), California Office of Emergency Services, and the Tsunami Research 

Center at the University of Southern California reflect the maximum potential tsunami run-up from a 

number of tsunami sources. Since the Program Corridor is not located adjacent to ocean frontage, 

there is no oceanic tsunami risk within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. For the inland 

waterbodies, the following seiche discussion addresses all types of waterbody wave hazards, 

regardless of source or type. 

A seiche is an underwater wave that oscillates through a body of water that could result in localized 

flooding at a lake’s shore. Seiches can be caused by high winds, earthquakes, or underwater 

landslides. In terms of seiche hazards within the Program Corridor, the region’s semi-arid climate 

makes naturally occurring enclosed waterbodies uncommon. Only two waterbodies, Lake Perris and 

Lake Elsinore, are of any concern relative to potential hazards from seismically induced seiche. The 

Program Corridor does not cross or is not adjacent to Lake Perris or Lake Elsinore. 

3.9.5 Environmental Consequences

Overview 

Effects as a result of implementing the Build Alternative Options can be broadly classified into 

construction and operational effects. Long-term or permanent effects and short-term or temporary 

effects on floodplains, hydrology, and water quality would be anticipated as a result of constructing 

any of the Build Alternative Options. 

Most effects on floodplains, hydrology, and water quality would occur during construction when 

ground-disturbing activities could result in the addition of pollutants to surface and groundwater, 

increased erosion and siltation, and shifts in existing drainage patterns. Additionally, fuel oils, 

chemicals, or concrete leachate could be spilled during construction activities. An increase in 

sediment loading and turbidity from grading and filing activities could contribute sediment-laden 

runoff to surface and groundwater, thereby degrading water quality. 

Operational or long-term effects would include the addition of pervious surfaces, which could 

contribute to increased polluted runoff, result in changes to existing drainage patterns, and affect 

groundwater recharge. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-34

No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, is used as the baseline 

for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the proposed Program associated 

with this service-level evaluation. Because no physical changes would occur, no effects related to 

floodplains, hydrology or water quality are anticipated under the No Build Alternative. 

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 

Floodplain and Flooding Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or 

station infrastructure in the Western Section of the Program Corridor because the existing rail 

infrastructure and stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build 

Alternative, short-term/temporary effects related to floodplains or flooding would be negligible 

because no additional construction activities are planned within the Western Section under Build 

Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. 

Eastern Section. As shown on Figure 3.9-1, the Build Alternative Options traverse FEMA-mapped 

floodplains. Construction activities associated with the Build Alternative Options could have 

temporary impacts in or adjacent to floodplains. This could include parking vehicles or storing 

equipment or materials in a floodplain or having construction equipment in the floodplain for short 

periods of time. Elements of linear construction projects often include access roads, staging areas, 

temporary access roads, and areas of earth excavation or temporary soil storage. These temporary 

effects would occur only during the construction phase for a site-specific project and would comply 

with all local, state, and federal floodplain regulations. 

New rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities contemplated under the Build Alternative 

Options would cross and likely permanently encroach on several floodplains. Depending on how 

close a passenger rail line might be to the existing rail tracks, this could include adding track and 

sidings, widening or replacing bridges, and replacing or extending culverts. Until Tier 2/Project-level 

studies define the site-specific improvements, the amount of floodplain affected cannot be 

determined. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 could have a moderate 

effect on floodplains within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. When compared with Build 

Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have slightly reduced effects due to a shorter 

route alignment and reduced station options. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar 

and considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-35

Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to a 

smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced 

third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative 

Option 3 and considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Potential avoidance and minimization of impacts on floodplains would be further evaluated in the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis. Any proposed encroachments in a floodplain area for rail infrastructure 

improvements or station facilities would require coordination with the local floodplain administrators 

to discuss floodplain development permitting and potential site-specific mitigation measures. 

OPERATION

Western Section. Under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, passenger train frequencies proposed 

as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two daily round-trip intercity diesel-powered 

passenger trains operating the entire length of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and 

Indio/Coachella. Operation of these additional passenger trains would not require additional 

modification or encroachment into floodplains. Therefore, effects associated with the Western 

Section of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 would be negligible 

when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Eastern Section. Operational effects associated with floodplains for the Build Alternative Options 

within the Eastern Section would be the same as those identified for the Western Section of the 

Program Corridor. Effects associated with the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor under Build 

Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 would be negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Water Quality Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or 

station infrastructure in the Western Section of the Program Corridor because the existing rail 

infrastructure and stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build 

Alternative, short-term/temporary effects related to water quality would be negligible because no 

additional construction activities are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative 

Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Construction of Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 in the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor would require the construction of rail stations, reconfiguration of existing or 

creation of new rail infrastructure (sidings, additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, and 

grade-separation structures), and potential ROW acquisition. These construction activities may 

require grading, implementation of temporary stream diversions, and use of construction staging 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-36

areas, which could result in effects on water quality within the area. Construction effects on water 

quality could include an increase in sediment volume in stormwater, increases in pollutant loading in 

runoff, and pollutant discharges into receiving waters and groundwater systems. 

Although construction activities have the potential to affect water quality within the Eastern Section 

of the Program Corridor, improvements identified under any of the Build Alternative Options would 

be required to comply with the federal, state, and local permitting requirements that regulate water 

quality. These regulations include CWA Section 401, CWA Section 404, CDFW Section 1600, and 

the RWQCB Construction General Permit. Through these regulations and requirements, the 

development of proposed rail infrastructure and station facilities would require temporary and 

permanent BMPs. These BMPs could include sediment traps, velocity dissipation devices (i.e., 

check dams and outfall protection), and detention/retention/infiltration facilities and would be 

incorporated into construction activities to reduce short-term increases in sediment transport caused 

by temporary hydromodification effects during construction.

The type and identification of the BMPs that would be used with future construction activities, and to 

what extent, cannot be determined at this time, as the sites where rail infrastructure and station 

improvements would be constructed have not yet been selected. During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, 

detailed and specific evaluation of water quality effects would be completed once design details are 

known. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 could have a moderate 

effect on water quality within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. When compared with

Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have slightly reduced effects due to a 

shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the magnitude of effects would be 

similar and considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared 

with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects 

due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and 

reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build 

Alternative Option 3 and considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.

OPERATION

Western Section. Under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, passenger train frequencies proposed 

as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two daily round-trip intercity diesel-powered 

passenger trains operating the entire length of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and 

Indio/Coachella. The operation of the additional two daily round-trip intercity diesel-powered 

passenger trains within the Western Section of the Program Corridor would consist of ongoing 

maintenance along the tracks, maintenance facilities, and at existing stations, similar to existing 

conditions. These operational activities would require the use and transport of materials and 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-37

substances (e.g., petroleum, oils, and lubricants). While petroleum, oils, and lubricants would be 

used in rail operations or maintenance, proper use, storage, and disposal practices would minimize 

the potential for accidental releases, similar to existing conditions. Effects associated with the 

Western Section of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Options 1, 2 and 3 would be 

negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative. 

Eastern Section. Operational effects on water quality under the Build Alternative Options would 

mainly be associated with stormwater runoff generated during operation and maintenance activities. 

Stormwater runoff may contain sediment, nutrients, pesticides, petroleum derivatives, solid wastes, 

or other chemicals and metals that could enter receiving waters within the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor. 

The Build Alternative Options would result in the addition of new or modified impervious surfaces 

from new stations and the new track and at-grade separations. Introducing impervious surfaces 

where they currently do not exist would have the potential to increase the rate and amount of 

stormwater runoff and could potentially cause erosion in areas adjacent to the new impervious 

surfaces. The placement of new impervious surfaces could result in effects on the existing runoff 

rates to receiving waters (i.e., hydromodification), including increases in low flow and peak flow 

velocity and volume. This could result in corresponding water quality effects, such as mobilization of 

new pollutants from the impervious surface, bed and bank erosion and sedimentation, and habitat 

loss. 

Similar to construction effects identified for the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, operational 

activities envisioned under the Build Alternative Options would require compliance with federal,

state, and local permitting requirements that regulate water quality. These requirements may include

regulatory compliance with the local MS4 Permits and implementation of low impact development

features and BMPs, depending on the extent of the work and the impervious area being added or 

replaced. For any improvements within the Caltrans ROW, the Build Alternative Options would 

comply with the Caltrans MS4 Permit requirements. To offset the potential hydrology effects 

associated with new impervious surfaces and new sources of pollutants, Tier 2/Project-level design 

would include low impact development features and permanent BMPs to avoid potential permanent 

hydromodification and water quality effects. 

This Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation does not identify the nature or potential of operational water 

quality effects at specific sites because the sites where rail infrastructure improvements and station 

facilities would be constructed has not yet been selected. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would 

evaluate site specific impacts associated with operational water quality. When compared with the No 

Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 could have a substantial effect on water quality within 

the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. Although there are programs and regulations in place 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-38

to reduce, minimize, and avoid effects on water quality, the operation of new stations and rail 

infrastructure could potentially result in long-term effects from pollutant discharge into receiving 

waters in the area. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would 

have slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, 

the magnitude of effects would be similar and substantial when compared with the No Build 

Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may 

have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, 

reduced station options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of 

effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and considered substantial when compared 

with the No Build Alternative.

3.9.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects

Table 3.9-8 and Table 3.9-9 summarizes the qualitative assessment of potential effects (negligible, 

moderate, or substantial) under NEPA for each of the Build Alternative Options. This service-level 

evaluation uses the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area to determine the types of resources that 

may be affected and, more importantly, the relative magnitude of the effect. 

Table 3.9-8. NEPA Summary of Effects on Flooding 

Alternative Options

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: None 

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: None

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Substantial 

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Substantial 

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with Limited Third 

Track) 

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Substantial 

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and 

air travel facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, 

identifying levels of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on Tier 

2/Project-level analysis.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-39

Table 3.9-9. NEPA Summary of Effects on Water Quality

Alternative Options

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: None 

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: None

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Substantial 

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Substantial 

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with Limited Third 

Track) 

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Substantial 

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and 

air travel facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, 

identifying levels of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on Tier 

2/Project-level analysis.

3.9.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts

Based on the information provided in Sections 3.9.4 and 3.9.5, and considering the CEQA 

Guidelines Appendix G Checklist questions for hydrology and water quality, the Build Alternative

Options would have potentially significant impacts on hydrology and water quality when reviewed on 

a Program-wide basis. Placing the infrastructure improvements and new stations largely within or 

along the existing ROW reduces the potential for significant impacts on these resources. However, 

because the sites have not been selected, some resources may be significantly impacted. At the 

Tier 1/Program analysis level, it is not possible to precisely know the location, extent, and 

characteristics of impacts on these resources or areas. Proposed programmatic mitigation strategies 

discussed in Section 3.9.8 will be applied to reduce potential impacts. 

Table 3.9-10 summarizes the CEQA significance conclusions for the Build Alternative Options; the 

proposed programmatic mitigation strategies that could be applied to minimize, reduce, or avoid the 

potential impacts; and the significance determination after mitigation strategies are applied. The 

identification and implementation of additional site-specific mitigation measures necessary for 

Project implementation would occur as part of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-40

Table 3.9-10. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Hydrology and Water Quality 

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or 

ground water quality?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are 

proposed or required within the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, 

or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential construction impacts are 

dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements, station facilities, and 

type of construction activities that would be required. Construction activities could 

impact water quality by creating debris and pollutants like concrete waste and 

sediment. Due to the variety of potential construction techniques and numerous 

waterways and drainages in the Eastern Section, site-specific impacts and 

associated BMPs to minimize impacts cannot be determined at this time. However, 

the Tier 2/Project-level analysis would evaluate site-specific impacts associated with 

water quality.

HWQ-2

LU-3 

Less than Significant. HWQ-2 and LU-3 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts 

related to violating water quality standards and 

waste discharge requirements by requiring 

compliance with applicable regulations and further 

evaluation during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-41

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The change in train service (two 

additional round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) on an existing rail 

corridor would require maintenance of existing infrastructure. However, with 

adherence to existing developed maintenance plans and procedures, maintenance 

activities on the existing rail corridor would not violate water quality standards or 

waste discharge requirements within the area. Therefore, a less than significant 

impact under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 is anticipated to occur at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Introducing new impervious surfaces 

and buildings where they currently do not exist would have the potential to increase 

the rate and amount of stormwater runoff that could enter receiving waters. The 

generation of new stormwater sources may contain sediment, nutrients, pesticides, 

petroleum derivatives, solid wastes, or other chemical and metals that could 

degrade water quality in the area if not properly managed. The Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis would identify and evaluate the potential for changes in water quality 

associated with site-specific projects. 

HWQ-3

LU-3 

Potentially Significant. HWQ-3 and LU-3 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts 

associated with water quality standards and waste 

discharge requirements through design and further 

analysis. However, impacts may remain significant 

and unavoidable as further analysis may determine 

that operational activities would result in water 

quality impacts.

Would the Program substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the Program 

may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are 

proposed or required within the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, 

or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-42

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Although construction activities would 

require the use of water in site preparation, building preparation, material 

preparation, and for dust suppression, it is anticipated that construction water 

supply would not use groundwater supplies for these uses. Water used in 

construction (such as water used for concrete batching or preparation of mortar), 

would need to meet certain parameters, as water quality affects the overall strength 

of concrete. However, the siting of new rail infrastructure improvements and station 

facilities may encroach on areas that are identified for groundwater recharge 

activities. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and evaluate impacts on 

specific groundwater resources once site-specific projects are known.

LU-3 Less than Significant. LU-3 would minimize, 

reduce, or avoid potential impacts related to 

groundwater supplies by identifying groundwater 

depths in the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area and 

minimizing infrastructure improvements in those 

areas. 

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The change in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) on an existing rail corridor would 

require maintenance of existing infrastructure. However, these maintenance 

activities on the existing rail corridor do not require groundwater supplies and would 

not decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater 

recharge within the area. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. New rail infrastructure improvements 

are not anticipated to require the use of groundwater supplies during operation or 

maintenance activities. However, depending on the location and type of amenities 

identified for new station facilities, there is the potential that groundwater supplies 

may be needed during operation. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify 

and evaluate the potential of site-specific Project impacts on groundwater supplies.

UTL-1

LU-3 

Potentially Significant. UTL-1 and LU-3 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts 

associated with groundwater supplies through 

design and further analysis. However, impacts may 

remain significant and unavoidable, as further 

analysis may determine that operational activities 

would result in groundwater supply impacts.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-43

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a 

stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or 

off-site?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are 

proposed or required within the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, 

or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential construction impacts 

associated with erosion or siltation are dependent on the location of rail 

infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are currently unknown. The 

construction of these improvements and facilities has the potential to alter the 

existing drainage patterns of the site through the addition of new impervious 

surfaces and structures. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and 

evaluate impacts associated with site-specific drainage pattern changes. 

HWQ-2

LU-3 

Less than Significant. HWQ-2 and LU-3 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts from 

erosion or siltation by requiring compliance with 

applicable regulations. Erosion and sediment 

control BMPs would be identified to minimize, 

reduce, or avoid potential impacts from erosion or 

siltation. 

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The change in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) on an existing rail corridor would 

require maintenance of existing infrastructure. However, these maintenance 

activities do not require the alteration of existing drainage patterns or the addition of 

new impervious surfaces. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-44

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – No Impact. Operational activities would consist of ongoing 

maintenance of existing infrastructure and would not require the alteration of 

existing drainage patterns or the addition of new impervious surfaces once 

construction is complete. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Would the Program substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a 

stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would substantially increase the rate or amount of surface 

runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are 

proposed or required within the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, 

or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential construction impacts related 

to surface runoff rate and volume increases are dependent on the location of rail 

infrastructure improvements and station facilities. The construction of these 

improvements and facilities has the potential to alter the existing drainage patterns 

of the site and flood flows within the area. There are numerous drainages, 

waterways, and floodplains in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, but a 

detailed analysis on how drainage patterns and flood flow could change cannot be 

considered at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR level, as the locations of infrastructure 

and facilities is unknown. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and 

evaluate impacts associated with site-specific drainage patterns and flood flow 

changes. 

HWQ-1

LU-3 

Less than Significant. HWQ-1 and LU-3 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts from 

surface runoff by requiring compliance with 

applicable regulations and additional analysis 

during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-45

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The change in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) on an existing rail corridor would 

require maintenance of existing infrastructure. However, these maintenance 

activities do not require the alteration of existing drainage patterns or the addition of 

new impervious surfaces. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – No Impact. Operational activities would consist of ongoing 

maintenance of existing infrastructure and would not require the alteration of 

existing drainage patterns or the addition of new impervious surfaces once 

construction is complete. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Would the Program substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a 

stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would create or contribute runoff water which would exceed 

the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are 

proposed or required within the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, 

or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality 

May 2021 | 3.9-46

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential construction impacts related 

to surface runoff rate and volume increases are dependent on the location of rail 

infrastructure improvements and station facilities. The construction of these 

improvements and facilities has the potential to alter the existing drainage patterns 

of the site. There are numerous drainages, waterways, and floodplains in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, but a detailed analysis on how drainage patterns 

could change cannot be considered at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR level as the 

locations of infrastructure and facilities is unknown. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis 

would identify and evaluate impacts associated with site-specific drainage patterns.

LU-3 Less than Significant. LU-3 would minimize, 

reduce, or avoid potential impacts from surface 

runoff by requiring compliance with applicable 

regulations and additional analysis during the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis. 

LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts on stormwater drainage systems by 

requiring compliance with applicable regulations

and additional analysis during the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis. 

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The change in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) on an existing rail corridor would 

require maintenance of existing infrastructure. However, these maintenance 

activities do not require the alteration of existing drainage patterns or the addition of 

new impervious surfaces. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – No Impact. Operational activities would consist of ongoing 

maintenance of existing infrastructure and would not require the alteration of 

existing drainage patterns or the addition of new impervious surfaces once 

construction is complete. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-47

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a 

stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would impede or redirect flood flows?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are 

proposed or required within the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, 

or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts related to impeding 

or redirecting flood flows are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure 

improvements and station facilities. The construction of these improvements and 

facilities has the potential to alter the existing drainage patterns of the site and flood 

flows within an area through the addition of new impervious surfaces and structures. 

A detailed analysis of changes to these drainage patterns and flood flow cannot be 

considered at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level as the locations of 

infrastructure and station facilities is unknown. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis 

would identify and evaluate impacts associated with site-specific drainage pattern 

and flood flow changes.

HWQ-1

LU-3 

Less than Significant. HWQ-1 and LU-3 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts from 

changes in drainage patterns and flood flows by 

requiring compliance with applicable regulations

and additional analysis during the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis. 

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The change in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) on an existing rail corridor would 

require maintenance of existing infrastructure. However, these maintenance 

activities do not require the alteration of existing drainage patterns or the addition of 

new impervious surfaces. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-48

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – No Impact. Operational activities would consist of ongoing 

maintenance of existing infrastructure and would not require the alteration of 

existing drainage patterns or the addition of new impervious surfaces once 

construction is complete. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated to occur at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Would the Program be located in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are 

proposed or required within the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, 

or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts related to flood 

hazards are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements and 

station facilities. While the Eastern Section is not within an identified area for 

tsunami or seiche zone risks, it crosses numerous FEMA flood zones. Construction 

activities associated with new rail infrastructure or station facilities may impact flood 

flows. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would evaluate the potential of flood risk 

associated with site-specific construction activities and whether construction 

activities would have water quality impacts on the environment. 

HWQ-1

HWQ-2 

Less than Significant. HWQ-1 and HWQ-2 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts from 

flood flows by requiring compliance with applicable 

regulations. Tier 2/Project-level analysis would 

consider flood conveyance and potential flood risk 

associated with site-specific projects. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-49

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The change in train service (two 

additional round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) on an existing rail 

corridor would require maintenance of existing infrastructure. Although portions of 

the Western Section cross through areas identified as a potential flooding hazard 

area, maintenance activities within these areas are governed by existing developed 

maintenance plans and procedures. Maintenance activities on the existing rail 

corridor would not exacerbate flood risk within the area. Therefore, a less than 

significant impact is anticipated to occur at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation

level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Less Than Significant. Operational activities would consist of 

ongoing maintenance of existing infrastructure. Although portions of the Eastern 

Section cross through areas identified as a potential flooding hazard area, 

maintenance activities within these areas would be governed by developed 

maintenance plans and procedures. Maintenance activities would not exacerbate 

flood risk within the area. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated to 

occur at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 

1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Would the Program conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are 

proposed or required within the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, 

or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-50

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential conflicts with a water quality 

control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan are dependent on where 

the rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are located. Construction 

impacts could occur in multiple jurisdictions under different regional water quality 

programs. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify the applicable water 

quality control plans and sustainable groundwater management plans and analyze 

conflicts that may occur during construction.

HWQ-2

LU-3 

Less than Significant. HWQ-2 and LU-3 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential conflicts with 

water quality control plans or sustainable 

groundwater management plans by requiring 

compliance with applicable regulations and 

identifying specific resources that would be 

impacted by Tier 2/Project-level implementation.

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land 

use that would result in conflicts or obstruction of a water quality control plan or 

groundwater management plan. Therefore, no operational impacts anticipated to 

occur at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 

1, 2, or 3 are. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential conflicts with a water quality 

control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan are dependent on where 

rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are located. Operational 

impacts could occur in multiple jurisdictions under different regional water quality 

programs. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify the applicable water 

quality control plans and sustainable groundwater management plans and analyze 

conflicts that may occur during operation. 

HWQ-3

UTL-1 

LU-3 

Less than Significant. HWQ-3, UTL-1, and LU-3 

would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential conflicts 

with water quality control plans or sustainable 

groundwater management plans by requiring 

compliance with applicable regulations and 

identifying specific resources that would be 

impacted by Project operation.

Notes:

BMP=best management practice; EIR=environmental impact report; EIS=environmental impact statement; FEMA=Federal Emergency Management Agency
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-51

3.9.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

Identified below are proposed programmatic mitigation strategies for further consideration in the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified 

and discussed during Tier 2/Project-level analysis after design details are known and specific 

impacts are identified for floodplains, hydrology, and water quality. 

Programmatic mitigation strategies include minimizing the length of river/stream crossings or 

employing appropriate stormwater management measures to minimize stormwater runoff, including 

the preparation of a stormwater pollution prevention plan, and compliance with regulations for local 

water quality permits. Proposed programmatic mitigation strategies include, but are not limited to,

the following: 

Mitigation Strategy HWQ-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, additional floodplain hydrology 

documentation shall be conducted to determine if the siting of specific rail infrastructure or station 

facility proposed would encroach into a floodplain. If the siting of specific rail infrastructure or station 

facility requires encroachment into a floodplain, a floodplain assessment shall be conducted to 

evaluate the impacts of specific designs on water surface elevations and flood conveyance and 

evaluate potential flooding risk. Any project that would result in floodplain encroachment shall

coordinate with the governing agency or local jurisdiction. Any additional requirements that may be 

needed shall be determined in coordination with the applicable regulatory agencies. 

Mitigation Strategy HWQ-2: Based on the results of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis and 

recommendations, the construction of specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed shall

comply with the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit 

for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order 

Number 2009-0009-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Number CAS000002) 

and any subsequent amendments (Order Number 2010-0014-DWQ and Order Number 

2012-0006-DWQ). These provisions shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 

• Construction activities shall not commence until a waste discharger identification number is 

received from the State Water Resources Control Board Stormwater Multiple Application and 

Report Tracking System. 

• Identification of good housekeeping, erosion control, and sediment control best management 

practices shall be utilized during construction activities. 

• A stormwater pollution prevention plan shall be prepared. 

• A rain event action plan shall be prepared.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.9 Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality

May 2021 | 3.9-52

• A notice of termination shall be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board within 

90 days of completion of construction and stabilization of the site.

These requirements, and any additional approvals, shall be determined in coordination with the 

governing agencies or local jurisdiction before construction on a project commences.

Mitigation Strategy HWQ-3: Based on the results of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis and 

recommendations, the operation of specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed shall comply 

with the provisions of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board Municipal Separate 

Storm Sewer System Program. These provisions shall include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Low impact, site design, and source control best management practices shall be identified to 

be utilized during operational activities. 

• A water quality management plan shall be prepared that will be implemented and maintained 

throughout the life of a project and used by property owners, facility operators, tenants, 

facility employees, and maintenance contractors.

These requirements, and any additional approvals, shall be determined in coordination with the 

governing agencies or local jurisdiction before operation on a project commences.

Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency 

analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of 

the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general 

plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or 

environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall 

be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or 

environmental resources.

Mitigation Strategy UTL-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, additional water supply 

documentation shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine water 

supply impacts (including groundwater basin withdrawals) associated with the operation of rail 

infrastructure or station facility proposed. If require by the identified lead agency or agencies, this 

documentation shall include, but is not limited to, the following: 

• A site-specific water supply assessment shall be prepared, per Senate Bill 610 requirements.

• Water supply verification letters shall be obtained from the applicable water purveyor per 

Senate Bill 221 requirements. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-1 

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological 

Resources 

3.10.1 Introduction

This section identifies the existing geology, soils, and seismic conditions, including paleontological 

and mineral resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area and provides an evaluation of 

the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternative Options in relation to existing geological, mineral,

and paleontological conditions. 

3.10.2 Regulatory Framework

In accordance NEPA (42 USC Section 4321 et seq.), CEQ regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR 

Parts 1501-1508), FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545, May 

26, 1999) and CEQA, FRA identified the prevailing geological and paleontological conditions within 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area and evaluated the potential impacts on geology, soils, 

mineral resources, and paleontological resources as a result of implementing the Build Alternative 

Options. 

Federal

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act

In October 1977, the U.S. Congress passed the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act to reduce the 

risks to life and property from future earthquakes in the U.S. through the establishment and 

maintenance of an effective earthquake hazards reduction program. To accomplish this goal, the 

Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction 

Program, which was further refined by the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Act.

Track Safety Standards 

Section 213.239, Special Inspections, of 49 CFR Part 213 requires that, in the event of fire, flood, 

severe storm, or other occurrence that might have damaged track structure, a special inspection 

shall be made of the track involved as soon as possible after the occurrence and, if possible, before 

the operation of any train over that track.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-2 

Paleontological Resources Preservation Act

The proposed rule (43 CFR Part 49, Paleontological Resources Preservation, November 21, 2016) 

would implement the Paleontological Resources Preservation Act of 2009 by providing standards for 

a coordinated approach to the management of paleontological resources on public lands. The rule 

clarifies how bureaus will manage paleontological resources to ensure they are available for current 

and future generations to enjoy as part of America’s national heritage.

Uniform Building Code 

The Uniform Building Code (UBC) is published by the International Conference of Building Officials 

and forms the basis for California’s building code, as well as approximately half of the state building 

codes in the U.S. It has been adopted by the California Legislature to address the specific building 

conditions and structural requirements for California, as well as provide guidance on foundation 

design and structural engineering for different soil types.

State

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act

The Alquist-Priolo (AP) Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (California PRC Sections 2621–2630) was 

passed into law following the destructive February 9, 1971 San Fernando earthquake, which was 

associated with extensive surface fault ruptures that damaged numerous structures. The act 

provides a mechanism for reducing losses from surface fault rupture on a statewide basis. The intent 

of the act is to ensure public safety by prohibiting the siting of most structures for human occupancy 

across traces of active faults that constitute a potential hazard to structures from surface faulting or 

fault creep. 

California Building Code

California provides minimum standards for building design through the (Title 24). The 2016 California 

Building Code became effective January 1, 2017. With the shift from seismic zones to seismic 

design, the California Building Code philosophy has shifted from life safety design to collapse 

prevention, meaning that structures are designed for prevention of collapse for the maximum level of 

ground shaking that could reasonably be expected to occur at a site.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-3 

California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975

The CGS, formerly the California Division of Mines and Geology, classifies the regional significance 

of mineral resources in accordance with the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (California 

PRC Sections 2710-2796) and assists CGS in the designation of lands containing significant 

aggregate resources. Surface Mining and Reclamation Act regulates surface mining operations to 

ensure that adverse environmental impacts are minimized, and mined lands are reclaimed to a 

usable condition. Surface Mining and Reclamation Act also encourages the production, 

conservation, and protection of California’s mineral resources.

California Public Resource Code

The California PRC includes provisions for the handling of paleontological resources. Specifically, 

PRC 5097.5 provides for the protection of paleontological resources and prohibits the removal, 

destruction, injury, or defacement of paleontological features on any lands under the jurisdiction of 

state or local authorities. PRC 30244 requires reasonable mitigation for impacts on paleontological 

resources that occur as a result of development. 

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act

The California Department of Conservation provides guidance to the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, 

which aims to reduce the threat of seismic hazard to public health and safety by identifying and 

mitigating seismic hazards. State, county, and city agencies are directed to utilize such maps in land 

use and permitting processes. The act also requires geotechnical investigations specific to the site 

be conducted before permitting occurs on sites within seismic hazard zones. 

Regional

Goals and policies related to geology, soils, seismicity, paleontological, and mineral resources

applicable to the Program were identified in the Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and 

Riverside Counties’ general plans. 

Los Angeles County 2035 General Plan

The Safety Element of the Los Angeles County 2035 General Plan (County of Los Angeles 2015) 

provides goals, objectives, policies, and programs related to hazards mitigation, emergency 

response, fire hazards, seismic/geotechnical hazards, and disaster recovery. The Safety Element

identifies policies to reduce the potential risk of death, injuries, and economic damage resulting from 

natural and man-made hazards. The general plan prohibits new projects, as defined by the AP Act 

and Seismic Hazards Mapping Acts, until a comprehensive geotechnical study has been completed. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-4 

The Conservation and Natural Resources Element of the Los Angeles County 2035 General Plan

provides goals, objectives, policies, and programs related to conservation of paleontological and 

mineral resources. Mineral resource policies include the protection of mineral resource zones (MRZ)

from development and incompatible adjacent land uses and the management of identified mineral 

resources that allows for access, development, and conservation of mineral resources. 

Paleontological resource policies include the proper notification, mitigation, and recovery process for 

development on or near paleontological resources.

Orange County General Plan

The Safety Element of the Orange County General Plan (Orange County 2005) provides goals, 

objectives, and policies related to hazards that primarily impact persons and property in the 

unincorporated areas of Orange County and includes information on seismic and geologic hazards, 

including landslides, land subsidence, erosion, and soil characteristics.

The Resources Element of the Orange County General Plan provides goals, objectives, policies, and 

programs related to conservation of paleontological and mineral resources. Mineral resource policies 

include the protection of all mineral lands consistent with sound resource management practices and 

to reduce dependence on imported mineral resources for existing and future needs. Paleontological 

resource policies include identifying paleontological resource through literature, records research, 

and surface surveys and the proper notification, mitigation, and recovery process for paleontological 

resources for cultural, scientific, and education needs. 

County of Riverside General Plan

The Safety Element of the County of Riverside General Plan (County of Riverside 2003) serves as 

the framework by which safety considerations are introduced into the land use planning process and 

identifies existing hazards and policies to reduce hazards for development. 

The Open Space Element of the County of Riverside General Plan provides goals, objectives, 

policies, and programs related to conservation of paleontological and mineral resources. Mineral 

resource policies include the restriction of incompatible land uses within areas of existing or potential 

surface mining areas. The Open Space Element of the County of Riverside General Plan recognizes 

the importance of paleontological resources with the development of policies to ensure these 

resources are considered in project planning. These policies include the preparation of 

paleontological resource impact mitigation program and the proper documentation, curation, and 

mitigation of impacts on paleontological resources. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-5 

County of San Bernardino General Plan

The Safety Element of the County of San Bernardino General Plan (County of San Bernardino 2014)

provides information on geologic hazards, seismic activity, landslides and mudslides, ground 

subsidence, volcanic activity, and wind/erosion and identifies goals and policies to reduce the 

potential risk of death, injuries, property damage, and economic and social dislocation resulting from 

fires, floods, earthquakes, landslides, and other hazards. 

The Natural Resources Element of the County of San Bernardino General Plan provides goals, 

objectives, policies, and programs related to conservation of paleontological and mineral resources. 

Mineral resource policies include the prioritization of MRZ-2 lands by prohibiting or discouraging 

development of land that would preclude future development of mining facilities. Paleontological 

resource policies include the avoidance of paleontological resources whenever feasible and salvage 

and preservation of resources if avoidance is not possible. 

Local and Tribal Governments

Regulations from cities, local agencies, and tribal governments would be identified in the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis once site-specific rail infrastructure improvements and station locations are 

known. 

3.10.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects

The methodology for the geological and paleontological evaluation consists of a service-level 

qualitative, and—where possible—quantitative, analysis that compares relative effects on geology, 

soils, mineral resources, and paleontological resources as a result of implementing each of the Build 

Alternative Options. A detailed evaluation that will identify Project-specific geotechnical engineering 

and permitting requirements will be completed for the Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

Geologic resources include subsurface geologic conditions and soil resources that can provide value 

or are useful to society. Geologic hazards associated with these and other geologic resources could 

pose potential danger to the built and natural environment. Geologic hazards include soils with steep 

slopes and high landslide susceptibility and seismic conditions.

The geologic setting is described in terms of the underlying geologic conditions and soil type. Due to 

the regional nature of the physical geological environment, seismic hazards (faults, ground shaking, 

liquefaction, and slope stability) in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, as defined below, are

described on a countywide basis. The likelihood for expansive soils, corrosive soils, and soil erosion 

is also described. Data, based on available GIS data, is tabulated by county.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-6 

To assess potential effects related to geology, soils, and mineral resources, aerial mapping was

used to obtain information for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. Active faults, MRZs, ground 

shaking, liquefaction, slope stability, and soil type were evaluated in the analysis.

Paleontological research for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR includes a geologic map review, 

paleontological sensitivity map review, soil typology review, and search of readily available literature 

for the Eastern Section under the Build Alternative Options. The results of the research were used to 

complete a paleontological sensitivity analysis, along with a qualitative assessment of potential 

effects on paleontological resources from implementation of the Eastern Section under Build 

Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. The Western Section utilizes existing rail infrastructure, and no 

additional track improvements would be required to accommodate the proposed service; therefore, 

no ground disturbance would occur with implementation of the Build Alternative Options. As such, 

record searches and archival research were only conducted for the Eastern Section because ground 

disturbance would be required for the infrastructure improvements proposed for this section. 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

This service-level evaluation is limited to a desktop analysis of the data sources described in 

Section 3.10.3. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area was combined with GIS overlays to identify 

areas where seismic and geologic hazards may occur (e.g., ground shaking, liquefaction, slope 

stability and the likelihood for expansive soils, corrosive soils, and soil erosion) and where potential 

environmental resources (e.g., paleontological or mineral resources) could be affected by the 

Program. These potential areas were identified on a broad scale using available mapping 

information. A detailed description of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area is provided in Section 

3.1, Introduction to Environmental Analysis, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 

Data Sources

Online GIS data sources available from USGS, CGS, and a variety of other sources were used to 

identify areas containing potential seismic/geologic hazards, paleontological resources, and mineral 

resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. Specifically, the following resources were 

reviewed:

• Earthquake Hazards Program: Stores information reported by USGS on identified active 

faults and landslide susceptibility, data on the dates of seismic activity for active faults, and 

maps of soils that have physical properties or topographic position susceptible to landslides
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-7 

• Earthquakes and Faults Program: Stores information reported by CGS related to ground 

motion earthquake records, distribution of historic earthquakes, and maps showing potential 

for ground shaking, fault rupture, liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides in 

California.

• Mineral Resource Mapping: Stores information generated by CGS that identify mineral 

resources zones with the potential for production of geologic resources, such as metals, 

minerals, and construction aggregate important to the state’s economy

• Mines Online Interactive Map: A California Department of Conservation (Division of Mine 

Reclamation) database that provides information such as mine name, mine status, 

commodity sold, location, and other mine-specific data

Related Resources

There are no related resources that would contribute to the assessment of Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

effects on geology, soils, mineral resources, and paleontological resources. 

3.10.4 Affected Environment

Southern California straddles the Pacific tectonic plate and the North American tectonic plate. The 

slow movements of these plates over time has created a complex and diverse geological setting 

unique to this region. Evidence of historic seismic activity is present in the numerous mountain 

ranges, valleys, canyons, and other geological features in the region. Present seismic activity is 

apparent in the numerous faults throughout the region, earthquakes, liquefaction, and landslides.

The Program Corridor is approximately 144 miles long and traverses a diverse geological area from 

its western terminus in the Los Angeles Basin to its eastern terminus in the Coachella Valley. The 

majority of the Program Corridor from the Los Angeles Basin to San Gorgonio Pass is located at the 

boundary of the Transverse Ranges Geomorphic Province and the northern Peninsular Ranges 

Geomorphic Province. The topography crossed by the Program Corridor ranges from relatively flat, 

urban landscapes in the Western Section to hilly canyons in the central portion, and flat, low desert 

habitat in the Eastern Section. Elevations within the Program Corridor range from 300 feet above 

mean sea level at the western terminus in Los Angeles up to 600 feet in Corona, 1,000 feet in 

Colton, and 2,600 feet in Beaumont (highest elevation), and down to 75 feet below mean sea level at 

the eastern terminus in Coachella (lowest elevation). From San Gorgonio Pass to the Coachella

Valley, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area lies at the boundary of the Peninsular Ranges 

Geomorphic Province and the Colorado Desert Geomorphic Province. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-8 

The majority of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area is underlain by marine and non-marine 

sedimentary rock of the Holocene Age and Pleistocene Age consisting of unconsolidated and semi 

consolidated alluvium, lake, playa, and terrace deposits.

Earthquake Faults and Alquist-Priolo Fault Zones 

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area is located within an active seismic region and is expected to 

experience ground shaking from an earthquake occurring along several major active or potentially 

active faults in Southern California. The probability that the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

would be subject to strong seismic shaking is considered moderate to high, due to the proximity of 

known active faults in the region. The USGS 1-year probabilistic seismic hazard forecast for induced 

and natural earthquakes indicates that Los Angeles County, Orange County, southwest San 

Bernardino County, and the western half of Riverside County have a 2 to 5 percent chance of 

experiencing ground shaking resulting in minor damage (USGS 2020). As shown on

Figure 3.10-1, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area traverses multiple earthquake faults and AP 

fault zones. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-9 

Figure 3.10-1. Potential Seismic and Geologic Hazard Zones within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Sheet 1 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-10

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-11

Figure 3.10-1. Potential Seismic and Geologic Hazard Zones within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Sheet 2 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-12

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-13

Figure 3.10-1. Potential Seismic and Geologic Hazard Zones within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Sheet 3 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-14

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-15

Figure 3.10-1. Potential Seismic and Geologic Hazard Zones within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Sheet 4 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-16

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-17

Figure 3.10-1. Potential Seismic and Geologic Hazard Zones within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Sheet 5 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-18

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-19

Figure 3.10-1. Potential Seismic and Geologic Hazard Zones within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Sheet 6 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-20

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-21

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

There are portions of the Build Alternative Option 1 that cross an earthquake fault or are mapped as 

being within an AP fault zone. Table 3.10-1 provides a summary of earthquake faults and AP fault 

zones located within Build Alternative Option 1. 

Table 3.10-1. Summary of Earthquake Faults and Zones (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, 

and 3)

Earthquake Fault Earthquake Fault Zone

Earthquake Fault 

Zone Section County

Whittier Fault Elsinore Fault Zone Whittier Section Orange

Chino Fault Elsinore Fault Zone Chino Section Riverside

Rialto-Colton Fault San Jacinto Fault Zone

San Bernardino 

Section 

San Bernardino, 

Riverside

San Jacinto Fault San Jacinto Fault Zone

San Bernardino 

Section

San Bernardino

Loma Linda Fault San Jacinto Fault Zone

San Bernardino 

Section 

San Bernardino

Claremont Fault San Jacinto Fault Zone

San Bernardino 

Section 

San Bernardino

Live Oak Canyon Fault Crafton Hills Fault Zone — San Bernardino, 

Riverside

— Beaumont Plain Fault Zone — Riverside

Garnet Hill Fault San Andreas Fault Zone

San Bernardino 

Mountains Section

Riverside

Source: USGS 2020

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Identified earthquake faults and AP fault zones located within Build Alternative Option 2 

(Table 3.10-1) are the same as Build Alternative Option 1. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-22

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Identified earthquake faults and AP fault zones located within Build Alternative Option 3

(Table 3.10-1) are the same as Build Alternative Option 1. 

Seismic/Geologic Hazard Zones

Seismic or geologic hazards are natural seismic or geologic events that can endanger human lives 

and threaten property. Potential seismic or geologic hazards include liquefaction/seismically induced 

settlement, slope instability (landslide susceptibility), collapsible and expansive soils, corrosive soils, 

and subsidence. As shown on Figure 3.10-1, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area contains areas 

where seismic or geologic hazards zones may be present. Table 3.10-2 provides background 

information for these seismic or geologic hazards. 

Table 3.10-2. Seismic and Geologic Hazards Definitions

Seismic/Geologic 

Hazard Definition Potential Occurrence 

Liquefaction Liquefaction is the loss of soil strength or 

stiffness due to a buildup of pore-water 

pressure during ground shaking. Liquefaction is 

associated primarily with loose (low-density), 

saturated, fine- to medium-grained, 

cohesionless soils. Effects of liquefaction can 

include sand boils, excessive displacements, 

bearing capacity failures, and lateral spreading.

Liquefaction can occur primarily within 

loose to moderately dense sandy soil 

due to reduction in volume during and 

shortly after an earthquake event.

Seismically induced 

settlement

Seismically induced settlement consists of dry 

dynamic settlement (above groundwater) and 

liquefaction-induced settlement (below 

groundwater).

This settlement occurs primarily within 

loose to moderately dense sandy soil 

due to reduction in volume during and 

shortly after an earthquake event. 

Slope instability 

(landslides)

Slope instability is related to slope gradient, soil 

or rock type, consolidation or cementation of the 

rock, and the amount of fracturing of the rock.

Generally, slopes of 10 degrees or more are 

subject to seismically induced land sliding.

Land sliding can be seismically 

induced, resulting from extended 

periods of ground shaking and high 

ground accelerations. Improper 

grading and excessive rainfall or 

irrigation can also increase the 

susceptibility of land sliding. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-23

Seismic/Geologic 

Hazard Definition Potential Occurrence 

Collapsible soils Collapsible soils are soils that undergo 

settlement upon wetting, even without the 

application of additional loads. Typical 

collapsible soils are low in plasticity and have 

relatively low moisture contents and densities.

Effects resulting from collapsible soils

have largely been addressed by 

county and municipal building codes. 

Expansive soils Expansive soils are generally plastic clays that 

can undergo a substantial increase in volume 

with an increase in moisture content and a 

substantial decrease in volume with a decrease 

in moisture content. Expansive soils can cause 

uplift pressures that can lead to structural 

damage.

Effects resulting from expansive soils 

have largely been addressed by 

county and municipal building codes. 

Corrosive soils Soil corrosion occurs when chemical 

compounds in the soils interact with structural 

materials in ways that weaken the materials. 

Metals are attacked by a chloride solution 

whereas concrete is typically affected by high 

sulfate levels. 

Effects resulting from corrosive soils 

have largely been addressed by 

county and municipal building codes.

Land subsidence Land subsidence, or the settling of land over 

time, can occur for a number of reasons.

Within Southern California, land 

subsistence is generally caused by 

the lowering of the water table from 

groundwater withdrawals.

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

As shown on Figure 3.10-1, the majority of the Western Section and Eastern Section of Build 

Alternative Option 1 is within a seismically induced liquefaction zone and portions are located within 

landslide susceptibility zones. 

For portions of the Western Section located within southeast Los Angeles County and northwest 

Orange County, landslide susceptibility is low due to the relatively flat topography. For portions of the 

Western Section located in northeast Orange County, landslide susceptibility is moderate to high 

due to steep slopes and landslide-prone rocks. This variation in landslide susceptibility is also 

present in the Eastern Section of Build Alternative Option 1. Portions of the Eastern Section cross 

areas with relatively flat topography, resulting in a low landslide susceptibility potential. For portions 

of the Eastern Section that are located within or adjacent to steep slopes (Crafton Hills, Loma Linda 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-24

Hills, San Gorgonio Pass, San Timoteo Canyon, Reche Canyon), there is a moderate to high 

landslide susceptible potential. 

As shown on Figure 3.10-1, there are three USGS mapped areas of land subsidence within Build 

Alternative Option 1: Los Angeles/Santa Ana Basin subsidence area, Yucaipa Valley subsidence 

area, and Coachella Valley subsidence area. Portions of the Western Section of Build Alternative 

Option 1 that cross through Anaheim are located within the Los Angeles/Santa Ana Basin 

subsidence area, while portions that cross through Riverside and Colton are located within the 

Yucaipa Valley subsidence area. The majority of the Eastern Section of Build Alternative Option 1 is 

located in either the Yucaipa Valley or Coachella Valley subsidence areas. As identified by USGS, 

the subsidence in these areas was a result of excessive groundwater pumping in the region. 

Groundwater within these regions is an important water supply source with the demand for water 

exceeding the deliveries of imported surface water. As a result, groundwater levels have been 

declining as a result of increased pumping resulting in land subsidence in the region. To counteract 

the noted land subsidence, local and regional agencies have implemented various measures 

including the adjudication of certain groundwater basins (San Bernardino Basin and Beaumont Basin 

within the Yucaipa Valley subsidence area) and the installation off a network of continuous global 

positioning system stations to monitor subsidence (within the Coachella Valley subsidence area). 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Potential seismic and geologic hazard zones within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build 

Alternative Option 1. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Potential seismic and geologic hazard zones within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build 

Alternative Option 1. 

Paleontological Resources

Paleontological resources—or fossils—are the remains of ancient plants and animals that can 

provide scientifically significant information about the history of life on Earth. Paleontological 

sensitivity is defined as the potential for a geologic unit to produce scientifically significant fossils. 

This sensitivity is determined by rock type, history of the rock unit in producing significant fossils, and 

fossil localities that are recorded from that unit. Paleontological sensitivity is assigned based on 

fossil data collected from the entire geologic unit, not just at a specific site. Paleontological sensitivity 

(potential) ratings (Society for Vertebrate Paleontology 2010) are summarized in Table 3.10-3. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-25

Table 3.10-3. Paleontological Sensitivity Ratings 

Sensitivity 

Potential Definition 

High sensitivity Rock units from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils have been 

recovered are considered to have a high potential for containing additional significant 

paleontological resources. Rocks units classified as having high potential for producing 

paleontological resources include, but are not limited to, sedimentary formations and some 

volcaniclastic formations (e.g., ashes or tephras), some low-grade metamorphic rocks that 

contain significant paleontological resources anywhere within their geographical extent, and 

sedimentary rock units temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils (e.g., 

middle Holocene and older, fine-grained fluvial sandstones, argillaceous and carbonate-rich 

paleosols, cross-bedded point bar sandstones, fine-grained marine sandstones, etc.).

Low sensitivity This includes rock units that have low potential for yielding significant fossils. Such rock units 

will be poorly represented by fossil specimens in institutional collections. Rock units with low 

potential typically will not require impact mitigation measures to protect fossils.

Undetermined 

sensitivity 

Rock units for which little information is available concerning their paleontological content, 

geologic age, and depositional environment are considered to have undetermined potential. 

Further study is necessary to determine if these rock units have high or low potential to 

contain significant paleontological resources.

Paleontological resources are considered non-renewable resources because they are the remains of 

prehistoric animal and plant life. 

Given the diversity of geologic units found within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, the 

paleontology is equally diverse, and, in some areas, fossil resources are abundant. A detailed 

analysis of the paleontological sensitivity of each geologic formation within the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Study Area is beyond the scope of the Tier 1/Program-level analysis and would be the 

subject of Tier 2/Project-level paleontological assessments. A generalized description of regional 

paleontological settings has been provided below. 

In the western portion of Riverside County, fossils occur in sediments lying on the surface of 

crystalline bedrock or are deposited in or between the major fault zones. The eastern desert portions 

of Riverside County are marked by fault block mountains that contain older fossil-bearing sediments 

with younger fossil-containing deposits found around dry lakes, along high stands of the Salton Sea 

and in terraces left by the Colorado River.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-26

The oldest fossils in California are from the Proterozoic Age, dating to 900 million years ago. 

However, no fossils from the Proterozoic Age are currently known to occur in Riverside County. It is 

thought that in this area of Southern California, fossils earlier than the Jurassic Period may have 

been destroyed by the natural processes of metamorphism (geological changes in the rocks and 

soils). The oldest fossils found in Riverside County date to the Late Jurassic Period (approximately 

150 million years ago) (Riverside County Planning Department 2015). 

Figure 3.10-2 shows areas of potential paleontological sensitivity within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Study Area. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-27

Figure 3.10-2. Paleontological Sensitivity within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Sheet 1 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-28

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-29

Figure 3.10-2. Paleontological Sensitivity within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Sheet 2 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-30

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-31

Figure 3.10-2. Paleontological Sensitivity within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Sheet 3 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-32

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-33

Figure 3.10-2. Paleontological Sensitivity within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Sheet 4 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-34

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-35

Figure 3.10-2. Paleontological Sensitivity within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Sheet 5 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-36

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-37

Figure 3.10-2. Paleontological Sensitivity within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Sheet 6 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-38

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-39

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

For the Western Section of Build Alternative Option 1, approximately 3,146.30 acres were identified 

as areas mapped as having high paleontological sensitivity. For the Eastern Section of Build 

Alternative Option 1, approximately 1,772.31 acres were identified as areas mapped as having high 

paleontological sensitivity. Table 3.10-4 provides a summary of high, low, and undetermined

paleontological sensitivity zones within Build Alternative Option 1.

Table 3.10-4. Summary of Paleontological Sensitivity Zones (Build Alternative Option 1)

Paleontological Sensitivity Zone

Area of Zone 

within Western 

Section (acres)

Area of Zone 

within Eastern 

Section 

(acres)

Total Area of Zone 

(acres)

High 3,146.30 1,772.31 4,918.61

Low 364.80 13,404.10 13,768.90

Undetermined 2.49 2,279.15 2,281.64

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Table 3.10-5 provides a summary of paleontological resource zones within Build Alternative Option 

2. There are fewer acres of paleontological resource zones within Build Alternative Option 2 because 

of the shorter route alignment and reduced station options. 

Table 3.10-5. Summary of Paleontological Sensitivity Zones (Build Alternative Options 2 

and 3)

Paleontological Sensitivity Zone

Area of Zone 

within Western 

Section (acres)

Area of Zone 

within Eastern 

Section 

(acres)

Total Area of Zone 

(acres)

High 3,146.30 706.77 3,853.07

Low 364.80 13,404.10 13,768.90

Undetermined 2.49 2,279.15 2,281.64

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Potential paleontological sensitivity areas within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build 

Alternative Option 2. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-40

Mineral Resources

Minerals are defined as any naturally occurring chemical elements or compounds, formed from 

inorganic processes and organic substances. Mineable minerals or an ore deposit is defined as a 

deposit of ore or mineral having a value materially in excess of the cost of developing, mining, and 

processing the mineral and reclaiming the project area. The conservation, extraction, and processing 

of mineral resources are an integral part of development and economy within Southern California.

The CGS provides information about California’s non-fuel mineral resources and classifies lands 

throughout the state that contain regionally significant mineral resources, as mandated by the

Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. Non-fuel mineral resources include metals such as gold, silver, 

iron, and copper; industrial metals such as boron compounds, rare-earth elements, clays, limestone, 

gypsum, salt, and dimension stone; and construction aggregate such as sand, gravel, and crushed 

stone. Development generally results in a demand for minerals, especially construction aggregate. 

The classification of these mineral resources is a joint effort of the state and the local governments

and is based on geologic factors and requires that the State Geologist classify the mineral resources 

area as one of the four MRZs, as summarized in Table 3.10-6. 

Table 3.10-6. Mineral Resource Zone Ratings 

MRZ Definition 

MRZ-1 Areas where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present 

or likely to be present

MRZ-2 Areas where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or a 

high likelihood exists for their presence

Subcategory MRZ-2a indicates measured/indicated mineral resource reserves, while 

Subcategory MRZ-2b indicates inferred mineral resources

MRZ-3 Areas where the significance of mineral deposits cannot be determined from available data

MRZ-4 Areas where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ 

designation

Source: USGS 2020

Notes:

MRZ=mineral resource zone

As shown on Figure 3.10-3, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area traverses multiple MRZs. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-41

Figure 3.10-3. Mineral Resource Zones within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Sheet 1 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-42

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-43

Figure 3.10-3. Mineral Resource Zones within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Sheet 2 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-44

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-45

Figure 3.10-3. Mineral Resource Zones within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Sheet 3 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-46

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-47

Figure 3.10-3. Mineral Resource Zones within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Sheet 4 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-48

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-49

Figure 3.10-3. Mineral Resource Zones within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Sheet 5 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-50

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-51

Figure 3.10-3. Mineral Resource Zones within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Sheet 6 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-52

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-53

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

For the Western Section of Build Alternative Option 1, the largest type of MRZ mapped land is 

MRZ-3 (5,911.9 acres). Other land mapped as MRZ-1 and MRZ-2 are also present within the 

Western Section. For the Eastern Section of Build Alternative Option 1, the largest type of MRZ

mapped land is MRZ-3 (13,550.5 acres). Other land mapped as MRZ-1 and MRZ-2 are also present 

within the Eastern Section. 

Two active mines are identified within the Eastern Section: the Cabazon Quarry and the Garnet Site. 

As shown on Figure 3.10-3, the Cabazon Quarry, owned and operated by Robertson’s Ready Mix, is 

located within the Pass Area Station Area with the primary mineral resources mined being sand and 

gravel. The Garnet Site, owned and operated by Granite Construction Company, is located between 

the Pass Area Station Area and Mid-Valley Station Area with the primary mineral resources mined

being sand and gravel. Table 3.10-7 provides a summary of MRZs within Build Alternative Option 1.

Table 3.10-7. Summary of Mineral Resource Zones (Build Alternative Option 1)

MRZ

Area of Zone 

within Western 

Section (acres)

Area of Zone 

within Eastern 

Section (acres)

Total Area of Zone 

(acres)

MRZ-1 2,660.2 5,445.7 8,105.8

MRZ-2 1,535.0 2,654.3 4,189.3

MRZ-3 5,911.9 13,550.5 19,462.4

MRZ-4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Source: USGS 2020

Notes:

MRZ=mineral resource zone

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

For the Western Section of Build Alternative Option 2, the largest type of MRZ mapped land is 

MRZ-3 (5,911.9 acres). Other land mapped as MRZ-1 and MRZ-2 are also present within the 

Western Section. For the Eastern Section of Build Alternative Option 1, the largest type of MRZ

mapped land is MRZ-3 (13,550.5 acres). Other land mapped as MRZ-1 and MRZ-2 are also present 

within the Eastern Section. 

Two active mines are identified within the Eastern Section: the Cabazon Quarry and the Garnet Site. 

Table 3.10-8 provides a summary of MRZs within Build Alternative Option 2. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-54

There are fewer acres of MRZs within Build Alternative Option 2 because of the shorter route 

alignment and reduced station options. 

Table 3.10-8. Summary of Mineral Resource Zones (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) 

MRZ

Area of MRZ within 

Western Section 

(acres)

Area of MRZ

within Eastern 

Section (acres)

Total Area of MRZ

(acres)

MRZ-1 2,660.2 4574.9 7,235.1

MRZ-2 1,535.0 2,654.3 4,189.3

MRZ-3 5,911.9 13,550.5 19,462.4

MRZ-4 0.0 0.0 0.0

Source: USGS 2020

Notes:

MRZ=mineral resource zone

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

MRZs within Build Alternative Option 3 (Table 3.10-8) are the same as Build Alternative Option 2. 

3.10.5 Environmental Consequences

Overview 

Effects as a result of implementing the Build Alternative Options can be broadly classified into 

construction and operational effects. Long-term or permanent effects and short-term or temporary 

effects related to geology, soils, seismicity, mineral resources, and paleontological resources would 

be anticipated as a result of constructing any of the Build Alternative Options. 

Most effects related to geology, soils, mineral resources, and paleontological resources would occur 

during construction when the ground is disturbed, and grading and excavation activities could result 

in impacts on buried resources. Potential impacts resulting from seismic activity in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area would be more likely to occur during operation over the course of the 

Program’s lifespan. 

No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, is used as the baseline 

for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program associated with this 

service-level evaluation. Because no physical changes associated with the Program would occur, no 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-55

effects on geology, soils, seismicity, and paleontological and mineral resources are anticipated

under the No Build Alternative. However, due to the seismic nature of Southern California, geologic 

hazards such as seismically induced fault rupture, ground shaking, landslides, and liquefaction may 

still occur under the No Build Alternative. 

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 

Seismic/Geologic Hazard Effects 

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or 

station infrastructure in the Western Section of the Program Corridor because the existing railroad 

ROW, and stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build 

Alternative, effects would be negligible because no additional construction activities are planned 

within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. 

Eastern Section. Construction of Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 in the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor would require the construction of rail stations, reconfiguration of existing or 

creation of new rail facilities, and potential ROW acquisition. If a passenger rail system is 

constructed and operated within the existing rail ROW, no ROW acquisitions would be required. 

However, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area allows for infrastructure and station facilities to be 

located beyond the limits of the existing rail ROW, which would require acquisition of land that could 

be within a potential seismic or geologic hazard zone. 

Soil types and geologic formations are indications of stability for Program infrastructure and facilities 

and longevity of service. Soils with high clay content often have high shrink/swell potential and are 

generally poorly suited for railway, road, or foundation bases. Such soils may need to be excavated 

and replaced prior to construction or treated in place to limit effects on proposed structures. 

Construction activities may also disturb or modify soils and slopes and must be managed through 

standard engineering practices and design to avoid and minimize potential risk. Additionally, some 

portions of the Eastern Section traverse areas with moderate to high susceptibility to landslides and 

liquefaction.

While applicable building codes and design features to address potential seismic or geologic 

hazards would be adhered to and developed, potential effects depend on where the infrastructure 

improvements, including new stations, which have not yet been selected, would be located. Which 

properties would be affected by the future construction and operation of a passenger rail system, 

and to what extent, cannot be determined at this time. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-56

evaluate the selected site and proposed infrastructure improvement or station facility and whether 

people or structures are exposed to increased seismic or geologic hazard risk. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 could have a moderate 

effect associated with seismic or geologic hazard zones within the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 may have 

slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment and

reduced station options; however, the magnitude of effects would be similar and would be 

considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build 

Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to a 

smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced 

third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative 

Option 3 and would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.

OPERATION 

Western Section. Operation of Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 within the Western Section would 

not result in new effects associated with seismic or geologic hazards, as the additional train trips 

would travel within an existing railroad ROW. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects 

associated with seismic or geologic hazards would be negligible because no additional infrastructure 

improvements are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. 

Eastern Section. The Build Alternative Options cross AP fault zones capable of ground rupture and 

would be generally susceptible to earthquakes resulting in ground shaking. Additionally, some 

portions of the Eastern Section traverse areas with moderate to high susceptibility to landslides and 

liquefaction. Operation would comply with federal, state, and, local design and safety criteria 

regarding structural integrity to protect the public and property from geologic, soil, and seismic 

hazards. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would evaluate site-specific impacts associated with 

seismic or geologic hazard areas and whether operation of a facility would result in effects on the 

public. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 could have a moderate 

effect on seismic or geologic hazards within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. When 

compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have slightly reduced 

effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the magnitude of 

effects would be similar and would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build 

Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have 

slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced 

station options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-57

be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and would be considered moderate when compared with the 

No Build Alternative.

Paleontological Resource Effects 

CONSTRUCTION 

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or 

station infrastructure in the Western Section of the Program Corridor because the existing railroad, 

and stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build Alternative, 

short-term/temporary effects associated with the paleontological resources would be negligible 

because no additional construction activities are planned within the Western Section under Build 

Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Construction of Build Alternative 1, 2, or 3 in the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor would require the construction of rail stations, reconfiguration of existing or creation of new 

rail facilities, and potential ROW acquisition. These construction activities could occur in areas 

identified as having undetermined or high paleontological sensitivity. Direct physical effects on 

paleontological resources may include damage or destruction during ground-disturbing activities 

associated with construction of rail infrastructure improvements or station facilities. 

Excavation of the sediments within a high paleontological sensitivity area could destroy or degrade 

the condition of the fossil. Additionally, the nature of excavation activities would cause any fossils to 

be removed from their stratigraphic context, thereby reducing the scientific usefulness of the fossil. 

Paleontological resources are considered a finite and unique resource. Once disturbed or removed, 

that resource is effectively eliminated. When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build 

Alternative Option 1 could have a substantial effect on paleontological resources within the Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative 

Option 2 would have slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station 

options. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar and considered substantial when 

compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build 

Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a 

shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, 

the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and would be considered 

substantial when compared with the No Build Alternative. However, detailed analysis of ROW 

acquisition impacts would be completed in a Tier 2/Project-level analysis.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-58

OPERATION

Western Section. Operation of Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 within the Western Section would 

not result in new effects associated with paleontological resources, as the additional train trips would 

travel within an existing railroad ROW. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects 

associated with paleontological resources would be negligible because no additional infrastructure 

improvements are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Once construction ceases, operation of the new railroad infrastructure and stations 

under the Build Alternative Options are not anticipated to result in changes associated with 

paleontological resources. Operational effects associated with the Eastern Section of Build 

Alternative Option 1 would be negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative. When 

compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have the same 

magnitude of effect and be considered negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative.

When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly 

reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station 

options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be 

similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and would be considered negligible when compared with the No 

Build Alternative.

Mineral Resource Effects

CONSTRUCTION 

Western Section. Operation of Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 within the Western Section would 

not result in effects on mineral resources, as the additional train trips would travel within an existing 

railroad ROW. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects on mineral resources would be 

negligible because no additional infrastructure improvements are planned within the Western 

Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Construction of Build Alternative 1, 2, or 3 in the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor would require the construction of rail stations, reconfiguration of existing or creation of new 

rail facilities, and potential ROW acquisition. These would require the conversion of 

non-transportation land to a transportation use. The site-specific design that would be developed in 

later Program phases would determine the extent to which land use conversions occur. If the rail 

infrastructure or station facility is within the ROW of, or closely parallel to, an existing transportation 

corridor, the extent of land conversion would be minimal. However, the further rail infrastructure or a 

station facility departs from an existing transportation feature, the greater the likelihood for land use 

conversion, ranging from building on vacant/undeveloped land to potential displacement of existing 

structures. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-59

If a passenger rail system is constructed and operated within the existing rail ROW, no ROW 

acquisitions would be required. However, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area allows for 

infrastructure and station facilities to be located beyond the limits of the existing rail ROW, which 

would require acquisition of land not designated for transportation uses. Which mineral resources 

would be affected by the future construction and operation of a passenger rail system, and to what 

extent, cannot be determined at this time. 

If MRZ mapped lands within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor are converted to a 

transportation use, it would be considered an adverse effect. Mineral resource lands are considered 

a finite and unique resource; once mineral resource land is converted to other uses, that resource is 

effectively eliminated. When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 could 

have a substantial effect on mineral resources within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. 

When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have slightly 

reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the 

magnitude of effects would be similar and considered substantial when compared with the No Build 

Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may 

have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, 

reduced station options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of 

effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and would be considered substantial when 

compared with the No Build Alternative. However, detailed analysis of ROW acquisition impacts 

would be completed in a Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

OPERATION

Western Section. Operation of Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 within the Western Section would 

not result in new effects associated with mineral resources or mineral resource sites, as the 

additional train trips would travel within an existing railroad ROW. When compared with the No Build 

Alternative, effects associated with mineral resources would be negligible because no additional 

infrastructure improvements are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 

1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Once construction ceases, operation of the new railroad infrastructure and stations 

under the Build Alternative Options are not anticipated to result in changes associated with mineral 

resources or mineral resource sites. Operational effects associated with the Eastern Section of Build 

Alternative Option 1 would be negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative. When 

compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have the same 

magnitude of effect and be considered negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative.

When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly 

reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-60

options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be 

similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and would be considered negligible when compared with the No 

Build Alternative.

3.10.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects 

Table 3.10-9 through Table 3.10-11 summarizes the qualitative assessment of potential effects 

(negligible, moderate, or substantial) under NEPA for each of the Build Alternative Options. This 

service-level evaluation uses the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area to determine the relative 

magnitude of potential effects on geology, soils, seismicity, paleontological resources, and mineral 

resources under each of the Build Alternative Options. Specific mitigation measures to reduce 

effects would be identified during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

Table 3.10-9. NEPA Summary of Effects on Seismic and Geologic Hazards

Alternative Option

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: None 

Operation: None 

Construction: None

Operation: None 

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate 

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate 

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with Limited Third 

Track) 

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate

Notes: 

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel 

facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels 

of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on Project-specific 

analysis.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-61

Table 3.10-10. NEPA Summary of Effects on Paleontological Resources

Alternative Option

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: None 

Operation: None 

Construction: None

Operation: None 

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Substantial

Operation: Negligible 

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Substantial

Operation: Negligible 

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with Limited 

Third Track) 

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Substantial

Operation: Negligible

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel 

facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels 

of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on Project-specific 

analysis.

Table 3.10-11. NEPA Summary of Effects on Mineral Resources

Alternative Option

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: None 

Operation: None 

Construction: None

Operation: None 

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Substantial

Operation: Negligible 

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Substantial

Operation: Negligible 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-62

Alternative Option

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Eastern Section

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with Limited Third 

Track) 

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Substantial

Operation: Negligible

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel 

facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels 

of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on Project-specific 

analysis. 

3.10.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts

Based on the information provided in Section 3.10.4 and 3.10.5, and considering the CEQA 

Guidelines Appendix G Checklist questions for geology, soils, paleontological resources, and 

mineral resources, the Build Alternative Options would have a potentially significant impact on 

geology, soils, paleontological resources, and mineral resources when reviewed on a Program-wide 

basis. Placing the infrastructure improvements and new stations largely within or along the existing 

ROW reduces the potential for significant impacts on these resources; however, because the sites 

have not been selected, some resources may be significantly impacted. At the programmatic 

analysis level, it is not possible to know the location, extent, and characteristics of impacts on these 

resources. Proposed programmatic mitigation strategies discussed in Section 3.10.8 would be 

applied to reduce potential impacts. 

Table 3.10-12 summarizes the CEQA significance conclusions for the Build Alternative Options; the 

proposed programmatic mitigation strategies that could be applied to minimize, reduce, or avoid the 

potential impacts; and the significance determination after mitigation strategies are applied. The 

identification and implementation of additional site-specific mitigation measures necessary for 

Project implementation would occur as part of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-63

Table 3.10-12. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Geology, Soils, and Mineral Resources 

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving

rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State 

Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? 

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 

2, or 3 because no physical improvements are proposed or required within 

the Western Section.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential exposure to seismic 

hazards during construction activities are dependent on the location of rail 

infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are currently 

unknown. Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 cross areas where identified 

earthquake faults and AP fault zones are present; therefore, there is 

potential for significant impacts. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would 

evaluate the potential of seismic risk and whether people or structures would 

be exposed to significant seismic risk during construction activities.

GEO-1 Less than Significant. GEO-1 would minimize, 

reduce, or avoid potential impacts associated with 

construction activities within areas containing potential 

seismic hazards through design and further analysis 

during the Tier 2/Project-level environmental process. 

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The Western Section of the 

Program Corridor is subject to seismic ground shaking due to the existing 

geologic conditions in Southern California. The increased train service (two 

additional round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not 

change existing land use and would not result in new seismic hazards to the 

public or the environment. Therefore, a less than significant impact under 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 is anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-64

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Once construction ceases, 

operation of the new railroad infrastructure and stations under the Build 

Alternative Options are not anticipated to result in changes associated with 

seismic hazard zones. However, the operation of new station facilities within 

seismic hazard zones could result in an increased seismic hazard risks to 

people or structures in the area; therefore, there is potential for significant 

impacts. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would evaluate the potential for 

people or structures to be exposed to seismic hazards during operation. 

LU-3 Less than Significant. LU-3 would minimize, reduce, 

or avoid potential impacts on people and structures 

resulting from seismic hazards through design and 

further analysis during the Tier 2/Project-level

environmental process. 

Would the Program directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving 

strong seismic ground shaking?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. Although the Western Section of the 

Program Corridor would be subject to seismic ground shaking, no 

construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 because no physical 

improvements are proposed or required within the Western Section. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential exposure to strong 

seismic shaking during construction activities are dependent on the location 

of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are currently 

unknown. Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 cross areas where strong 

seismic shaking could occur; therefore, there is potential for significant 

impacts. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would evaluate the potential of 

seismic risk and whether people or structures would be exposed to 

significant seismic risk during construction activities.

GEO-1 Less than Significant. GEO-1 would minimize, 

reduce, or avoid potential impacts associated with 

construction activities within areas subject to strong 

seismic ground shaking through design and further 

analysis during the Tier 2/Project-level environmental 

process. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-65

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The Western Section of the 

Program Corridor is subject to seismic ground shaking due to the existing 

geologic conditions in Southern California. The increase in train service (two 

additional round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not 

change existing land use and would not result in new seismic hazards to the 

public or the environment. Therefore, a less than significant impact under 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 is anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Once construction ceases, 

operation of the new railroad infrastructure and stations under the Build 

Alternative Options are not anticipated to result in changes associated with 

seismic hazard zones. However, the operation of new station facilities within 

seismic hazard zones could result in an increased seismic hazard risks to 

people or structures in the area; therefore, there is potential for significant 

impacts. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would evaluate the potential for 

people or structures to be exposed to seismic hazards during operation. 

LU-3 Less than Significant. LU-3 would minimize, reduce, 

or avoid potential impacts on people and structures 

resulting from seismic hazards through design and 

further analysis during the Tier 2/Project-level 

environmental process. 

Would the Program directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving 

seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 

2, or 3 because no physical improvements are proposed or required within 

the Western Section.

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-66

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts from 

seismic-related ground failure are dependent on the location of rail 

infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are currently 

unknown. Numerous faults and areas of high susceptibility to liquefaction are 

located within Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. These seismic hazard 

areas would be considered during design with proposed infrastructure and 

structures required to adhere to all California Building Code requirements to 

address seismic safety. However, until a site-specific Project is identified, it is 

unknown if impacts would be significant. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis 

would identify and analyze site-specific impacts associated with 

seismic-related ground failure.

GEO-1 Less than Significant. GEO-1 would minimize, 

reduce, or avoid potential impacts related to 

seismic-related ground failure through design and 

further analysis during the Tier 2/Project-level

environmental process.

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing 

land use and would not result in an exacerbation of liquefaction risks or 

hazards. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – No Impact. Once construction ceases, operation of the 

new railroad infrastructure and stations under the Build Alternative Options 

are not anticipated to result in changes associated with liquefaction 

conditions. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-67

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving 

landslides?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 

2, or 3 because no physical improvements are proposed or required within 

the Western Section.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential construction impacts 

resulting from landslides are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure 

improvements and station facilities, which are currently unknown. For 

construction activities that would occur in areas of high landslide 

susceptibility, there is an increased risk of landslide impacts due to increased 

human activity (e.g., movement of soils). The Tier 2/Project-level analysis 

would evaluate the potential of landslide risk and whether people or 

structures would be exposed to significant landslide risk during construction 

activities.

GEO-1 Less than Significant. GEO-1 would minimize, 

reduce, or avoid potential impacts related to landslide 

hazards through design and further analysis during 

the Tier 2/Project-level environmental process.

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing 

land use and would not result in an exacerbation of landslide risks or 

hazards. Therefore, no operational impacts are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-68

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Once construction ceases, 

operation of the new railroad infrastructure and stations under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are not anticipated to result in changes 

associated with landslide hazard zones. However, the operation of new 

station facilities within landslide hazard zones could result in an increased 

landslide risk to people or structures in the area; therefore, there is potential 

for significant impacts. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would evaluate the 

potential for people or structures to be exposed to landslide risk during 

operation. 

LU-3 Less than Significant. LU-3 would minimize, reduce, 

or avoid potential impacts on people and structures 

resulting from landslides through design and further 

analysis during the Tier 2/Project-level environmental 

process. 

Would the Program result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts anticipated at the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, 

or 3 because no physical improvements are proposed or required within the 

Western Section.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Construction activities 

associated with rail infrastructure improvements or station facilities under 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 would include clearing, grading, and 

excavation, which have the potential to result in soil erosion; therefore, there 

is potential for significant impacts. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would 

identify and evaluate impacts associated with site-specific drainage patterns 

changes and the potential for site-specific construction activities to result in 

soil erosion and loss of topsoil.

HWQ-2

LU-3 

Less than Significant. HWQ-2 and LU-3 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts related to 

soil erosion or topsoil loss by requiring compliance 

with applicable regulations. BMPs would be identified 

to minimize, reduce or, avoid potential impacts from 

erosion or siltation.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-69

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) on an existing rail corridor 

would require maintenance of existing infrastructure. However, these 

maintenance activities do not require the alteration of existing drainage 

patterns or the addition of new impervious surfaces. Therefore, no impacts 

associated with soil erosion or loss of topsoil are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – No Impact. Operational activities would consist of 

ongoing maintenance of existing infrastructure and would not require the 

alteration of existing drainage patterns or the addition of new impervious 

surfaces once construction is complete. Therefore, no impacts associated 

with soil erosion or loss of topsoil are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Would the Program be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Program and 

potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 

2, or 3 because no physical improvements are proposed or required within 

the Western Section.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-70

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts are dependent 

on the location of rail infrastructure improvements or station facilities, which 

are currently unknown. These facilities and infrastructure could be located 

within an area containing unstable soil characteristics that could result in 

seismic hazards. These seismic hazard areas would be considered during 

Project design with proposed infrastructure and structures required to adhere 

to all California Building Code requirements to address seismic safety. 

However, until a site-specific Project is identified, it is unknown if impacts 

would be significant. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and 

mitigate site-specific impacts associated with seismic-related ground failure.

GEO-1 Less than Significant. GEO-1 would minimize, 

reduce, or avoid potential impacts related to unstable 

soil through design and further analysis during the Tier 

2/Project-level environmental process.

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing 

land use and would not result in impacts associated with unstable soils. 

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – No Impact. Once construction ceases, operation of the 

new railroad infrastructure and stations under the Build Alternative Options 

are not anticipated to result in changes associated with unstable soil 

conditions. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-71

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the UBC (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risk to 

life or property?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 

2, or 3 because no physical improvements are proposed or required within 

the Western Section.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 related to expansive soil are dependent on the 

location of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are 

currently unknown. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and 

mitigate impacts associated with expansive soils.

GEO-1 Less than Significant. GEO-1 would minimize, 

reduce, or avoid potential impacts related to 

expansive soil through design and further analysis 

during the Tier 2/Project-level environmental process.

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing 

land use and would not result in expansive soil hazards. Therefore, no 

impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – No Impact. Once construction ceases, operation of the 

new railroad infrastructure and stations under the Build Alternative Options 

are not anticipated to result in changes associated with expansive soils. 

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-72

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where 

sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 

2, or 3 because no physical improvements are proposed or required within 

the Western Section.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – No Impact. During construction activities, the contractor 

would provide portable toilets on site, which would then be removed from the 

site on a regular basis for off-site servicing at an approved wastewater 

handling facility. Therefore, the use of alternative wastewater disposal 

systems are not anticipated during construction. No construction impacts 

associated with alternative wastewater disposal systems are anticipated 

under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation level. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing 

land use that would result in the need for alternative wastewater disposal 

systems. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-73

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – No Impact. Operation of the Program under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 would require continual maintenance rail 

infrastructure and station facilities. The operation of maintenance and station 

facilities would generate wastewater; however, it is anticipated that these 

facilities would be connected to the local wastewater facility system and not 

to septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no 

impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Would the Program directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. Destruction of a unique paleontological 

resource or geologic feature would not occur because no physical 

improvements are proposed or required within the Western Section. 

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts on 

paleontological resources depend on the location of rail infrastructure 

improvements, station facilities, and the types of construction activities, 

which are currently unknown. The Eastern Section contains multiple areas of 

high paleontological sensitivity with the potential for subsurface resources to 

exist. Therefore, potentially significant impacts under Build Alternative Option 

1, 2, or 3 are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level.

PAL-1

LU-3 

Potentially Significant. PAL-1 and LU-3 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts on 

paleontological resources through design, further 

analysis, and the avoidance of resources. However, it 

is unknown to what extent and type of impact on 

paleontological resources would occur. Impacts may 

remain significant and unavoidable if further analysis 

determines that a non-renewable paleontological 

resource would be impacted by the rail infrastructure 

improvement or station facility proposed. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-74

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing 

land use and would not result in the destruction of a unique paleontological 

resource or site or unique geologic feature within the Western Section of the 

Program Corridor. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – No Impact. Once construction is complete, operation of 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 would not result impacts on paleontological 

resources within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. Therefore, no 

impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Would the Program result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the 

state?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No loss of availability of a known mineral 

resource would occur because no physical improvements are proposed or 

required within the Western Section. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated at 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 

2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-75

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts on mineral 

resources and associated plans and policies under Build Alternative Option 

1, 2, or 3 are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements

and station facilities, which are currently unknown. The Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis would identify and analyze impacts associated with the loss of 

availability of a known mineral resource. 

LU-3 Potentially Significant. LU-3 would minimize, 

reduce, or avoid potential impacts from conflicts with 

plans and policies through design and further analysis. 

However, impacts may remain significant and 

unavoidable, as further analysis may determine that 

there is a conflict that cannot be mitigated between 

land uses. 

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing 

land use and would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral 

resource within the Western Section of the Program Corridor. Therefore, no 

impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – No Impact. Once construction is complete, operation of 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 would not result in the loss of availability of 

a known mineral resource within the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-76

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, 

specific plan, or other land use plan?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No loss of availability of a known mineral 

resource would occur because no physical improvements are proposed or 

required within the Western Section. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated at 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 

2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts on mineral 

resources and associated plans and policies under Build Alternative Option 

1, 2, or 3 are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements 

and station facilities, which are currently unknown. The Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis would identify and analyze impacts associated with the loss of 

availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site. 

LU-3 Potentially Significant. LU-3 would minimize, 

reduce, or avoid potential impacts from conflicts with 

plans and policies through design and further analysis. 

However, impacts may remain significant and 

unavoidable, as further analysis may determine that 

there is a conflict that cannot be mitigated between 

land uses.

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing 

land use and would not result in conflicts with locally important mineral 

resource recovery sites within the Western Section of the Program Corridor. 

Therefore, no impacts under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are 

anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-77

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – No Impact. Once construction is complete, operation of 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 would not conflict with locally important 

mineral resource recovery sites within the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor. Therefore, no impacts under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are 

anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level.

Not applicable Not applicable

Notes:

AP=Alquist-Priolo; BMP=best management practice; EIR=environmental impact report; EIS=environmental impact statement; UBC=Uniform Building Code 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-78

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-79

3.10.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies

Identified below are proposed programmatic mitigation strategies for further consideration in the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and 

discussed during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis after design details are known and specific impacts 

are identified. Potential mitigation measures would be developed in consultation with the agency with 

jurisdiction over the resource. 

Examples of programmatic mitigation strategies for geology, soils, seismicity, and mineral resources 

would include preparation of a preliminary geotechnical report to identify existing conditions, design 

considerations for alternative construction methods, and slope/soil stabilization measures where 

moderate to high effects are expected. Examples of programmatic mitigation strategies for 

paleontological resources would depend on the presence of significant paleontological resources 

and rock units with a high or undermined potential for containing significant fossils. Proposed 

programmatic mitigation strategies, consistent with state and federal regulations, include, but are not 

limited to, the following:

Mitigation Strategy GEO-1: During the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a preliminary geotechnical 

report shall be prepared by a licensed geotechnical or civil engineer for the specific rail infrastructure 

or station facility proposed. The preliminary geotechnical report shall include, but not be limited to, 

analysis and recommendations on the following topics: 

• Site preparation

• Soil-bearing capacity

• Appropriate sources and types of fill

• Liquefaction

• Lateral spreading

• Corrosive soils

• Structural foundations

• Grading practices

The recommendations identified in the preliminary geotechnical report shall be refined in a final 

geotechnical report. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-80

Mitigation Strategy PAL-1: During the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, the lead agency or agencies 

shall determine if a paleontological resources assessment report is required for the specific rail 

infrastructure or station facility proposed. If required, a paleontological resources assessment report 

shall be prepared for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The report shall 

include, but not be limited to, analysis and recommendations on the following topics: 

• Geologic context of the region and site and the potential to contain paleontological resources

• A records search of institutions holding paleontological collections from the Southern 

California region

• A review of published and unpublished literature for past paleontological finds in the area

If the paleontological resources assessment report identifies that paleontological resources are 

present at the site or if the geologic units to be encountered by the Project are designated as having 

a high paleontological sensitivity by the applicable local jurisdiction and lead agency, a 

paleontological resources impact mitigation program shall be prepared and implemented by a 

professional paleontologist as defined under Secretary of the Department of the Interior Standards. 

The paleontological resource impact mitigation program shall include, but not be limited to, the 

following: 

• The qualifications of the principal investigator and monitoring personnel

• Construction crew awareness training content, procedures, and requirements

• Measures to prevent potential looting, vandalism, or erosion impacts

• Location, frequency, and schedule for on-site monitoring activities

• Criteria for identifying and evaluating potential fossil specimens or localities

• A plan for the use of protective barriers and signs or implementation of other physical or 

administrative protection measures

• Collection and salvage procedures

• Identification of an institution or museum willing and able to accept any fossils discovered

• Compliance monitoring and reporting procedures
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-81

Mitigation Strategy HWQ-2: Based on the results of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis and 

recommendations, the construction of specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed shall

comply with the provisions of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit 

for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (Order 

Number 2009-0009-DWQ, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Number CAS000002), 

and any subsequent amendments (Order Number 2010-0014-DWQ and Order Number

2012-0006-DWQ). These provisions shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 

• Construction activities shall not commence until a waste discharger identification number is 

received from the State Water Resources Control Board Stormwater Multiple Application and 

Report Tracking System. 

• Identification of good housekeeping, erosion control, and sediment control best management 

practices shall be utilized during construction activities. 

• A stormwater pollution prevention plan shall be prepared. 

• A rain event action plan shall be prepared. 

• A notice of termination shall be submitted to the State Water Resources Control Board within 

90 days of completion of construction and stabilization of the site.

These requirements, and any additional approvals, shall be determined in coordination with the 

governing agencies or local jurisdiction before construction on a project commences.

Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency 

analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of 

the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general 

plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or 

environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall 

be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or 

environmental resources. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.10 Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources

May 2021 | 3.10-82

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-1 

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

3.11.1 Introduction

This section identifies the potential of hazards and hazardous materials, including wildfire hazards,

within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area and evaluates the effects of associated with 

implementing the No Build Alternative and Build Alternative Options on these areas. 

3.11.2 Regulatory Framework

In accordance with NEPA (42 USC Section 4321 et seq.), CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR Parts 1501-1508), FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR

28545, May 26, 1999) and CEQA, FRA identified potential hazards and hazardous material sites

within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, and evaluated the potential effects and impacts that 

could occur from implementation of the Build Alternative Options.

Federal

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 United 

States Code Section 9601 et seq.)

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) provides 

broad federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened releases of hazardous 

substances that may endanger public health or the environment. CERCLA establishes requirements 

concerning closed and abandoned hazardous waste sites; provides for liability of persons 

responsible for releases of hazardous waste at these sites; and establishes a trust fund to provide 

for cleanup when no responsible party can be identified.

Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 United States Code Section 651 et seq.)

The Federal Occupational Safety and Health Act, which is implemented by the Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration, contains requirements, as set forth in Title 29 of the CFR, Part 1910, that 

are designed to promote worker safety, worker training, and a worker’s right-to-know. Occupational 

Safety and Health Administration requirements would be in effect during construction and operation 

of the Project to ensure the safety of workers. Title 49 of the CFR requires that every employee who 

transports hazardous materials receive training to recognize and identify hazardous materials and 

become familiar with hazardous materials requirements.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-2 

National Weather Service

Under extreme fire weather conditions, the National Weather Service issues Red Flag warnings, as 

part of the National Fire Danger Rating System, which indicate a high risk of large-scale damaging 

wildfire. Red Flag warning criteria can vary depending upon location; however, the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration’s general definition specifies that Red Flag criteria occur whenever 

a geographical area has been in a dry spell for longer than 1 week (or for a shorter period of time

before spring green-up or after fall color); the National Fire Danger Rating System is high to 

extreme; and the following weather parameters are forecasted to be met: 1) a sustained wind 

average of 15 miles per hour or greater, 2) relative humidity less than or equal to 25 percent, and 3) 

a temperature of greater than 75 degrees Fahrenheit. 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 United States Code Section 6901 et 

seq.)

Under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA), the U.S. EPA has the 

authority to control the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous 

waste by large-quantity generators (1,000 kilograms per month or more). Under the RCRA 

regulations, hazardous wastes must be tracked from the time of generation to the point of disposal. 

Additionally, all hazardous waste transporters are required to be permitted and must have an 

identification number. For California, the U.S. EPA has delegated RCRA enforcement to CalEPA, 

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC).

Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (Public Law 99-499)

CERCLA enlarged and reauthorized the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 

1986 (Public Law 99-499). The U.S. EPA compiles a list of national priorities among the known 

releases or threatened releases of hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants throughout 

the U.S. and its territories, known as the National Priorities List (NPL).

Toxic Substance Control Act (15 United States Code Section 2601 et seq.)

The Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA) of 1976 provides U.S. EPA with authority to require 

reporting, record-keeping, testing requirements, and restrictions relating to chemical substances 

and/or mixtures. Certain substances are generally excluded from TSCA, including, among others, 

food, drugs, cosmetics, and pesticides. TSCA addresses the production, import, use, and disposal of 

specific chemicals, including polychlorinated biphenyls, asbestos, radon, and lead-based paint. The 

Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act was implemented on 

June 22, 2016, as an update to the TSCA.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-3 

United States Environmental Protection Agency

U.S. EPA Region 9 oversees federal environmental enforcement in the Pacific Southwest, including 

California, on issues relating to federal air, water, waste, pesticides, and toxics statutes. 

Title IV of TSCA, as well as other regulations and authorities in the Residential Lead-Based Paint 

Hazard Reduction Act of 1992, directs U.S. EPA to regulate lead-based paint hazards. Under 

Section 112 of the FCAA, U.S. EPA is responsible for enforcing regulations relating to asbestos and 

demolition activities. Asbestos is regulated by 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart M – National Emission 

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants. The FCAA allows U.S. EPA to delegate this authority to 

state and local agencies.

State

CalEPA is responsible for the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws 

that regulate air, water, and soil quality, pesticide use, and waste recycling and reduction in 

California. In many cases, the California state statute is more stringent than the federal regulation, 

and the state of California also regulates some materials that are not regulated by federal statutes. 

CalEPA and the SWRCB establish rules governing the use of hazardous materials and the 

management of hazardous waste. Applicable state and local laws include the following:

• Aboveground Petroleum Storage Tank Act

• Asbestos-Containing Material Regulations

• California Accidental Release Prevention Program 

• Emergency Response to Hazardous Materials Incidents

• Hazardous Substances Information and Training Act

• Hazardous Waste Control Law

• Hazardous Waste Generator and on-site Hazardous Waste Treatment Programs (i.e., Tiered 

Permitting)

• Public Safety/Fire Regulations/Building Codes

• Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act

• TSCA

• Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances Act
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-4 

Within CalEPA, DTSC has primary regulatory responsibility, with delegation of enforcement to local 

jurisdictions that enter into agreements with the state agency for the management of hazardous 

materials and the generation, transport, and disposal of hazardous waste under the authority of the 

Hazardous Waste Control Law.

California Strategic Fire Plan

The State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection prepared the 2018 Strategic Fire Plan with the goal 

of developing policies and programs that serve the public interest in environmentally, economically, 

and socially sustainable forest and rangeland management, and establishing a fire protection system 

that protects and serves the people of California. PRC Sections 4114 and 4130 outline the 

requirements of the plan (State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection 2018). 

Fire Hazard Severity Zones

Government Code 51179, PRC Sections 4202 to 4204, and CCR Section 1280 outline requirements 

for state and local agencies to classify and map fire hazard severity zones. The California 

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Director has authority to classify state responsibility area 

(SRA) lands for the fire hazard, establish zones reflecting degree of hazard severity, and periodically 

review and update fire hazard severity zone designations. 

State Hazardous Waste Generator/Tiered Permitting Program (California Code of Regulations, 

Title 22, Division 4.5) 

The State Hazardous Waste Generator/Tiered Permitting Program was set up for tracking the waste 

from cradle to grave. The hazardous waste generator has a responsibility for determining if their 

waste is hazardous and for the safe handling, transport, and disposal of that waste. Generators who 

handle hazardous wastes are inspected by the Certified Unified Program Agency for compliance 

with federal and state hazardous waste storage, and disposal regulations at least once every 

3 years. 

Unified Program Agencies for Hazardous Materials and Hazardous Waste Management

(California Code of Regulations, Title 27, Division 1, Subdivision 4, Chapter 1, Sections 

15100-15620) 

The Unified Program required the administrative consolidation of six hazardous materials and waste 

programs (Program Elements) under one agency, a Certified Unified Program Agency. The Program 

Elements consolidated under the Unified Programs are: Tiered Permitting, Aboveground Petroleum 

Storage Tank Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan, Community-Right-To-Know, 

California Accidental Release Prevention, underground storage tank (UST), and Uniform Fire Code 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-5 

Plans and Inventory Requirements. The Unified Program is intended to provide relief to businesses 

complying with the overlapping and sometimes conflicting requirements of formerly independently 

managed programs. 

Regional

Los Angeles County General Plan

The Safety Element of the Los Angeles County 2035 General Plan (County of Los Angeles 2015) 

provides goals, objectives, policies, and programs related to hazards mitigation, emergency

response, fire hazards, and disaster recovery. The Safety Element provides specifics as to selected 

urban rife and secondary hazards, such as oil fields, areas with known shallow methane 

accumulation, natural gas transmission and distribution lines, and areas with concentrations of 

post-1946 high-rise buildings (greater than eight stories).

Orange County General Plan

The Safety Element of the Orange County General Plan (Orange County 2005) provides goals, 

objectives, and policies related to hazardous materials, including response to emergency incidents, 

surveillance of hazardous materials and waste, and providing training to designated personnel. The 

Safety Element also includes goals, objectives, and policies for fire hazards.

County of Riverside General Plan

The Safety Element of the County of Riverside General Plan (County of Riverside 2003) includes 

goals and policies to reduce impacts of future disasters in the county, including fire hazards. The 

policies identified in the plan are intended to ensure that land use and siting decisions take 

hazardous water management and risk reduction into account and that proposed development 

incorporates fire prevention features. 

County of San Bernardino General Plan

The Safety Element of the County of San Bernardino General Plan (County of San Bernardino 2014) 

identifies hazards and hazard abatement provisions to guide local decisions. The plan includes goals 

and polices to minimize potential risks resulting from exposure of county residents to natural and 

man-made hazards. The Safety Element establishes a coordinated program to condition 

development in wildland areas that was adopted through the Fire Safety Overlay provisions of the 

County Development Code. The Safety Element includes goals and policies to ensure emergency 

evacuation routes are identified and adequately accessible. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-6 

Local and Tribal Governments

Regulations from cities, local agencies, and tribal governments would be identified in the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis once site-specific rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are 

known.

3.11.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects

The methodology for this evaluation consists of using existing data to identify areas that have 

documented hazardous wastes, petroleum products, known contamination, or that are within a 

potential hazard area (e.g., fire severity zone, airport zone) within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study 

Area. Utilizing existing data, the potential level of effect is evaluated for each Build Alternative 

Option. 

No comprehensive source of information is available which identifies known or potential sources of 

environmental contamination. ASTM International (ASTM) Practice E1527-13 (Standard Practice for 

Environmental Site Assessments) is the accepted industry standard used to evaluate properties for 

the presence of contamination. U.S. EPA also recognizes the ASTM E1527-13 standard as an 

adequate investigative process to meet the All Appropriate Inquiry standard for CERCLA liability 

protections. However, because the methodology used is at the Tier 1/Program-level analysis, the 

evaluation herein would not meet either the ASTM E 1527-13 protocol or the U.S. EPA All 

Appropriate Inquiry standard. A detailed evaluation using these protocols and standards would be

completed during Tier 2/Project-level NEPA and CEQA analyses. 

For this service-level evaluation, the estimated number and distance of state response sites, landfill 

sites, USTs, and leaking underground storage tanks (LUST) from each Build Alternative Option were 

compared.

For fire hazard zones, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Statewide Fire Hazard 

Severity Zone Maps for SRA and local responsibility areas (LRA) and SRAs were reviewed and GIS 

overlays were created. For airports and airport influence areas, data from each county’s Airport Land 

Use Commission (ALUC) mapping was reviewed to create GIS overlays. For educational facilities, 

publicly available GIS data from each county was reviewed. 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

This service-level evaluation is limited to a desktop evaluation of the data sources described in 

Section 3.11.3. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area was combined with GIS overlays to identify 

potential hazards and hazardous materials sites that could be affected by the Program. These 

potential areas were identified on a broad scale using available mapping information. A detailed 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-7 

description of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area is provided in Section 3.1, Introduction to 

Environmental Analysis. 

Data Sources

Online GIS data available from the U.S. EPA (U.S. EPA 2018c), CalEPA (CalEPA 2018), and a 

variety of other sources were used to identify areas containing potential hazards or hazardous 

materials within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. Specifically, the following resources were 

reviewed: 

• Assessment Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System: Stores information 

reported by U.E. EPA Brownfields grant recipients on brownfields properties assessed or 

cleaned up with grant funding, as well as information on Targeted Brownfields Assessments 

performed by U.S. EPA Regions. A listing of Assessment Cleanup and Redevelopment 

Exchange System Brownfield sites is obtained from Cleanups in My Community. Cleanups in 

My Community provides information on Brownfields properties for which information is 

reported back to U.S. EPA, as well as areas served by Brownfields grant programs.

• Superfund Enterprise Management System: Formerly known as Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System, renamed to 

Superfund Enterprise Management System by the U.S. EPA in 2015, this list contains data 

on potentially hazardous waste sites that have been reported to the U.S. EPA by states, 

municipalities, private companies, and private persons, pursuant to Section 103 of the 

CERCLA.

• NPL: Also referred to as Superfund, the NPL is a subset of Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation and Liability Information System and identifies over 1,200 sites for 

priority cleanup under the Superfund Program.

• RCRA Information System: RCRA Information System is U.S. EPA’s comprehensive 

information system, providing access to data supporting the RCRA of 1976 and the 

Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984. The database includes selective 

information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat, and/or dispose of hazardous 

waste as defined by the RCRA.

• Toxic Release Inventory: A federal database that contains detailed information on nearly 

650 chemicals and chemical categories that over 1,600 industrial and other facilities in the 

state manage through disposal or other releases, recycling, energy recovery, or treatment. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-8 

• TSCA: TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the 

TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. It includes data on the production volume of these 

substances by plant site.

• California Environmental Reporting System: Developed by CalEPA to support the 

reporting of information by regulated businesses and Certified Unified Program Agencies 

pertaining to hazardous materials and hazardous waste throughout the state.

• EnviroStor: This system is used by the DTSC to track permitting, enforcement, and cleanup 

activities at hazardous waste facilities and sites with known or suspected contamination.

• Geotracker: Developed for SWRCB, this database contains information about impacted 

groundwater sites within the state, such as LUST, cleanup sites, and permitted facilities such 

as landfills and operating UST facilities.

• California Fire Hazard Severity Zone Viewer. Database that designates zones (based on 

factors such as fuel, slope, and fire weather) within an area. 

Known sites are a subset of sites of concern that exist along any corridor. All locations of 

environmental contamination cannot be captured and catalogued by an environmental program. 

Related Resources

There are no related resources that would contribute to the assessment of Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

effects on hazards and hazardous materials. 

3.11.4 Affected Environment

The Program Corridor crosses a large geographic area within Southern California, spanning 

approximately 144 miles from its western terminus in Los Angeles to its eastern terminus in 

Coachella. The Program Corridor occurs within an existing railroad corridor that traverses areas that 

have predominately been heavily modified for urban purposes, especially in the Western Section, 

although some areas occur in or adjacent to lands that are undeveloped or contain natural 

vegetation. Much of the Program Corridor from Los Angeles to Redlands is urbanized. The Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor is less urbanized with vacant land comprising of the largest land use 

category within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. 

Hazardous Waste and Material Sites

Hazardous wastes are defined as any waste product that is considered flammable, corrosive, 

reactive, or toxic (40 CFR Part 261.3). Hazardous wastes take on many different forms and may 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-9 

originate from a variety of sources. Common sites associated with contamination include, but are not 

limited to, gas stations, motor repair facilities, dry cleaners, heavy industry, and railroad corridors. 

Certain listings relating to hazardous materials and wastes or known contaminated properties are 

considered to be of greater concern to the Program than other hazardous material sites. In general, 

Superfund, Brownfields, and LUST listings (in order of magnitude) are more likely to affect the 

Program, since they often encompass a broad area compared with other listed sites. 

Figure 3.11-1 depicts the location of hazardous waste sites (including both federal listings from U.S. 

EPA and state listings from CalEPA) within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-10

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-11

Figure 3.11-1. Hazardous Waste and Materials Sites within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 1 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-12

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-13

Figure 3.11-1. Hazardous Waste and Materials Sites within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 2 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-14

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-15

Figure 3.11-1. Hazardous Waste and Materials Sites within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 3 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-16

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-17

Figure 3.11-1. Hazardous Waste and Materials Sites within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 4 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-18

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-19

Figure 3.11-1. Hazardous Waste and Materials Sites within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 5 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-20

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-21

Figure 3.11-1. Hazardous Waste and Materials Sites within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 6 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-22

This page is intentionally blank
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-23

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Table 3.11-1 provides a summary of sites listed on a hazardous waste or materials regulatory 

database within Build Alternative Option 1.

Table 3.11-1. Summary of Regulatory Database Listings (Build Alternative Option 1)

Database

Number of Listings 

Identified 

(Western Section)a

Number of Listings 

Identified 

(Eastern Section)a

Total Number of 

Listings a

Federal Listings (U.S. EPA)

NPL (Superfund) 0 0 0

Superfund Enterprise Management 

System (Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Information 

System) 

0 0 0

Brownfields 22 0 22

RCRA Large Quantity Generator 53 15 68

Toxic Release Inventory 83 8 91

TSCA 0 0 0

LUST-American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act

2 5 7

State Listings (CalEPA)

State Response (State Superfund 

Equivalent)

15 1 16

Military Cleanup 0 0 0

Land Disposal Sites 7 1 8

LUST 0 0 0

Chemical Storage Facilities 773 363 1,136

Hazardous Waste Generators 501 284 785
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-24

Database

Number of Listings 

Identified 

(Western Section)a

Number of Listings 

Identified 

(Eastern Section)a

Total Number of 

Listings a

UST 52 51 103

Large Quantity Generator 36 10 46

Total 1,544 738 2,282

Source: CalEPA 2018; U.S. EPA 2018

Notes: 

a The number of listings does not represent unique properties. Some properties may contain multiple listings in 

multiple databases.

CalEPA=California Environmental Protection Agency; LUST=leaking underground storage tank; NPL=National 

Priorities List; RCRA=Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; TSCA=Toxic Substance Control Act; 

UST=underground storage tank

As summarized in Table 3.11-1, a total of 2,282 regulatory database listings were identified within 

Build Alternative Option 1. The total number of listings does not represent the number of unique 

locations, since a single property may have multiple listings in one or more categories. The majority 

of the listings were sites identified as chemical storage facilities and hazardous waste sites. These 

sites may or may not be associated with documented contamination, but they all have the potential 

to affect human health and the environment should a release of substantial quantity occur. 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Table 3.11-2 provides a summary of sites listed on a hazardous waste or materials regulatory 

database within Build Alternative Option 2. 

Table 3.11-2. Summary of Regulatory Database Listings (Build Alternative Options 2 and 

3)

Database

Number of Listings 

Identified

(Western Section)a

Number of Listings 

Identified

(Eastern Section)a

Total Number of 

Listings a

Federal Listings (U.S. EPA)

NPL (Superfund) 0 0 0

Superfund Enterprise Management 

System (Comprehensive 

Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Information 

System) 

0 0 0
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-25

Database

Number of Listings 

Identified

(Western Section)a

Number of Listings 

Identified

(Eastern Section)a

Total Number of 

Listings a

Brownfields 22 0 22

RCRA Large Quantity Generator 53 12 65

Toxic Release Inventory 83 8 91

TSCA 0 0 0

LUST-American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act

2 4 6

State Listings (CalEPA)

State Response (State Superfund 

Equivalent)

15 0 15

Military Cleanup 0 0 0

Land Disposal Sites 7 1 8

LUST 0 0 0

Chemical Storage Facilities 773 326 1,099

Hazardous Waste Generators 501 251 752

UST 52 47 99

Large Quantity Generator 36 10 46

Total 1,544 659 2,203

Source: CalEPA 2018; U.S. EPA 2018

Notes: 

a The number of listings does not represent unique properties. Some properties may contain multiple listings in 

multiple databases.

CalEPA=California Environmental Protection Agency; LUST=leaking underground storage tank; NPL=National 

Priorities List; RCRA=Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; TSCA=Toxic Substance Control Act; 

UST=underground storage tank

As summarized in Table 3.11-2, a total of 2,203 regulatory database listings were identified within 

Build Alternative Option 2. Similar to Build Alternative Option 1, the total number of listings does not 

represent the number of unique locations, since a single property may have multiple listings in one 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-26

or more categories. The majority of the listings were sites identified as chemical storage facilities and 

hazardous waste sites. These sites may or may not be associated with documented contamination, 

but they all have the potential to affect human health and the environment should a release of 

substantial quantity occur. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Hazardous waste and materials sites within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build 

Alternative Option 2. 

Fire Hazard Severity Zones

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection uses fire hazard severity zones to classify the 

anticipated fire-related hazard for SRAs and LRAs. The classifications include Non-Wildland 

Non-Urban, Moderate, High, and Very High. Fire hazard measurements take into account the 

following elements: vegetation, topography, weather, crown fire production, and ember production 

and movement. The very high fire hazard severity designation can be attributed to a variety of 

factors including highly flammable, dense, drought adapted desert chaparral vegetation, seasonal, 

strong winds, and a Mediterranean climate that results in vegetation drying during the months most 

likely to experience Santa Ana winds. 

Southern California’s climate has a large influence on fire risk as drying vegetation during the 

summer months becomes fuel available to advancing flames should an ignition be realized. 

Typically, the highest fire danger is produced by the high-pressure systems that occur in the Great 

Basin, which result in the Santa Ana winds of Southern California. Sustained wind speeds recorded 

during recent major fires exceeded 30 mph and may exceed 50 mph during extreme conditions. The 

Santa Ana wind conditions are a reversal of the prevailing southwesterly winds that usually occur on 

a region-wide basis during late summer and early fall. Santa Ana winds are warm and dry winds that 

flow from the higher desert elevations in the north through the mountain passes and canyons. As 

they converge through the canyons, their velocities increase. Consequently, peak velocities are 

highest at the mouths of canyons and dissipate as they spread across valley floors. Santa Ana winds 

generally coincide with the regional drought period and the period of highest fire danger. The 

Program Corridor is affected by Santa Ana winds. In general, portions of the Program Corridor have 

terrain that is favorable to wildfire spread, including steep slopes, ravines, mountains, and valleys. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-27

As shown on Figure 3.11-2, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area traverses multiple fire hazard 

severity zones. Portions of the Western Section of the Program Corridor traverse a Very High Fire 

Hazard Severity Zone near the Orange County and Riverside County border and in San Bernardino 

County south of Colton and a Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zone west of Corona. Portions of the 

Eastern Section of the Program Corridor traverses a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone in San 

Bernardino County and multiple Very High and Moderate Fire Hazard Severity Zones through the 

San Gorgonio Pass. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-28

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-29

Figure 3.11-2. Fire Hazard and Airport Zones within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 1 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-30

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-31

Figure 3.11-2. Fire Hazard and Airport Zones within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 2 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-32

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-33

Figure 3.11-2. Fire Hazard and Airport Zones within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 3 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-34

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-35

Figure 3.11-2. Fire Hazard and Airport Zones within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 4 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-36

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-37

Figure 3.11-2. Fire Hazard and Airport Zones within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 5 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-38

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-39

Figure 3.11-2. Fire Hazard and Airport Zones within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area 

(Page 6 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-40

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-41

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

There are limited areas within the Western Section of Build Alternative Option 1 that are mapped as 

being within a fire hazard severity zone. Of the land mapped as being within a fire hazard severity 

zone, the largest is mapped as SRA High (114.0 acres). Other land mapped as SRA Very High and 

LRA Very High are also present within the Western Section. For the Eastern Section of Build 

Alternative Option 1, the largest type of fire hazard severity mapped land is mapped as SRA High

(1,256.6 acres). Similar to the Western Section, other land mapped as SRA Very High, SRA 

Moderate, and LRA Very High are also present within the Eastern Section. Table 3.11-3 provides a 

summary of fire hazard severity zones within Build Alternative Option 1.

Table 3.11-3. Summary of Fire Hazard Severity Zones (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and

3) 

Fire Hazard Severity Zone

Area of Zone 

within Western 

Section (acres)

Area of Zone 

within Eastern 

Section (acres)

Total Area of Zone 

(acres)

SRA – Very High 75.7 306.9 382.6

SRA – High 114.0 1,256.6 1,370.6

SRA – Moderate 0.0 1,151.7 1,151.7

LRA – Very High 617.1 562.7 1,179.8

Source: California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 2012

Notes: 

LRA=local responsibility area; SRA=state responsibility area

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Fire hazard severity zones within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build Alternative Option 

1. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Fire hazard severity zones within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build Alternative Option 

1. 

Airports and Airport Influence Areas 

Within California, airport land use compatibility is coordinated by an ALUC. ALUCs protect public 

health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-42

use measures that minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within 

areas around public airports. An Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) is the basis for 

compatible planning within the vicinity of a public airport. The ALUCP may include land use 

measures specifying land use, height restrictions, and building standards. The planning boundary of 

the ALUCP is the airport influence area and is established by the ALUC after consultation with the 

involved agencies. Involved agencies are primarily the cities and the county, but also include special 

districts, school districts, and community college districts. An ALUCP must also address any military 

airport within the jurisdiction of the ALUC. 

The Program Corridor crosses four counties, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside,

with each county having an ALUC that establishes land use, noise, and safety policies for projects in 

the vicinity of public airports, including compatibility criteria and maps for the influence areas of 

individual airports. 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

As shown on Figure 3.11-2, portions of the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1 are 

located within 3 airport facility influence areas and adjacent to 1 airport facility:

• Fullerton Municipal Airport 

• Corona Municipal Airport Influence Area 

• Riverside Municipal Airport Influence Area 

• March Air Reserve Base Airport Influence Area 

As shown on Figure 3.11-2, portions of the Eastern Section under Build Alternative Option 1 are 

located within 4 airport facility influence areas and adjacent to 2 airport facilities:

• Banning Municipal Airport and Banning Municipal Airport Influence Area 

• Palm Springs International Airport Influence Area 

• Bermuda Dunes Executive Airport and Bermuda Dunes Executive Airport Influence Area 

• Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport Influence Area 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-43

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Airports and airport influence areas for the Western Section within Build Alternative Option 2 are the 

same as Build Alternative Option 1. As shown on Figure 3.11-2, portions of the Eastern Section 

under Build Alternative Option 2 are located within three airport facility influence areas and adjacent 

to two airport facilities:

• Banning Municipal Airport and Banning Municipal Airport Influence Area 

• Palm Springs International Airport Influence Area 

• Bermuda Dunes Executive Airport and Bermuda Dunes Executive Airport Influence Area 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Airports and airport influence areas within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build 

Alternative Option 2. 

Educational Facilities 

School locations are important to consider because individuals particularly sensitive to hazardous 

materials exposure use these facilities. Additional protective regulations apply to projects that could 

use or disturb potentially hazardous products near or at schools. The California Public Resources 

Code requires projects that might reasonably be expected to emit or handle hazardous materials 

within 0.25 mile of a school to discuss potential effects with the applicable school district.

Figure 3.11-2 shows existing educational facilities (defined as colleges, high schools, middle 

schools, elementary schools, preschools, or nursery schools) within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Study Area. 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Table 3.11-4 provides a summary of education facilities within Build Alternative Option 1.

Table 3.11-4. Summary of School Facilities (Build Alternative Option 1)

Educational Facility 

Number of Facilities 

(Western Section)

Number of 

Facilities 

(Eastern Section)

Total Number of 

Education Facilities

Preschool/Nursery School 1 1 2

Elementary School 2 6 8

Middle School 2 1 3
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-44

Educational Facility 

Number of Facilities 

(Western Section)

Number of 

Facilities 

(Eastern Section)

Total Number of 

Education Facilities

High School 3 1 4

College/University 1 2 3

Other (Adult Education) 3 3 6

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Table 3.11-5 provides a summary of education facilities within Build Alternative Option 2 and 3. 

Table 3.11-5. Summary of School Facilities (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) 

Educational Facility 

Number of Facilities 

(Western Section)

Number of 

Facilities 

(Eastern Section)

Total Number of 

Education Facilities

Preschool/Nursery School 1 1 2

Elementary School 2 4 6

Middle School 2 0 2

High School 3 1 4

College/University 1 2 3

Other (Adult Education) 3 3 6

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

School facilities located within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build Alternative Option 2. 

3.11.5 Environmental Consequences

Overview 

Effects as a result of implementing the Build Alternative Options can be broadly classified into 

construction and operational effects. Long-term or permanent effects and short-term or temporary 

effects related to hazards and hazardous materials would be anticipated as a result of constructing 

any of the Build Alternative Options. 

Most effects related to hazards and hazardous materials would occur during construction when the 

ground is disturbed and when there could be temporary disturbance of hazardous materials. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-45

Operation or long-term effects would include the additional hazardous waste, contaminated 

materials, and solid waste that are generated by the operation of the Program, including from 

hazardous wastes handled at existing maintenance facilities as a part of routine operation and 

maintenance of passenger trains, and from minor spills and releases of non-acutely hazardous 

waste.

No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, of this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR, is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the 

Program of rail improvements associated with this service-level evaluation. Because no physical 

changes would occur, no effects related to hazards and hazardous materials and wildfire conditions 

are anticipated under the No Build Alternative.

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 

Hazardous Materials Sites and Hazardous Materials Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or 

station infrastructure in the Western Section of the Program Corridor because the existing railroad 

and stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build Alternative, 

short-term/temporary effects associated with the handling of potential hazardous materials would be 

negligible because no additional construction activities are planned within the Western Section under 

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. 

Eastern Section. A total of 51 UST and 2 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act database 

listings have been identified within the Eastern Section of Build Alternative Option 1. A total of 

47 UST and 2 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act database listings have been identified 

within the Eastern Section of Build Alternative Option 2 and 3. Construction activities under the Build 

Alternative Options involving excavation increase the likelihood for encountering existing and 

unknown regulated materials. Hazardous material sites pose a safety risk to workers who might be 

exposed to contaminated soil, water, and vapors. In addition, vehicles and equipment used during 

construction activities, such as fuel storage tanks, have the potential to release hazardous materials

(mainly petroleum products) and increase material spills. There is also the potential for an increase 

in hazardous conditions through the movement or dispersion of hazardous materials on site during 

construction.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-46

Although construction activities could increase the potential for use, release, and exposure to 

hazardous materials or hazardous conditions, appropriate construction safety procedures and 

equipment stockpiling methods would be used to minimize the potential for unintended releases with 

all releases reported and addressed under appropriate regulatory guidance. Should contamination 

be encountered, construction activities would be temporarily halted until characterization, storage, 

disposal, and cleanup requirements are met. 

If a passenger rail system is constructed and operated within the existing rail ROW, no ROW 

acquisitions would be required. However, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area allows for 

infrastructure and station facilities to be located beyond the limits of the existing rail ROW, which 

would require acquisition of land that is identified on a hazardous waste and materials regulatory 

database and be potentially contaminated. Which properties would be affected by the future 

construction and operation of a passenger rail system, and to what extent, cannot be determined at 

this time. 

Therefore, this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation does not identify the nature and severity of 

contamination at specific sites because the sites for where infrastructure and station improvements 

would be constructed have not yet been selected. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would evaluate 

site specific impacts associated with hazardous waste and material sites, and whether disposal or 

transportation of these hazardous materials would result in effects on the public. When compared 

with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 could have a moderate effect on hazardous 

waste and materials sites within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. When compared with

Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have slightly reduced effects due to a 

shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the magnitude of effects would be 

similar and would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. When 

compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced 

effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, 

and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for 

Build Alternative Option 3 and would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build 

Alternative.

OPERATION

Western Section. Under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, passenger train frequencies proposed 

as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two daily round-trip intercity diesel-powered 

passenger trains operating the entire length of the corridor between Los Angeles and Coachella. Any

hazardous wastes produced by operation of the Build Alternative Options in the Western Section of 

the Program Corridor would be handled at existing maintenance facilities as a part of routine 

operation and maintenance of passenger trains. Minor spills and releases of non-acutely hazardous 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-47

waste (i.e., petroleum, oil, and lubricants) may also occur due to normal operation along the tracks

and at existing stations or maintenance facilities. While petroleum, oils, and lubricants may be used 

in rail operations or maintenance, proper use, storage, and disposal practices would minimize the 

potential for accidental releases. 

Hazardous material sites would have minimal effect on the operations of a passenger rail system. 

Work within contaminated areas seldom goes beyond maintenance activities, which would be 

unlikely to increase workers’ exposure to contaminants. Effects associated with the Western Section 

of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 would be negligible when 

compared with the No Build Alternative. 

Eastern Section. Operational effects associated with hazardous waste and materials sites for the 

Build Alternative Options within the Eastern Section would be the same as those identified for the 

Western Section of the Program Corridor. Effects associated with the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 would be negligible when compared 

with the No Build Alternative. 

Fire Hazard Area Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. No construction activities would be required to implement any of the Build 

Alternative Options within the Western Section of the Program Corridor because the existing railroad 

ROW and stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. The Build Alternative Options would not 

require construction of new stations, new track or extensions to existing track, or the addition of 

sidings, wayside signals, drainage, or at-grade separations within the Western Section of the 

Program Corridor. When compared with the No Build Alternative, fire hazard area effects would be 

negligible within the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Construction of Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 in the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor would require the construction of rail stations, reconfiguration of existing or 

creation of new rail facilities, and potential ROW acquisition. Construction activities located within a 

SRA or LRA Fire Hazard Severity Zones under any of the Build Alternative Options have an 

increased risk of causing a wildfire due to increased human activity and ignition sources, including 

construction equipment that could create spark, be a source of heat, or leak flammable materials 

within an area. 

If a passenger rail system is constructed and operated within the existing rail ROW, no ROW 

acquisitions would be required. However, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area allows for 

infrastructure and station facilities to be located beyond the limits of the existing rail ROW, which 

would require acquisition of land that is identified in a SRA or LRA Fire Hazard Severity Zone. While 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-48

applicable fire codes and design features for fire suppression would be developed, potential effects 

depend on where the infrastructure improvements, including new stations, would be located, which 

have not yet been selected. Which properties would be affected by the future construction and 

operation of a passenger rail system, and to what extent, cannot be determined at this time. The Tier 

2/Project-level analysis would evaluate the exacerbation of fire risk and whether people or structures 

are exposed to increased fire hazard risk. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 could have a moderate 

effect associated with fire severity zones within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. When 

compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have the same 

magnitude of effects and would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build 

Alternative. 

OPERATION

Western Section. Operation of Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 within the Western Section would 

not result in new effects associated with fire hazard zones as the additional train trips would travel 

within an existing railroad ROW. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects associated 

with fire hazard zones would be negligible because no additional infrastructure improvements are 

planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Once construction ceases, operation of the new railroad infrastructure and stations 

under the Build Alternative Options would not be anticipated to result in changes associated with fire 

severity hazard zones. Operational effects associated with the Eastern Section of Build Alternative 

Option 1 would be negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with

Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have the same magnitude of 

effect and would be considered negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Airport and Airport Influence Area Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. No construction activities would be required to implement any of the Build 

Alternative Options within the Western Section of the Program Corridor because the existing railroad 

ROW and stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. The Build Alternative Options would not 

require construction of new stations, new track or extensions to existing track, or the addition of 

sidings, wayside signals, drainage, or at-grade separations within the Western Section of the 

Program Corridor. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects on airport facilities or airport 

influence areas would be negligible within the Western Section under Build Alternatives Option 

1, 2, and 3.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-49

Eastern Section. Within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, Build Alternative Option

1 would include the construction of infrastructure improvements, such as sidings, additional main line 

track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation structures, and stations, to accommodate the 

proposed service. The majority of construction activities would occur within or directly adjacent to the 

existing railroad ROW. However, the construction of up to five new potential stations would require 

acquisition of parcels within local communities adjacent to the railroad ROW. 

For Build Alternative Option 1, portions of the Pass Area Station Area, Mid-Valley Station Area, Indio 

Station Area, and Coachella Station Area are located adjacent to existing airport facilities or are 

within an airport influence area. Depending on where infrastructure or stations are sited within these 

station areas, land use compatibility, infrastructure/station design, and construction activities would 

be defined by the applicable ALUCP standards and regulations. When compared with the No Build 

Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 effects associated with airport facilities and airport influence 

would be moderate. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 

would have slightly reduced construction effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced 

station options (i.e., one less station area [Coachella Station Area]) within an airport influence area). 

However, the magnitude of effects would be similar and would be considered moderate when 

compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build 

Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a 

shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, 

the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and would be considered 

moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. Site-specific land use compatibility effects, 

along with measures to minimize potential disruption to, and land use compatibility effects on 

adjacent airport facilities and airport influence areas would be considered during the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

OPERATION

Western Section. Operation of Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 within the Western Section would 

not result in effects on airport facilities or airport influence areas as the additional train trips would 

travel within an existing railroad ROW. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects on 

airport facilities or airport influence areas would be negligible because no additional infrastructure 

improvements are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Once construction ceases, operation of the new railroad infrastructure and stations 

under the Build Alternative Options would not be anticipated to result in changes associated with 

airport facilities or airport influence areas. Operational effects associated with the Eastern Section of 

Build Alternative Option 1 would be negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative. When 

compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have the same 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-50

magnitude of effect and would be considered negligible when compared with the No Build 

Alternative.

3.11.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects

Table 3.11-6 through Table 3.11-7 summarize the qualitative assessment of potential effects 

(negligible, moderate, or substantial) under NEPA for each of the Build Alternative Options. This 

service-level evaluation uses the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area to determine the types of 

resources that may be affected and, more importantly, the relative magnitude of the effect. 

For hazards and hazardous materials, the level of intensity for effects is based on the types and 

number of sites potentially affected and that most effects related to hazards and hazardous materials 

can be mitigated through preparation of a phase I environmental site assessment, phase II site 

investigation, a hazardous materials management program, soil management plan, a health and 

safety plan, and a fire control and emergency response plan. Specific mitigation measures to reduce 

effects would be analyzed during the Tier 2/Project-level environmental process. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-51

Table 3.11-6. NEPA Summary of Effects on Hazardous Wastes and Material Sites 

Alternative Options

Total Number of 

NPL Sites

Total Number 

of State 

Response Sites

Total Number 

of Landfill 

Sites

Total Number 

of UST and 

LUST Sites

Potential Intensity of 

Effect: 

Western Section

Potential Intensity of 

Effect: 

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Construction: None 

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: None

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

0 16 8 110 Construction: 

Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Negligible 

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

0 15 8 105 Construction: 

Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Negligible 

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with 

limited third track)

0 15 8 105 Construction: 

Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Negligible 

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel facilities within the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be 

dependent on Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

LUST=leaking underground storage tank; NPL=National Priorities List; UST=underground storage tank
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-52

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-53

Table 3.11-7. NEPA Summary of Effects on Fire Hazard Zones

Alternative Options

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: None 

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: None

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Negligible 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio 

Terminus)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Negligible 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio 

Terminus with limited third track)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Negligible 

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and 

air travel facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, 

identifying levels of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on Tier 

2/Project-level analysis.

Table 3.11-8. NEPA Summary of Effects on Airport Areas

Alternative Options

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: None 

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: None

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Negligible 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio 

Terminus)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Negligible 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-54

Alternative Options

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio 

Terminus with limited third track)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Negligible 

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative, as identified, includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and 

air travel facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, 

identifying levels of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on Tier 

2/Project-level analysis.

3.11.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts 

Based on the information provided in Sections 3.11.4 and 3.11.5, and considering the CEQA 

Guidelines Appendix G Checklist questions for hazards and hazardous materials and wildfire, the 

Build Alternative Options would have potentially substantial impacts on hazards and hazardous 

materials and wildfire when reviewed on a Program-wide basis. Placing the infrastructure 

improvements and new stations largely within or along the existing ROW reduces the potential for 

substantial impacts associated with hazard and wildfire areas of concern. However, because the 

sites have not been selected, some areas that may contain hazardous materials and hazards may 

be substantially impacted. At the Tier 1/Program analysis level, it would not be possible to precisely 

know the location, extent, and particular characteristics of impacts on these areas. Proposed 

programmatic mitigation strategies discussed in Section 3.11.8 would be applied to reduce potential 

impacts. 

Table 3.11-9 summarizes the CEQA significance conclusions for the Build Alternative Options, the 

proposed programmatic mitigation strategies that could be applied to minimize, reduce, or avoid the 

potential impacts, and the significance determination after mitigation strategies are applied. The 

identification and implementation of additional site-specific mitigation measures necessary for 

Project implementation would occur as part of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-55

Table 3.11-9. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Wildfires 

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through 

the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Construction 

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 because no physical 

improvements or routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials are proposed or 

required within the Western Section. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential construction impacts related to the 

transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials are dependent on the location of rail 

infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are currently unknown. Construction 

activities could result in the temporary disturbance of hazardous materials sites, including sites 

with known soil or groundwater contamination, which would require cleanup and disposal of 

those materials. Due to the variety of potential construction techniques and numerous 

hazardous materials sites in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, there is the potential for 

impacts under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would 

identify and mitigate impacts regarding transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials

during construction activities.

HAZ-1

HAZ-2 

HAZ-3 

Less than Significant. HAZ-1 through 

HAZ-3 would minimize, reduce or avoid 

potential impacts related to the transport, 

use, or disposal of hazardous materials 

during construction by requiring further 

evaluation into hazardous materials in the 

area, preparation of a Project-specific 

hazardous materials management program 

and a health and safety plan, and by 

ensuring compliance with all applicable 

local, state, and federal regulations 

regarding hazardous materials during the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-56

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The change in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use and 

would not result in new hazards to the public or the environment. A less than significant impact 

is anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 

2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential operational impacts related to the 

transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials depend on the location of new rail 

infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are currently unknown. Some 

operational impacts could result in the generation of additional hazardous waste, contaminated 

materials, and solid waste, which would be handled by new maintenance facilities within the 

Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. Operations could also result in minor spills and 

releases of non-acutely hazardous waste. There is the potential for impacts under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and mitigate 

impacts related to the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials during operational 

activities.

HAZ-2 Less than Significant. HAZ-2 would 

minimize, reduce or, avoid potential 

impacts related to the transport, use, or 

disposal of hazardous materials during 

operational activities by preparation of 

Project-specific hazardous materials 

management program during Tier 

2/Project-level analysis.

Would the Program create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through 

reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the likely release of 

hazardous materials into the environment?

Construction 

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 because no physical 

improvements are proposed or required within the Western Section.

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-57

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential construction impacts are dependent on 

the location of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are currently 

unknown. Construction activities could result in the temporary disturbance of hazardous 

materials sites, including sites with known soil or groundwater contamination, which could 

release these materials into the environment. Due to the variety of potential construction 

techniques and numerous hazardous materials sites in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, 

there is the potential for impacts under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. Some cleanup of 

UST and LUST sites may be needed, which would require transportation or disposal of 

hazardous materials and potentially lead to upset and accident conditions related to accidental 

releases. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and mitigate impacts related to the 

release of hazardous materials into the environment.

HAZ-1

HAZ-2 

HAZ-3 

Less than Significant. HAZ-1 through 

HAZ-3 would minimize, reduce or, avoid

potential impacts resulting from the 

accidental release of hazardous materials 

into the environment during construction by 

requiring further evaluation into hazardous 

materials in the area, preparation of a 

Project-specific hazardous materials 

management program and a health and 

safety plan, and by ensuring compliance 

with all applicable local, state, and federal 

regulations regarding hazardous materials 

during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The change in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use and 

would not include changes that would result in new hazards to the public or the environment. A 

less than significant impact is anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-58

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Any hazardous wastes produced by operation of 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 in the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor would be 

handled at new maintenance facilities as a part of routine operation and maintenance of 

passenger trains. Minor spills and releases of non-acutely hazardous waste (i.e., petroleum, oil, 

and lubricants) may also occur due to normal operation along the tracks and at stations or 

maintenance facilities; therefore, there is the potential for impacts under Build Alternative 

Option 1, 2, or 3.

HAZ-2 Less than Significant. HAZ-2 would 

minimize, reduce or, avoid potential 

impacts related to hazards resulting from 

the release of hazardous materials into the 

environment during operational activities 

by preparation of a Project-specific 

hazardous materials management program 

and a health and safety plan during Tier 

2/Project-level analysis.

Would the Program emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely 

hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or 

proposed school?

Construction 

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 because no physical 

improvements are proposed or required within the Western Section. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential construction impacts related to the 

handling of hazardous materials or generation of hazardous emissions within 0.25 mile of an 

existing or proposed school are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements 

and station facilities, which are currently unknown. Due to the variety of potential construction 

techniques and numerous hazardous materials sites in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, 

site-specific impacts and associated measures to existing school facilities cannot be 

determined at this time. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and mitigate impacts 

related to hazardous emissions or the handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste

within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school.

HAZ-2 

LU-3 

Less than Significant. HAZ-2 and LU-3 

would minimize, reduce or, avoid potential 

impacts from conflicts with potentially 

affected school facilities through design 

and further analysis during the Tier 

2/Project-level environmental process.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-59

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. Although there are schools that are located within 

0.25 mile of the Western Section of the Program Corridor, the change in train service (two 

additional round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land 

use and would not result in new hazards to the public or the environment. A less than 

significant impact under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 is anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential operational impacts related to hazardous 

emissions or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste 

within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school depend on the location of infrastructure 

improvements and station locations, which are currently unknown. Some operational impacts 

could result in the generation of additional hazardous waste, contaminated materials, and solid 

waste, which would be handled at maintenance facilities. Operations could also result in minor 

spills and releases of non-acutely hazardous waste. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would 

identify and mitigate impacts related to hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous or 

acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed 

school.

HAZ-2

LU-3 

Less than Significant. HAZ-2 and LU-3 

would minimize, reduce or, avoid potential 

impacts from conflicts with potentially 

affected school facilities through design 

and further analysis during the Tier 

2/Project-level environmental process.

Would the Program be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous 

materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, 

would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

Construction 

Western Section – No Impact. Although the Western Section of the Program Corridor 

contains sites included on a list of hazardous materials sites, no construction impacts are 

anticipated under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation

level because no physical improvements are proposed or required within the Western Section. 

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-60

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Hazardous waste and materials sites have been 

identified within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative 1, 2, and 

3. Hazardous waste and material sites pose a safety risk to workers who might be exposed to 

contaminated soil, water, and vapors. Construction activities involving excavation increase the 

likelihood for encountering existing and unknown regulated materials. In addition, vehicles and 

equipment used during construction activities, such as fuel storage tanks, have the potential to 

release hazardous materials (mainly petroleum products) and have the potential to increase of 

material spills. Potential impacts associated with hazardous waste and material sites are 

dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are 

currently unknown. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and analyze site-specific 

impacts associated with hazardous waste and material sites.

HAZ-1 

HAZ-2 

HAZ-3 

Less than Significant. HAZ-1 through 

HAZ-3 would minimize, reduce or, avoid

potential impacts related to construction on 

a site included on a list of hazardous 

materials sites compiled pursuant to 

Government Code Section 65962.5 by 

requiring further evaluation (e.g., Phase I 

environmental assessment, Phase II site 

assessment) into hazardous materials on 

the site, preparation of a Project-specific 

hazardous materials management program 

and a health and safety plan, and by 

ensuring compliance with all applicable 

local, state, and federal regulations 

regarding hazardous materials during the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The Western Section of the Program Corridor 

contains sites included on a list of hazardous materials sites. However, the change in train 

service (two additional round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change 

existing land use and would not result in new hazards to the public or the environment. A less 

than significant impact is anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-61

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Less Than Significant. Hazardous material sites would have minimal 

impact on the operations of a passenger rail system. Work within contaminated areas seldom 

goes beyond maintenance activities, which would be unlikely to increase workers’ exposure to 

contaminants. Once the Program is operational, the sites included on a list of hazardous 

materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 would not be

anticipated to be significantly disturbed and, therefore, would not require additional remediation 

or coordination with governing agencies. A less than significant impact is anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Would the Program be located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has 

not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport? Would the 

Program result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in 

the project area?

Construction 

Western Section – No Impact. Although the Western Section of the Program Corridor 

contains areas that are located within an airport land use plan, no construction impacts are 

anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, 

or 3 because no physical improvements are proposed or required within the Western Section. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts associated with consistency with 

airport land use compatibility plans depend on the location of rail infrastructure improvements, 

station facilities, and type of construction activities, which are currently unknown. Portions the 

Eastern Section of the Program Corridor are located within the Banning Municipal Airport, 

Bermuda Dunes Executive Airport, Palm Springs International Airport, and Jacqueline Cochran 

Regional Airport Influence Areas. A detailed analysis of the airport land use compatibility plans 

for these airports cannot be considered at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR level as the locations of 

infrastructure and station facilities is unknown. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify 

conflicts with these airport land use compatibility plans. 

LU-3 Less than Significant. LU-3 would 

minimize, reduce or, avoid potential 

impacts from conflicts with applicable 

airport land use consistency plans and 

policies through design and further 

analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-62

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The Western Section of the Program Corridor 

contains areas that are located within an airport land use plan. However, the change in train 

service (two additional round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change 

existing land use and would not result in new safety hazards or excessive noise for people 

residing or working in the area. A less than significant impact is anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential operational impacts associated with 

consistency with airport land use compatibility plans depend on the location of rail 

infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are currently unknown. Portions the 

Eastern Section of the Program Corridor are located within the Banning Municipal Airport, 

Bermuda Dunes Executive Airport, Palm Springs International Airport, and Jacqueline Cochran 

Regional Airport Influence Areas. A detailed analysis of the airport land use compatibility plans 

for these airports cannot be considered at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR level as the locations of 

infrastructure and station facilities is unknown. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify 

conflicts with these airport land use compatibility plans.

LU-3 Less than Significant. LU-3 would 

minimize, reduce or, avoid potential 

impacts from conflicts with applicable 

airport land use consistency plans and 

policies through design and further 

analysis.

Would the Program impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted 

emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

Construction 

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 because no physical 

improvements are proposed or required within the Western Section.

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-63

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential construction impacts that could impair 

implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or 

emergency evacuation plan are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements

and station facilities, which are currently unknown. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would 

identify and mitigate impacts on implementation of applicable emergency response and 

evacuation plans.

HAZ-4

LU-2 

LU-3 

Less than Significant. HAZ-4, LU-2, and 

LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid

potential impacts from interfering with an 

adopted emergency response plan by 

requiring coordination with emergency 

providers through design and analysis.

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The change in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use and 

would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation 

plan. A less than significant impact is anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation

level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Less than Significant. Once construction ceases, operation of the new 

railroad infrastructure and stations under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 would not be

anticipated to result in changes that would conflict or interfere with applicable emergency 

response plans or emergency evacuation plans. A less than significant impact is anticipated at 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Would the Program expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a 

significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?

Construction 

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts under are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 because no physical 

improvements are proposed or required within the Western Section.

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-64

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential construction impacts resulting from 

wildland fires are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements and station 

facilities, which are currently unknown. For construction activities that would occur in high or 

very high fire hazard severity zones, there is an increased risk of wildfire impacts due to 

increased human activity and ignition sources, including construction equipment that could 

create spark, be a source of heat, or leak flammable materials within an area. The Tier 

2/Project-level analysis would evaluate the potential of fire risk and whether people or 

structures would be exposed to significant fire risk during construction activities.

HAZ-4 Less than Significant. HAZ-4 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts on people and structures resulting 

from wildland fires by preparation of a 

Project-specific fire control and emergency 

response plan during the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis.

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The change in train service (two additional round-trip daily 

trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use that would result in an 

exacerbation of wildfire risks or hazards. Therefore, no operational impacts are anticipated at 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Once construction ceases, operation of the new 

railroad infrastructure and stations under the Build Alternative Options would not be anticipated 

to result in changes associated with fire severity hazard zones. However, the operation of new 

station facilities within fire severity zones could result in an increased wildfire risk to people or 

structures in the area; therefore there is potential for significant impacts under Build Alternative 

Option 1, 2, or 3. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would evaluate the potential for people or 

structures to be exposed to wildfire risk during operations. 

HAZ-4 Less than Significant. HAZ-4 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts on people and structures resulting 

from wildland fires by preparation of a 

Project-specific fire control and emergency 

response plan and traffic management 

plan during the Tier 2/Project-level

analysis.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-65

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire 

severity zones, would the Program substantially impair an adopted emergency response 

plan or emergency evacuation plan?

Construction 

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 because no physical 

improvements are proposed or required within the Western Section.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential construction impacts that could impair 

implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or 

emergency evacuation plan are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements 

and station facilities, which are currently unknown. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would 

identify and mitigate impacts on implementation of applicable emergency response and 

evacuation plans.

HAZ-4

LU-2 

LU-3 

Less than Significant. HAZ-4, LU-2, and 

LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid

potential impacts from interfering with an 

adopted emergency response plan by 

requiring coordination with emergency 

providers through Tier 2/Project-level 

design and analysis.

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The change in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use and 

would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation 

plan. A less than significant impact is anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation

level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Less than Significant. Once construction ceases, operation of the new 

railroad infrastructure and stations under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 would not be

anticipated to result in changes that would conflict or interfere with applicable emergency 

response plans or emergency evacuation plans. A less than significant impact is anticipated at 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-66

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire 

severity zones, would the Program, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, 

exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant 

concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?

Construction 

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 because no physical 

improvements are proposed or required within the Western Section.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential construction impacts resulting from 

wildland fires are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements and station 

facilities, which are currently unknown. For construction activities that would occur in high or 

very high fire hazard severity zones, there is an increased risk of wildfire impacts due to 

increased human activity and ignition sources, including construction equipment that could 

create spark, be a source of heat, or leak flammable materials within an area. The Tier 

2/Project-level analysis would evaluate the potential of fire risk and whether people or 

structures would be exposed to significant fire risk during construction activities.

HAZ-4 Less than Significant. HAZ-4 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts on people and structures resulting 

from wildland fires by preparation of a 

Project-specific fire control and emergency 

response plan during the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis.

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The change in train service (two additional round-trip daily 

trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use and would not result in 

an exacerbation of wildfire risks or hazards. Therefore, no operational impacts under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level.

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-67

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Once construction ceases, operation of the new 

railroad infrastructure and stations under the Build Alternative Options would not be anticipated 

to result in changes associated with fire severity hazard zones. However, the operation of new 

station facilities within fire severity zones could result in an increased wildfire risk to people or 

structures in the area; therefore there is potential for significant impacts under Build Alternative 

Option 1, 2, or 3. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would evaluate the potential for people or 

structures to be exposed to wildfire risk during operations. 

HAZ-4 Less than Significant. HAZ-4 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts on people and structures resulting 

from wildland fires by preparation of a 

Project-specific fire control and emergency 

response plan and traffic management 

plan during the Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis.

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire 

severity zones, would the Program require the installation or maintenance of associated 

infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or 

other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing 

impacts to the environment?:

Construction 

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 because no physical 

improvements are proposed or required within the Western Section.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential construction impacts resulting from 

wildland fires are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements and station 

facilities, which are currently unknown. For construction activities that would occur in high or 

very high fire hazard severity zones, there is an increased risk of wildfire impacts due to 

increased human activity and ignition sources, including construction equipment that could 

create spark, be a source of heat, or leak flammable materials within an area; therefore there is 

potential for significant impacts under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. The Tier 

2/Project-level analysis would evaluate the potential of fire risk and whether construction 

activities would have fire risks to the environment. 

HAZ-4 Less than Significant. HAZ-4 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts on people and structures resulting 

from wildland fires by preparation of a 

Project-specific fire control and emergency 

response plan during the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-68

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The change in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) on an existing rail corridor would require 

maintenance of existing infrastructure. However, with adherence to existing developed 

maintenance plans and procedures, maintenance activities on the existing rail corridor would 

not exacerbate fire risk within the area. Therefore, a less than significant impact is anticipated 

at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Operation of the Program under Build Alternative 

Option 1, 2, or 3 would require continual maintenance of rail infrastructure and station facilities 

that could be located in fire hazard severity zones. Potential operational impacts resulting from 

wildland fires are dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements and station 

facilities, which are currently unknown. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and 

mitigate impacts related to the maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate 

fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts on the environment during 

construction.

HAZ-4 Less than Significant. HAZ-4 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts on people and structures resulting 

from wildland fires by preparation of a 

Project-specific fire control and emergency 

response plan during the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis.

If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire severity zones, would 

the Program expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream 

flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?

Construction 

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 because no physical 

improvements are proposed or required within the Western Section.

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-69

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. For construction activities that would occur in high 

or very high fire hazard severity zones, there is an increased risk of wildfire impacts due to 

increased human activity and ignition sources, including construction equipment that could 

create spark, be a source of heat, or leak flammable materials within an area. The Tier 

2/Project-level analysis would evaluate the potential of fire risk and whether construction 

activities could result in downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope 

instability, or drainage changes.

HAZ-4 Less than Significant. HAZ-4 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts on people and structures resulting 

from wildland fires by preparation of a 

Project-specific fire control and emergency 

response plan during the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis.

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The change in train service (two additional round-trip daily 

trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use that would result in 

exposure of people or structures to new flooding, landslide, or fire hazards as a result of runoff, 

post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, no operational impacts are 

anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, 

or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Less than Significant. Ongoing operations are not expected to expose 

people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or 

landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, a 

less than significant operational impact is anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation

level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Notes: 

EIS/EIR=environmental impact statement/environmental impact report; LUST=leaking underground storage tank; ROW=right-of-way; UST=underground storage 

tank
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-70

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-71

3.11.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies

Identified below are proposed programmatic mitigation strategies for further consideration in the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified 

and discussed during Tier 2/Project-level analysis after design details are known and specific 

impacts are identified. Potential site-specific mitigation measures associated with areas found to be 

contaminated would be developed in consultation with the appropriate agencies with jurisdiction over 

the property or cleanup efforts. 

Programmatic mitigation strategies include design considerations for either avoidance of 

contaminated properties or minimization of soil disturbance in contaminated areas. Where 

contaminated materials cannot be avoided, proper characterization and disposal of contaminated 

materials under applicable rules and regulations would occur. Proposed programmatic mitigation 

strategies include, but are not limited to, the following:

Mitigation Strategy HAZ-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a Phase I Environmental Site 

Assessment shall be conducted to determine the significance of impacts on hazardous waste or 

materials sites due to the siting of specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The 

site-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall adhere to ASTM-conforming 

requirements and include recommendations on if a subsequent Phase II Site Investigation is 

required for the selected site. The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment shall also include a 

discussion of observed and/or suspected asbestos-containing materials, potential lead-based paint, 

and other materials falling under the Universal Waste requirements within the selected site.

Mitigation Strategy HAZ-2: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a site-specific hazardous materials 

management program shall be prepared for the specific rail infrastructure or station facilities 

proposed. The hazardous materials management program shall provide for safe storage, 

containment, and disposal of chemicals and hazardous materials related to Project construction and 

operation, including the proper disposal of waste materials. The hazardous materials management 

program shall include, but should not be limited to, the following:

• A description of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes used (29 Code of Federal 

Regulations 1910.1200)

• A description of handling, transport, treatment, and disposal procedures, as relevant for each 

hazardous material or hazardous waste (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.120)

• Preparedness, prevention, contingency, and emergency procedures, including emergency 

contact information (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910.38)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-72

• A description of personnel training including, but not limited to: (1) recognition of existing or 

potential hazards resulting from accidental spills or other releases; (2) implementation of 

evacuation, notification, and other emergency response procedures; (3) management, 

awareness, and handling of hazardous materials and hazardous wastes, as required by their 

level of responsibility (29 Code of Federal Regulations 1910)

• Instructions on keeping Safety Data Sheets for each on-site hazardous chemical (29 Code of 

Federal Regulations 1910.1200)

• Identification of the locations of hazardous material storage areas, including temporary 

storage areas, which shall be equipped with secondary containment sufficient in size to 

contain the volume of the largest container or tank (29 Code of Federal Regulations

1910.120)

Mitigation Strategy HAZ-3: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, sites identified for the specific rail 

infrastructure or station facility proposed shall be screened by the identified lead agency or agencies 

to determine if land use restrictions or activity use limitations are present. If the site contains land 

use restrictions or activity use limitations that would be affected by the Project, coordination with the 

governing agency (Department of Toxic Substance Control or Regional Water Quality Control Board) 

shall be required. Such coordination shall consist of notifying the local enforcement branch of the 

agencies that work is planned for a restricted property. Notification typically results in a meeting with 

regulators that would determine the requirements for the property during the Project. A soil 

management plan and a health and safety plan are typically required to be completed, reviewed, and 

approved in writing by the governing agency (Department of Toxic Substance Control or Regional 

Water Quality Control Board). These requirements, and any additional requirements, shall be 

determined in coordination with the applicable regulatory agencies.

Mitigation Strategy HAZ-4: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a Project-specific Fire Control and 

Emergency Response Plan shall be prepared in coordination with local fire departments for the sites 

identified for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The plan shall describe fire 

prevention and response practices that shall be implemented during construction and operation to 

minimize the risk of fire and, in the case of fire, provide for immediate fire suppression and 

notification. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-73

Mitigation Strategy LU-2: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis and 

recommendations, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if a construction 

management plan is required for construction activities of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being 

proposed. If required, a construction management plan shall be developed by the contractor and 

reviewed by the lead agency or agencies prior to construction and implemented during construction 

activities. The construction management plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

• Measures that minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project 

Study Area

• Measures pertaining to visual protection, air quality, safety controls, noise controls, and 

traffic controls to minimize effects on populations and communities within the identified Tier 

2/Project Study Area

• Measures to ensure property access is maintained for local businesses, residences, and 

community and emergency services

• Measures to consult with local transit providers to minimize effects on local and regional bus

routes in affected communities

Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency 

analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of 

the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general 

plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or 

environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall

be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or 

environmental resources.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

May 2021 | 3.11-74

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-1 

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

3.12.1 Introduction

This section identifies the major public utilities likely to occur within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Study Area and evaluates the potential effects of the No Build Alternative and Build Alternative 

Options on public utilities and energy resources. 

3.12.2 Regulatory Framework

In accordance with NEPA (42 USC Section 4321 et seq.), CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR Parts 1501–1508); FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR

28545, May 26, 1999); and CEQA, FRA identified public utilities and energy resources within the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area and evaluated the potential impacts on those resources as a 

result of implementing the Build Alternative Options. 

Federal

Energy and Independence Security Act of 2007

The federal government adopted the Energy and Independence Security Act of 2007 on December 

19, 2007. The act aimed to move the U.S. toward greater energy independence and security; 

increase the production of clean renewable fuels; protect consumers; increase the efficiency of 

products, buildings, and vehicles; promote research on and deploy GHG capture and storage 

options; improve the energy performance of the federal government and increase U.S. energy 

security; develop renewable fuel production; and improve vehicle fuel economy. Primary provisions 

of the act included increasing Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards; advancing vehicle 

technology to reduce fuel consumption; promoting the creation of biomass-based diesel fuel; 

establishing greater energy efficiency standards for residential appliances and equipment; and 

increasing building efficiency for residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, and federal 

buildings.

Energy Policy Act of 2005

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 established a comprehensive, long-term federal energy policy to be 

implemented by the U.S. Department of Energy that addresses energy production in the U.S., 

including oil, gas, coal, and alternative forms of energy, as well as energy efficiency and tax 

incentives. Energy efficiency and tax incentive programs include credits for the construction of new 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-2 

energy efficient homes, production, or purchase of energy efficient appliances and loan guarantees 

for entities that develop or use innovative technologies that avoid the production of GHGs. Another 

provision of the act increases the amount of biofuel that must be mixed with gasoline sold in the U.S. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is an independent agency that regulates the interstate 

transmission of natural gas, oil, and electricity. If there is a need for relocation of a certificated 

interstate pipeline, the utility company has to obtain approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission for the relocation. If the relocation also requires new easements, local approval would 

also be required.

United States Department of Transportation Research and Special Programs Administration

The Research and Special Programs Administration is responsible for carrying out the duties 

regarding pipeline safety set forth in 49 USC Section 60101 et seq. and 49 CFR Part 190.1. The 

regulations require operators of gas pipelines to participate in a public safety program, such as a 

one-call system that would notify the operator of any proposed demolition, excavation, tunneling, or 

construction that would take place near or affect the facility.

State

Assembly Bill 2076, Reducing Dependence on Petroleum

The California Energy Commission (CEC) and the California ARB are directed by AB 2076 (passed 

in 2000) to develop and adopt recommendations for reducing dependence on petroleum. A 

performance-based goal is to reduce petroleum demand to 15 percent less than 2003 demand by 

2020.

California Green Building Standards

Title 24 of the CCR, Part 11, or CALGreen, sets standards for sustainable building design for 

residential and non-residential buildings in California. It also outlines sustainable construction 

practices applicable to planning and design, energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, 

material conservation and resource efficiency, and environmental quality. 2013 CALGreen became 

effective on January 1, 2014, and mandated that permitted new residential and non-residential 

building construction, demolition, and certain additions and alterations must recycle and/or salvage 

for reuse a minimum of 50 percent of the non-hazardous construction and demolition debris 

generated during a project (CALGreen Sections 4.408, 5.408, 301.1.1, and 301.3). 2016 CALGreen 

became effective January 1, 2017 and increased the recycle and/or salvage mandate to 65 percent 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-3 

for new residential and non-residential building construction, demolition, and certain additions and 

alterations (2016 CALGreen Sections 4.408 and 5.408). Although the 2019 CALGreen became 

effective January 1, 2020, no changes were made to the construction waste management 

requirements from 2016 CALGreen (California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery 

2020a).

California Public Utilities Commission

The CPUC provides guidance to multiple laws and general orders which regulate the provision of 

privately owned utilities in California and the safety of both publicly and privately owned railroad and 

rail transit companies/agencies, as well as rail crossings. 

Integrated Waste Management Act (Assembly Bill 939) 

AB 939, enacted in 1989, mandates a reduction of waste being disposed and establishes an 

integrated framework for program implementation, solid waste planning, and solid waste facility and 

landfill compliance. The California Integrated Waste Management Board oversees a disposal 

reporting system and facility and program planning. On January 1, 2010, all California Integrated 

Waste Management Board duties and responsibilities, along with the Division of Recycling of the 

Department of Conservation, transferred to California Department of Resources Recycling and 

Recovery, which is under the jurisdiction of the Natural Resources Agency.

Office of the State Fire Marshal, Pipeline Safety Division

The Office of the State Fire Marshal has exclusive safety regulatory and enforcement authority over

approximately 6,500 miles of intrastate hazardous liquid transportation pipelines. 

Senate Bill 1389, Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002

The CEC is responsible for forecasting future energy needs for the state and developing renewable 

energy resources and alternative renewable energy technologies for buildings, industry, and 

transportation. SB 1389 (Chapter 568, Statutes of 2002) requires the CEC to prepare a biennial 

integrated energy policy report assessing major energy trends and issues facing the state’s 

electricity, natural gas, and transportation fuel sectors. The report is also intended to provide policy 

recommendations to conserve resources; protect the environment; and ensure reliable, secure, and 

diverse energy supplies. The 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report, the most recent report required 

under SB 1389, was released to the public in February 2020 (CEC 2020).
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-4 

Regional

Goals and policies related to public utilities and energy and applicable to the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

were identified in the Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties’ general plans. 

Los Angeles County 2035 General Plan

The Los Angeles County General Plan has several goals and policies that guide the provision of 

public services and facilities, including:

• Goal PS/F 1: A coordinated, reliable, and equitable network of public facilities that preserves 

resources, ensures public health and safety, and keeps pace with planned development;

• Goal PS/F 2: Increased water conservation efforts;

• Goal PS/F 3: Increased local water supplies through the use of new technologies; 

• Goal PS/F 4: Reliable sewer and urban runoff conveyance treatment systems;

• Goal PS/F 5: Adequate disposal capacity and minimal waste and pollution; and

• Goal PS/F 6: A county with adequate public utilities.

Orange County General Plan

The Orange County General Plan has several goals, objectives, and policies for general public 

services and facilities and energy, including:

• Public Service Goal 1: Provide a network of public services and facilities that are integrated, 

complementary, and compatible with other countywide regional land use and development 

goals;

• Public Service Goal 2: Encourage funding and development of public services and facilities 

to meet the county’s existing and future demand; 

• Wastewater System Goal 1: Support the planning and development of a wastewater system 

to meet both the county’s demand and attain water quality goals; 

• Energy Resources Goal 1: Maximize the conservation and wise use of energy resources in 

all residences, businesses, public institutions, and industries in Orange County;

• Energy Resources Goal 2: Encourage the utilization of existing energy resources to their 

highest potential and the development of alternative energy sources consistent with sound 

energy conservation practices and techniques to meet the county's future energy demand; 

and
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-5 

• Energy Resources Goal 3: Maximize the conservation of energy resources in all future land 

use and transportation planning decisions. 

County of Riverside General Plan

The County of Riverside General Plan anticipates an increase in population in the county; therefore, 

the plan dictates that development should only occur where adequate public facilities and services 

are available or are planned for at the time of development. 

• LU 5.1: Ensure that development does not exceed the ability to adequately provide 

supporting infrastructure and services, such as libraries, recreational facilities, educational 

and day care centers transportation systems, and fire/police/medical services; 

• LU 5.2: Monitor the capacities of infrastructure and services in coordination with service 

providers, utilities, and outside agencies and jurisdictions to ensure that growth does not 

exceed acceptable levels of service; 

• LU 5.3: Review all projects for consistency with individual urban water management plans; 

and

• LU 5.4: Ensure that development and conservation land uses do not infringe upon existing 

essential public facilities and public utility corridors, which include county regional landfills, 

fee-owned ROWs, and permanent easements, whose true land use is that of public facilities. 

This policy will ensure that the public facilities designation governs over what otherwise may 

be inferred by the large-scale general plan maps. 

County of San Bernardino General Plan

The San Bernardino County General Plan has several goals and policies for public facilities, 

including:

• Goal CI 10: Ensure timely development of public facilities and the maintenance of adequate 

service levels for these facilities to meet the needs of current and future county residents;

• Goal CI 11: The county will coordinate and cooperate with governmental agencies at all 

levels to ensure safe, reliable, and high-quality water supply for all residents and ensure 

prevention of surface and groundwater pollution;

• Goal CI 12: The county will ensure adequate wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal 

consistent with the protection of public health and water quality;

• Goal CI 14: The county will ensure a safe, efficient, economical, and integrated solid waste 

management system that considers all wastes generated within the county, including 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-6 

agricultural, residential, commercial, and industrial wastes, while recognizing the relationship 

between disposal issues and the conservation of natural resources; and

• Goal CI 18: The county will ensure efficient and cost-effective utilities that serve the existing 

and future needs of people in the unincorporated areas are provided.

Local and Tribal Governments

Regulations from cities, local agencies, and tribal governments would be identified in the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis once site-specific rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are 

known.

3.12.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects

The methodology for this evaluation consists of using existing data to identify public utilities and 

potential energy resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area for each Build Alternative 

Option and evaluating the potential level of effect or impact that each Build Alternative Option could 

have if constructed. For purposes of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, utilities include natural gas, water, 

electricity, sewage, and communication systems. Available utility GIS data was overlaid on aerial 

photography to map majority utilities that occur within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, 

including those that could be affected by development of planned stations. 

The limitation of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation is that only utilities with publicly available 

information have been identified. A comprehensive field and records search would be necessary in 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis to identify all potentially affected utilities, including water distribution 

lines, minor gas lines, sewer lines, irrigation canals, and telephone and fiber optic lines.

Assessing energy use for the Program requires consideration of construction activities within the 

Program Corridor to identify potential conflicts with energy demand and inefficient usage. Because 

design specifics are not known at this time, the effects on energy consumption are considered 

qualitatively in this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. A detailed quantitative assessment of the change in 

overall energy consumption resulting from Tier 2/Project-level implementation would be considered 

during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. In the absence of specific details regarding construction 

activities at this time, a qualitative assessment of anticipated energy consumption is presented along 

with potential mitigation measures strategies that may be required to minimize the wasteful use of 

energy.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-7 

The operational energy effects of the Program were evaluated by quantifying the net effect on 

energy that would result from shifts in transportation modes. Some people would choose to take the 

train instead of driving in a personal vehicle, resulting in reduced VMT and fuel and energy use. To 

quantify the energy reductions, the following steps were taken.

• Fuel efficiency estimates (i.e., mileage per gallon) were quantified by dividing total regional 

VMT and total regional fuel consumption for light-duty vehicles and motorcycles in the SCAG 

region for 2024 and 2044, and for gasoline and diesel vehicles. 

• The VMT reductions resulting from the Program (Table 3.12-1) were divided by the fuel 

efficiency estimates to quantify total fuel reductions.

• Fuel reductions were converted to British thermal units (BTU) of energy using gasoline and 

diesel energy content values from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA; U.S. EIA

2017). 

Table 3.12-1. Estimate of Build Alternative Ridership and Vehicle Miles Traveled 

Reductions per Day

Projection Year Ridership Estimate Range VMT Reduction Estimate Range

Opening Year 2024 521–710 43,835–57,534

Future Year 2044 830–1,128 73,972–95,890

Notes:

VMT=vehicle miles traveled 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

This service-level evaluation is limited to a desktop evaluation of the data sources described in 

Section 3.12.3. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area was combined with GIS overlays to identify 

potential utilities that could be affected by the Program. These potential utilities were identified on a 

broad scale using available mapping information. A detailed description of the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Study Area is provided in Section 3.1, Introduction to Environmental Analysis. 

Data Resources

Data from key utility service providers, available county GIS data and general plans, and Google 

Earth Pro were used to conduct an inventory of pipelines, transmission lines, and wastewater 

facilities located within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. Data for the energy analysis used 

information for the SCAG region for 2024 and 2044, which was obtained from the California ARB’s 

EMFAC2017 emissions database.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-8 

Related Resources

This evaluation incorporates data and analysis from related resources to contribute to the 

assessment of public utilities and energy assessment. These related resources are identified in 

Table 3.12-2. 

Table 3.12-2. Related Resource Inputs for Public Utilities and Energy Assessment

Resource Input for Public Utilities and Energy Assessment

Transportation

(Section 3.3)

Changes in VMT, ridership, and service levels were identified.

Air Quality and Greenhouse 

Gases 

(Section 3.5)

EMFAC2017 – Vehicle emissions based on available traffic data were identified.

Net GHG emissions changes that occur from potential losses or savings in 

transportation energy as a result of net VMT were determined.

Notes:

GHG=greenhouse gas; VMT=vehicle miles traveled

3.12.4 Affected Environment

The Program Corridor crosses a large geographic area within Southern California, spanning 

approximately 144 miles from its western terminus in Los Angeles to its eastern terminus in 

Coachella. The Program Corridor occurs within an existing railroad corridor that traverses areas that 

have predominately been heavily modified for urban purposes, especially in the Western Section, 

although some areas occur in or adjacent to lands that are undeveloped or contain natural 

vegetation. Much of the Program Corridor from Los Angeles to Redlands is urbanized. The Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor is less urbanized with vacant land comprising the largest land use 

category within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. 

Public Utilities

In general, the geographic sections of the Program Corridor can be characterized as urban and rural 

areas. These areas typically include above-ground and underground electrical transmission lines, 

above-ground electrical substations, and underground natural gas and water pipelines that provide 

power, natural gas, and water to residential, business, manufacturing, and agricultural land uses. 

The greatest densities of utilities occur in urban areas where there are a greater number of 

residential, business, and manufacturing uses, whereas lower densities of utilities occur in rural 

areas and areas that are mainly used for agricultural purposes. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-9 

Within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, key providers of energy include the Los Angeles 

Department of Water and Power, Southern California Edison, and Imperial Irrigation District. Each of 

these energy providers has a diverse power production portfolio that consist of a variety of 

renewable and non-renewable sources. Within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, there are 

also sub-regional energy providers that supply electricity to customers in local municipalities. Natural 

gas service within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area is provided by the Southern California 

Gas Company. 

Domestic water within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area is provided by various sources, 

including municipal water departments, local water districts and water agencies, and private water 

companies. Imported water is primarily purchased from the Metropolitan Water District of Southern 

California and the State Water Project (the California Aqueduct) as a supplemental source to local 

water supplies. Metropolitan Water District water supplies are delivered by two principle facilities: the 

Colorado River Aqueduct and the California Aqueduct. Imported water is supplemented by local 

groundwater supplies. Metropolitan Water District, the primary water importer, supplies water to six 

counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura). The agency 

membership consists of 21 entities, including 14 cities, 12 metropolitan water districts, and 1 county 

water authority (San Diego).

Figure 3.12-1 provides an overview of existing electrical transmission lines, natural gas pipelines, 

and water transmission lines in relation to the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-10

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-11

Figure 3.12-1. Known Utilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 1 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-12

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-13

Figure 3.12-1. Known Utilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 2 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-14

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-15

Figure 3.12-1. Known Utilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 3 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-16

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-17

Figure 3.12-1. Known Utilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 4 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-18

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-19

Figure 3.12-1. Known Utilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 5 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-20

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-21

Figure 3.12-1. Known Utilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 6 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-22

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-23

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

The Western Section of Build Alternative Option 1 is urbanized, resulting in a higher density of utility 

facilities. As summarized in Table 3.12-3, there are 116 electric transmission lines, ranging from 

33 to 500 kilovolts, that cross the Western Section of Build Alternative Option 1. Six natural gas 

pipelines cross the Western Section of Build Alternative Option 1. There are no wastewater 

treatment facilities or landfills located within Build Alternative Option 1. In addition, there are three 

oil/petroleum product pipelines that cross the Western Section of Build Alternative Option 1. 

The Eastern Section of Build Alternative Option 1 is less developed with more land devoted to 

agricultural uses than the Western Section. As summarized in Table 3.12-3, there are 64 electric 

transmission lines, ranging from 66 to 500 kilovolts, that cross the Eastern Section of Build 

Alternative Option 1. There are no natural gas pipelines that cross the Eastern Section of Build 

Alternative Option 1. In addition, there are four oil/petroleum product pipelines and one aqueduct 

that cross the Eastern Section of Build Alternative Option 1. 

In addition, Build Alternative Option 1 crosses the San Gorgonio Pass Wind Resource Area, located 

at the San Gorgonio Pass. The 70 square mile San Gorgonio Pass Wind Resource Area is one of 

three primary regions in California dedicated to wind energy production and provides enough 

electricity to power Palm Springs and the entire Coachella Valley. 

Table 3.12-3. Summary of Known Utility Facilities (Build Alternative Option 1)

Utility Infrastructure Facility

Number of 

Crossings within 

Western Section

Number of 

Crossings within 

Eastern Section

Total Number of 

Crossings

Electric transmission lines 116 64 180

Natural gas pipelines 6 0 6

Oil/petroleum product pipelines 3 4 7

Canals/aqueducts 0 1 1

Sources: CEC 2018a, 2018b 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-24

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

As summarized in Table 3.12-4, the number of utility crossings within the Western Section of Build 

Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build Alternative Option 1. In the Eastern Section of Build 

Alternative Option 2, there are fewer utility crossings because of the shorter route alignment and 

reduced station options. 

Table 3.12-4. Summary of Known Utility Facilities (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3)

Utility Infrastructure Facility

Number of 

Crossings within 

Western Section

Number of 

Crossings within 

Eastern Section

Total Number of 

Crossings

Electric transmission lines 116 58 174

Natural gas pipelines 6 0 6

Oil/petroleum product pipelines 3 4 7

Canals/aqueducts 0 1 1

Sources: CEC 2018a, 2018b 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Utility facilities and infrastructure within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build Alternative 

Option 2. 

Solid Waste

Counties and local jurisdictions within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area are responsible for 

their own integrated solid waste management planning, implementation, and monitoring, although 

waste management responsibilities may be contracted to private waste haulers. These waste 

collection programs usually have a collection and disposal system: typically using household trash 

cans and commercial dumpsters emptied into carts or trucks that deliver the solid waste to municipal 

landfills or sorting centers. Based on the type of waste, the waste is taken to a landfill or a recycling 

facility. Solid waste containing asbestos or waste determined to contain non-hazardous industrial 

waste may only be disposed of at landfills permitted to receive this type of waste. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-25

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Table 3.12-5 provides a summary of landfill facilities that serve the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study 

Area. 

Table 3.12-5. Summary of Landfill Facilities (Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3)

County Landfill Facility Waste Types Accepted

Remaining 

Capacity 

(Tons)

Maximum 

Permitted 

Capacity 

(Tons)

Los Angeles Scholl Canyon 

Landfill

Tires, manure, mixed municipal, industrial, 

construction/demolition, and inert material

13,860,000 82,460,000

Los Angeles Burbank Landfill 

Site Number 3 

Inert, industrial, construction/demolition, and 

mixed municipal

7,244,107 8,306,711

Los Angeles Lancaster 

Landfill and 

Recycling Center

Contaminated soil, sludge (biosolids), 

asbestos, green materials, inert material, 

tires, mixed municipal, industrial, 

construction/demolition, and agricultural

20,320,507 38,780,000

Los Angeles Calabasas 

Landfill

Green materials, tires, mixed municipal, 

industrial, and construction/demolition

20,300,000 90,020,000

Los Angeles Chiquita Canyon 

Sanitary Landfill

Inert, industrial, construction/demolition, 

green materials, and mixed municipal

84,571,200 154,512,400

Los Angeles Pebbly Beach 

(Avalon) 

Disposal Site

Metals, inert, green materials, sludge 

(biosolids), mixed municipal, and ash

91,728 200,399

Los Angeles San Clemente 

Island Landfill

Inert, construction/demolition, mixed 

municipal, and industrial

293,742 329,642

Los Angeles Antelope Valley 

Public Landfill

Mixed municipal, inert, industrial, green 

materials, contaminated soil, 

construction/demolition, asbestos, and 

agricultural

25,075,715 42,280,000

Los Angeles Savage Canyon 

Landfill

Inert, green materials, industrial, 

construction/demolition, and mixed municipal

13,315,166 27,072,430
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-26

County Landfill Facility Waste Types Accepted

Remaining 

Capacity 

(Tons)

Maximum 

Permitted 

Capacity 

(Tons)

Orange Prima Dechecha 

Landfill

Wood waste, sludge (biosolids), mixed 

municipal, industrial, and 

construction/demolition

134,300,000 172,100,000

Orange Olinda Alpha 

Landfill

Wood waste, tires, mixed municipal, 

construction/demolition, industrial, and 

agricultural

34,200,000 148,800,000

Orange Frank R. 

Bowerman 

Sanitary Landfill 

Construction/demolition, industrial, and mixed 

municipal

205,000,000 266,000,000

San 

Bernardino

California Street 

Landfill

Sludge (biosolids), other designated, mixed 

municipal, and construction/demolition

7,235,455 15,960,000

San 

Bernardino

Victorville 

Sanitary Landfill

Wood waste, tires, sludge (biosolids), mixed 

municipal, industrial, green materials, dead 

animals, construction/demolition, ash, and 

agricultural

114,114,000 116,480,000

San 

Bernardino

Barstow Sanitary 

Landfill

Sludge (biosolids), other designated, mixed 

municipal, industrial, construction/demolition, 

and agricultural

100,074,324 112,496,300

San 

Bernardino

Mid-Valley 

Sanitary Landfill

Wood waste, tires, mixed municipal, 

industrial, inert, green materials, dead 

animals, contaminated soil, 

construction/demolition, ash, and agricultural

85,707,128 141,820,000

San 

Bernardino

Landers Sanitary 

Landfill

Tires, sludge (biosolids), other designated, 

mixed municipal, industrial, and 

construction/demolition

15,607,340 19,576,900

San 

Bernardino

United States 

Marine Corps – 

29 Palms 

Disposal Facility

Tires, sludge (biosolids), mixed municipal, 

inert, industrial, dead animals, agricultural, 

and construction/demolition

10,579,800 15,232,000

San 

Bernardino

Fort Irwin 

Sanitary Landfill

Sludge (biosolids), mixed municipal, dead 

animals, and contaminated soil

26,509,283 26,600,000
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-27

County Landfill Facility Waste Types Accepted

Remaining 

Capacity 

(Tons)

Maximum 

Permitted 

Capacity 

(Tons)

San 

Bernardino

Mitsubishi 

Cement Plant 

Cushenbury 

Landfill

Industrial 302,400 728,560

San 

Bernardino

San Timoteo 

Sanitary Landfill

Sludge (biosolids), mixed municipal, inert, 

industrial, dead animals, agricultural, and 

construction/demolition

17,304,554 31,760,099

Riverside Badlands 

Sanitary Landfill

Wood waste, tires, sludge (biosolids), mixed 

municipal, metals, liquid waste, industrial, 

inert, green materials, dead animals, 

contaminated soil, construction/demolition, 

ash, asbestos, and agricultural

22,048,319 48,160,000

Riverside Lamb Canyon 

Sanitary Landfill

Tires, sludge (biosolids), mixed municipal, 

metals, liquid waste, industrial, inert, green 

materials, dead animals, contaminated soil, 

construction/demolition, ash, asbestos, and 

agricultural

26,940,130 54,509,914

Riverside Oasis Sanitary 

Landfill

Wood waste, mixed municipal, metals, inert, 

green materials, construction/demolition, and 

agricultural

607,291 1,536,013

Riverside Desert Center 

Sanitary Landfill

Wood waste, tires, mixed municipal, metals, 

inert, green materials, dead animals, 

contaminated soil, construction/demolition, 

asbestos, and agricultural

178,397 572,757

Riverside Blythe Sanitary 

Landfill

Wood waste, tires, mixed municipal, metals, 

liquid waste, inert, industrial, green materials, 

dead animals, contaminated soil, 

construction/demolition, and agricultural

5,368,258 8,721,538

Riverside El Sobrante 

Landfill

Tires, mixed municipal, contaminated soil, 

and construction/demolition

201,568,038 293,874,000

Source: California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery 2020b
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-28

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Waste management facilities that would serve the area within Build Alternative Option 2 are the 

same as Build Alternative Option 1. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Waste management facilities that would serve the area within Build Alternative Option 2 are the 

same as Build Alternative Option 1. 

Energy

Energy can be measured in two ways: direct energy, which would be the energy used to maintain 

and operate the Program, and indirect energy, which would be used during construction activities.

Primary energy sources take many forms, including nuclear energy, fossil energy (e.g., coal, oil, and

natural gas), and renewable resources (e.g., wind, solar, and hydropower). These primary sources 

are turned into secondary sources, such as electricity. The major primary energy sources consumed 

in the U.S. are petroleum (oil), natural gas, coal, nuclear energy, and renewable energy. 

For transportation projects, energy usage is predominantly influenced by the amount of fuel used. 

BTU is a measure of the heat content of fuels or energy sources, with the average BTU content of 

fuel being the heat value (or energy content) per volume of fuel, as determined from tests of fuel 

samples. A gallon of gasoline produces approximately 120,286 BTU (U.S. EIA 2021).

The U.S. EIA reported that the U.S. used approximately 20 percent of worldwide oil consumption in 

2017. Petroleum products (gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel) make up 92 percent of the U.S. usage of 

crude oil. Within the U.S. oil consumption, 27 percent was used for transportation in 2017. Over half 

of that energy usage was devoted to highway travel with cars and light trucks (U.S. EIA 2021). 

According to the U.S. EIA, California has the second highest total energy demand in the country but 

is also one of the states with the lowest per capita total energy consumption. California ranks 48 out 

of 51 states (including the District of Columbia) in 2019 per capita energy consumption largely due to 

the state’s mild climate and energy efficiency efforts. The state is also a leader in total renewable 

energy production (after Washington state), ranking first in the nation in generation of solar, 

geothermal, and biomass energy. Additionally, California produces conventional hydroelectric power 

(the fourth-largest producer in the nation) and wind energy (fifth largest producer in the nation) (U.S. 

EIA 2018a).
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-29

The transportation end-use sector accounts for the largest share of energy consumption in 

California. In 2016, transportation accounted for 49 percent of all energy consumed in California, 

compared with 24.5 percent for industrial uses, 12.5 percent for commercial uses, and 14 percent for 

residential uses (U.S. EIA 2018b). 

Table 3.12-6 presents a comparison of travel modes in the U.S., including the vehicle miles, 

passenger miles, and energy intensities of those travel modes. In 2015, commuter rail used less 

energy per passenger mile than cars, personal trucks, motorcycles, air, and transit buses. Thus, 

among the travel modes in the U.S., commuter rail is more energy efficient on a per-passenger mile 

basis than most other transportation modes.

Table 3.12-6. 2015 United States Passenger Travel Mode and Energy Use

Travel Mode

Vehicle-Miles 

(millions)

Passenger-Miles 

(millions)

Energy 

Consumption

BTU per 

Vehicle-Mile

Energy Consumption

BTU per 

Passenger-Mile

Cars 1,445,400 2,240,370 4,702 3,034

Personal trucks 1,123,226 2,066,736 6,156 3,345

Motorcycles 19,606 22,743 2,855 2,462

Air 5,589 632,648 263,971 2,332

Buses (transit) 2,216 20,239 36,760 4,025

Rail (transit) 803 20,710 20,022 776

Rail (commuter) 374 11,804 51,888 1,643

Rail (intercity-Amtrak) 319 6,536 34,034 1,663

Source: Davis et al. 2018

Notes:

BTU=British thermal unit

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Energy production typically varies by season and by year depending on hydrologic conditions. 

Regional electricity loads tend to be higher in the summer because the higher summer temperatures 

drive increased demand for air-conditioning. In 2019, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s 

energy resources consisted of 45 percent from eligible renewable sources (i.e., biomass and 

biowaste, geothermal, eligible hydroelectric, solar, and wind), 17 percent from coal, 2 percent from 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-30

large hydroelectric, 32 percent from natural gas, and the remaining percentage from unspecified 

power (CEC 2019a). In 2018, Southern California Edison’s energy resources consisted of 36 percent 

from eligible renewable sources (including 1 percent from large hydroelectric), 17 percent from 

natural gas, 6 percent from nuclear, and 37 percent from unspecified power1 (CEC 2019b). Imperial 

Irrigation District’s energy resources consisted of 29 percent from eligible renewable sources, 

4 percent from large hydroelectric, 27 percent from natural gas, 3 percent from nuclear, and 

37 percent from unspecified power (CEC 2019c). 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Existing energy production and resources within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build 

Alternative Option 1. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Existing energy production and resources within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build 

Alternative Option 1. 

3.12.5 Environmental Consequences

Overview 

Effects as a result of implementing the Build Alternative Options can be broadly classified into 

construction and operational effects. Long-term or permanent effects and short-term or temporary 

effects on public utilities and energy would be anticipated as a result of constructing any of the Build 

Alternative Options. Most effects on public utilities would occur during construction when the ground 

is disturbed and when there could be utility conflicts to overhead and underground utilities, including 

utility relocations to accommodate the proposed infrastructure or service disruptions (both planned 

and unanticipated) as a result of construction activities. Most of the energy consumption associated 

with the Build Alternative Options would occur over the operational lifetime of the Program. 

No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, is used as the baseline 

for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program associated with this 

service-level evaluation. Because no physical changes would occur, no effects related to public 

utilities or solid waste facilities are anticipated under the No Build Alternative. 

1 Unspecified sources of power means electricity from transactions that are not traceable to specific 

generation sources.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-31

Under the No Build Alternative, no passenger rail system would be built, and no changes in effects 

on energy use would occur beyond those that could occur due to other reasonably foreseeable 

projects, such as ongoing operation and maintenance. Under the No Build Alternative, passenger 

train service would not be available to the public between Coachella Valley and Los Angeles, 

resulting in the continued reliance on automobiles, buses, and planes for transportation between 

communities in the Program Corridor. With the continued trend in substantial increases in VMT 

within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, energy consumption and GHG emissions would be 

likely to increase steadily under the No Build Alternative. This assessment does not take into 

account other influences, including changes in Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards, bus 

and aircraft efficiency, fuel compositions, and other factors.

In addition, an increase in traffic and VMT is expected with the No Build Alternative because more 

cars would be on the roadways compared with what would occur with implementation of the 

Program. Therefore, traffic congestion is likely to worsen with the No Build Alternative, resulting in 

the continued trend in substantial increases in VMT within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

and energy consumption in the form of fuel under the No Build Alternative. Detailed VMT 

calculations for the Program are further discussed in Section 3.3, Transportation, of this Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. 

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 

Public Utilities Effects

CONSTRUCTION 

Western Section. No construction activities would be required to implement any of the Build 

Alternative Options within the Western Section of the Program Corridor because the existing railroad 

ROW and stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. The Build Alternative Options would not 

require construction of new stations, new track or extensions to existing track, or the addition of 

sidings, wayside signals, drainage, or at-grade separations within the Western Section of the 

Program Corridor. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects on public utilities would be 

negligible within the Western Section under Build Alternatives Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Activities associated with the construction of rail infrastructure improvements and 

station facilities are not anticipated to result in new substantial discharges of wastewater. During 

construction activities, the construction contractor would provide portable toilets on site, which would 

then be removed from the site on a regular basis for servicing off site at an approved wastewater 

handling facility. Therefore, construction activities are unlikely to produce a substantial increase in 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-32

wastewater generation, and there would be minimal effects on wastewater treatment requirements, 

capacity, and facilities. 

Although construction activities would require water during site preparation, building preparation, 

material preparation, and for dust suppression, it is anticipated that construction would not directly 

use groundwater supplies for these activities. Sufficient water supplies are anticipated to be 

available during construction of Tier 2/Project-level improvements, either through local sources or by 

trucking in water for construction. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and evaluate 

effects on specific water supplies once site-specific projects are known.

For utility relocations, potential construction impacts are dependent on the location of rail 

infrastructure improvements and station facilities, which are currently unknown. As shown on 

Figure 3.12-1, there are multiple known utilities within and adjacent to existing ROW and 

construction of new stations or rail infrastructure improvements may require relocation of these 

utilities. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and mitigate impacts associated with the 

relocation of utility facilities once station locations and site-specific rail infrastructure improvements 

are known. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 could have a moderate 

effect associated with public utilities within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. Although 

Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would not include the Coachella Station Area and non-station 

between the Indio and Coachella Station Areas, there is still the potential for utility relocations to be 

required during construction of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities. When 

compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have the same 

magnitude of effects on public utilities and be considered moderate when compared with the 

No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 

3 may have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route 

alignment, reduced station options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the 

magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and considered moderate when 

compared with the No Build Alternative.

OPERATION

Western Section. Under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, passenger train frequencies proposed 

as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two daily, round-trip intercity diesel-powered 

passenger trains operating the entire length of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and 

Coachella. Once construction is completed, it is anticipated that effects on utilities would not occur 

during operations as the utilities would be in fixed locations operating independently of the Program.

Effects associated with the Western Section of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Options 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-33

1, 2, and 3 would be negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative, as existing tracks 

would be used, and maintenance activities would be conducted within existing ROW. 

Eastern Section. New rail infrastructure improvements are not anticipated to require the use of 

groundwater supplies during operation or maintenance activities. However, depending on the 

location and type of amenities identified for new station facilities, there is the potential that 

groundwater supplies may be needed during operation. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would 

identify and evaluate the potential of site-specific Project impacts on water supplies. Similarly, new 

rail infrastructure improvements are not anticipated to generate substantial amounts of wastewater 

during operation or maintenance activities. However, new station or maintenance facilities would 

result in a new source of wastewater that would need to be treated by the local wastewater 

treatment facility. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and evaluate the potential of 

site-specific Project effects associated with wastewater treatment capacity demands. Ongoing 

operations are not expected to require the relocation or construction of new utilities as those impacts 

would occur during the construction of rail infrastructure improvements or station facilities. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 could have a moderate 

effect associated with public utilities within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. Although 

Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would not include the Coachella Station Area and non-station 

between the Indio and Coachella Station Areas, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would still 

generate additional wastewater that would need to be treated and require water for station operation 

within the other station areas in the Eastern Section. When compared with Build Alternative Option 

1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have the same magnitude of effects on public utilities and be 

considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build 

Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to a 

smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced 

third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative 

Option 3 and considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Solid Waste Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. No construction activities would be required to implement the Build Alternative 

Options within the Western Section because the existing railroad ROW and station areas from LAUS

to Colton would be utilized. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of new 

stations, new track or extensions to existing track, or the addition of sidings, wayside signals, 

drainage, or at-grade separations within the Western Section of the Program Corridor. As such, no 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-34

construction-related effects on solid waste facilities would be anticipated in the Western Section 

under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Eastern Section. Solid waste created during construction and demolition activities typically consists 

of asphalt, concrete, and metal rebar associated with roadway removal, culvert removal, and bridge 

renovations. The landfills that would receive the construction and demolition material from the 

various improvements envisioned under the Program have not been identified. Each landfill has 

specific permit requirements regarding the acceptance of wastes and construction and demolition 

material and quantities of waste accepted each day that may influence the selection of disposal 

sites. 

Although construction activities under any of the Build Alternative Options could increase the 

generation of solid waste, appropriate construction waste disposal and recycling methods per the 

local jurisdiction’s goals and regulations would be used to minimize the amount of solid waste that 

would be transported to a solid waste facility. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 could have a negligible 

effect on solid waste facilities within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. When compared 

with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have slightly reduced effects due to 

a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the magnitude of effects would be 

similar and considered negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared 

with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects 

due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and 

reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build 

Alternative Option 3 and considered negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative.

OPERATION 

Western Section. The additional train trips envisioned under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 

3 would travel within an existing railroad ROW and would not affect solid waste facilities when 

compared with the No Build Alternative. Operation of all Build Alternative Options within the Western 

Section would not result in increased generation of solid waste or require new or additional solid 

waste facilities when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Eastern Section. The operation of new station facilities and maintenance of new rail infrastructure 

improvements would generate solid waste from passenger refuse disposal and materials used from 

maintenance activities. However, it is anticipated that these types of activities would generate small 

amounts of waste, and effects would be negligible on existing solid waste facilities that would service 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area when compared with the No Build Alternative. Although the 

quantity of solid waste generated cannot be determined for this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, there are 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-35

15 landfills that service the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor with ample remaining capacity 

to serve the Program. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 could have a negligible 

effect on solid waste facilities within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. When compared 

with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have slightly reduced effects due to 

a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the magnitude of effects would be 

similar and considered negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared 

with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects 

due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and 

reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build 

Alternative Option 3 and considered negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative. 

Energy Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. No construction activities would be required to implement any of the Build 

Alternative Options within the Western Section of the Program Corridor because the existing railroad 

ROW and stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. The Build Alternative Options would not 

require construction of new stations, new track or extensions to existing track, or the addition of 

sidings, wayside signals, drainage, or at-grade separations within the Western Section of the 

Program Corridor. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects associated with energy 

usage or consumption would be negligible within the Western Section under Build Alternatives 

Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Construction activities required for infrastructure improvements (e.g., sidings, 

additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation structures, and stations) 

would consume gasoline and diesel fuel through operation of heavy-duty, off-road construction 

equipment and on-road vehicles. The amount of fuel consumed would vary depending on the length 

of the construction period, specific construction activity (e.g., grading, bridge, and construction), 

types of equipment, and number of personnel. 

Design specifics and locations of the rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are not 

known at this time, so the energy that may need to be consumed during specific construction 

activities cannot be quantified at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Once detailed construction 

information for the site-specific rail infrastructure improvement or station facility is available, a 

quantitative estimate of the total energy consumption during construction would be conducted and 

evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-36

In the absence of a quantitative energy analysis, the effects of construction under any of the Build 

Alternative Options are not anticipated to be substantial with respect to energy consumption. As 

discussed below, the operational effect of any of the Build Alternative Options would be a net energy 

savings relative to the No Build Alternative on an annual basis. To achieve those energy savings,

construction activity is needed to build the Program and allow drivers of on-road personal vehicles to 

shift to rail transportation. Because construction would involve typical activities for the purpose of 

building a more efficient, energy-saving transportation mode, fuel and other energy consumed during 

construction would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. 

Implementation of BMPs to mitigate potential air quality and/or GHG effects, as described in Section 

3.5, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases, would also reduce fuel consumption during construction

activities, further preventing any wasteful, inefficient, and unnecessary usage of energy.

When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 could have a moderate 

effect on energy resources during construction activities. When compared with Build Alternative 

Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route 

alignment and reduced station options (e.g., less rail infrastructure and less station facilities that 

could be constructed). However, the magnitude of effects would be similar and considered moderate 

when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 

2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated 

with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. 

However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and considered 

moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. 

OPERATION

Western and Eastern Section. Implementation of any of the Build Alternative Options is expected to 

increase transit ridership within the Program Corridor, which would result in reduced VMT. Because 

the Western and Eastern Sections would not undergo train operations in isolation without the 

adjacent section, the entire length of the Program Corridor must be evaluated to comprehensively 

assess the Program’s energy effects. Under the Program, the range of estimated reductions in VMT 

is between 43,835 and 57,534 miles per day in Opening Year 2024 and 73,972 and 95,890 miles per 

day in Horizon Year 2044. Reductions in VMT would be realized through a shift in travel models 

within the Program Corridor attributable to a reduction in fuel consumption by passenger vehicles. 

Although the amount of VMT on roadways generated in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

would be reduced, the passenger rail system would also require fuel, and hence energy 

consumption, which would offset some of the VMT reduction effect. The energy consumption 

associated with decreased on-road travel and operation of the passenger rail system under each of 

the Build Alternative Options is summarized in Table 3.12-7 and Table 3.12-8. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-37

Table 3.12-7. Net Operational Energy Effects (Build Alternative Option 1)

Source

Annual Energy Consumption in 

2024 (MMBTU)

Annual Energy Consumption in 2044 

(MMBTU)

Total on-road vehiclesa 77,291–100,469 98,191–127,635

Gasoline vehiclesb 76,791–99,819 97,382–126,585

Diesel vehiclesc 500–650 808–1,051

Proposed passenger raild 10,909 10,909

Energy savings (1. – 2.) 66,382–89,560 87,282–116,726

Notes:

a Based on fuel and mileage data from California ARB’s EMFAC2017 vehicle emissions database and the VMT 

reductions in Table 3.12-1. Energy consumed by electric vehicles is not accounted for in EMFAC2017 and is 

thus excluded from this energy analysis.

b Light-duty fuel efficiency for gasoline vehicles is 31 miles per gallon (in 2024) and 40 miles per gallon (in 2044), 

as calculated with EMFAC2017 for the SCAG region. 99 percent of light-duty vehicles and motorcycle mileage is 

with gasoline vehicles. The energy content of 1 gallon of gasoline fuel is 120,476 BTU (U.S. EIA 2017).

c Light-duty fuel efficiency for diesel vehicles is 48 miles per gallon (in 2024) and 59 miles per gallon (in 2044). 1

percent of light-duty vehicles and motorcycle mileage is with diesel vehicles. The energy content of 1 gallon of 

gasoline fuel is 137,452 BTU (U.S. EIA 2017). 

d Based on a total daily travel distance of 576 miles/day (144-mile corridor * 2 round trips/day) and the energy use 

per vehicle mile for commuter rail.

MMBTU=million British thermal unit; SCAG=Southern California Association of Governments; VMT=vehicle miles 

traveled 

Table 3.12-8. Net Operational Energy Effects (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) 

Source

Annual Energy Consumption in 

2024 (MMBTU)

Annual Energy Consumption in 2044 

(MMBTU)

Total on-road vehiclesa 77,291–100,469 98,191–127,635

Gasoline vehiclesb 76,791–99,819 97,382–126,585

Diesel vehiclesc 500–650 808–1,051

Proposed passenger raild 10,625 10,625
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-38

Source

Annual Energy Consumption in 

2024 (MMBTU)

Annual Energy Consumption in 2044 

(MMBTU)

Energy savings (1. – 2.) 66,666–89,844 87,566–117,010

Notes:

a Based on fuel and mileage data from California ARB’s EMFAC2017 vehicle emissions database and the VMT 

reductions in Table 3.12-1. Energy consumed by electric vehicles is not accounted for in EMFAC2017 and is 

thus excluded from this energy analysis.

b Light-duty fuel efficiency for gasoline vehicles is 31 miles per gallon (in 2024) and 40 miles per gallon (in 2044), 

as calculated with EMFAC2017 for the SCAG region. 99 percent of light-duty vehicles and motorcycle mileage is 

with gasoline vehicles. The energy content of 1 gallon of gasoline fuel is 120,476 BTU (U.S. EIA 2017).

c Light-duty fuel efficiency for diesel vehicles is 48 miles per gallon (in 2024) and 59 miles per gallon (in 2044). 1

percent of light duty vehicles and motorcycle mileage is with diesel vehicles. The energy content of 1 gallon of 

gasoline fuel is 137,452 BTU (U.S. EIA 2017). 

d Based on a total daily travel distance of 561 miles/day (140.25-mile corridor * 2 round trips/day) and the energy 

use per vehicle mile for commuter rail.

MMBTU=million British thermal unit; SCAG=Southern California Association of Governments; VMT=vehicle miles 

traveled 

As summarized in Table 3.12-7, Build Alternative Option 1 is expected to result in energy savings 

ranging from 66,382 to 89,560 million British thermal units (MMBTU) in 2024 and 87,282 to 

116,726 MMBTU in 2044. As summarized in Table 3.12-8, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 are 

expected to result in energy savings ranging from 66,666 to 89,844 MMBTU in 2024 and 87,566 to 

117,010 MMBTU in 2044. However, these energy savings do not account for the energy consumed 

by existing stations and maintenance activities that may occur in the Western Section. For operation 

in the Eastern Section, additional energy consumption is anticipated for operation of the new station 

and maintenance facilities and supporting infrastructure. 

For these reasons, energy savings would be lower than depicted in Table 3.12-7 and 

Table 3.12-8 because quantifying energy consumption for stations and maintenance activities is not 

possible at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation. Conversely, the energy estimates for the passenger 

rail system assume an energy consumption value per vehicle mile for commuter rail for 2015. Modes 

of transportation (including commuter rail) would likely become more energy efficient in 2024 and 

much more energy efficient in 2044. As such, the rail energy estimates for train propulsion would 

likely be lower, resulting in an increasing effect on energy savings.

Overall, the Build Alternative Options are expected to result in energy savings relative to the No 

Build Alternative because the primary source of energy consumption for the Program (i.e., train 

propulsion) is more efficient than personal single occupancy vehicles. In the Western Section, 

existing infrastructure and stations would be utilized, so energy savings would be greatest in this 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-39

section. In the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, new rail infrastructure improvements and 

station facilities would be constructed and operated, resulting in additional increases in energy 

consumption. As such, energy consumption in the Eastern Section would be higher than in the 

Western Section, and the net savings would be lower. 

Because the Build Alternative Options would result in energy savings relative to the No Build 

Alternative, there would be no inefficient, wasteful, or unnecessary energy consumption. When 

compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 could have a moderate effect on 

energy resources during operational activities. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build 

Alternative Option 2 would have slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and 

reduced station options (e.g., less rail infrastructure and less station facilities that could be 

constructed and operated). However, the magnitude of effects would be similar and considered 

moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative 

Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint 

associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced third track rail 

infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and 

considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. 

3.12.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects

Table 3.12-9 through Table 3.12-11 summarize the qualitative assessment of potential effects 

(negligible, moderate, or substantial) under NEPA for each of the Build Alternative Options. This 

service-level evaluation uses the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area to determine the public utilities, 

solid waste facilities, and energy resources that may be affected and the relative magnitude of the 

effect. The level of intensity for effects is based on potential utility conflicts, resultant relocations, and 

service disruptions and that most utility effects can be mitigated. Specific mitigation measures to 

reduce effects would be analyzed at the Tier 2/Project-level phase. 

Table 3.12-9. NEPA Summary of Effects on Public Utilities 

Alternative Option

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Eastern Section

No Build Alternative Construction: None 

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: None 

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate 

Operation: Moderate 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-40

Alternative Option

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Eastern Section

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate 

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with Limited Third 

Track) 

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate

Table 3.12-10. NEPA Summary of Effects on Solid Waste 

Alternative Option

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Eastern Section

No Build Alternative Construction: None 

Operation: None

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with Limited Third 

Track) 

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Table 3.12-11. NEPA Summary of Effects on Energy 

Alternative Option

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Eastern Section

No Build Alternative Construction: None 

Operation: None

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Substantial

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate 

Operation: Moderate
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-41

Alternative Option

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect: 

Eastern Section

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate 

Operation: Moderate

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with Limited Third 

Track)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate 

3.12.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts

Based on the information provided in Sections 3.12.4 and 3.12.5, and considering the CEQA 

Appendix G Checklist questions for utilities and service systems and energy, the Build Alternative 

Options would have potentially significant impacts on public utilities and energy when reviewed on a 

Program-wide basis. Placing the infrastructure improvements and new stations largely within or 

along the existing ROW would reduce the potential for significant impacts associated with existing 

utilities. However, because the infrastructure and station sites have not been selected, some areas 

that may contain utilities may be significantly impacted. At the Tier 1/Program-level of analysis, it is 

not possible to know the location, extent, and particular characteristics of impacts on these areas. 

Proposed programmatic mitigation strategies discussed in Section 3.12.8 would be applied to reduce 

potential impacts. 

Table 3.12-12 summarizes the CEQA significance conclusions for the Build Alternative Options, the 

proposed programmatic mitigation strategies that could be applied to reduce, avoid, or minimize the 

potential impacts, and the significance determination after mitigation strategies are applied. The 

identification and implementation of site-specific mitigation measures necessary for Project 

implementation would occur as part of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-42

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-43

Table 3.12-12. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Utilities and Service Systems and Energy

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, or storm water 

drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant

environmental effects?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 

because no physical improvements are proposed or required within the Western 

Section.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential construction impacts are 

dependent on the location of rail infrastructure improvements and station 

facilities, which are currently unknown. There are multiple known utilities within 

and adjacent to existing ROW and construction of new stations or rail 

infrastructure improvements may require relocation of utilities. The Tier 

2/Project-level analysis would identify and mitigate impacts associated with the 

relocation of utility facilities once station locations and site-specific rail 

infrastructure improvements are known. 

UTL-1

UTL-2 

LU-2 

LU-3 

Potentially Significant. UTL-1, UTL-2, LU-2, and 

LU-3 would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts associated with utilities through design 

and further analysis. However, impacts may 

remain significant and unavoidable as further 

analysis may determine that the construction of rail 

infrastructure improvements or station facilities 

would result in the relocation of existing utilities or 

construction of new utilities.

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing 

land use and would not require or result in the relocation or construction of public 

utilities or facilities. Therefore, no operational impacts are anticipated under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. 

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-44

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Less than Significant. Ongoing operation is not expected to 

require the relocation or construction of new utilities, as those impacts would 

occur during the construction of rail infrastructure improvements or station 

facilities. Therefore, a less than significant operational impact is anticipated at the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Would the Program have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Program and reasonably foreseeable future development during 

normal, dry, and multiple dry years?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are 

proposed or required within the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 

2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Although construction activities 

would require the use of water in site preparation, building preparation, material 

preparation, and for dust suppression, it is anticipated that construction water 

supply would not use groundwater supplies for these uses. The Tier 

2/Project-level analysis would identify and evaluate impacts on specific water 

supplies once site-specific projects are known.

LU-2

LU-3 

Less than Significant. LU-2 and LU-3 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts by 

requiring coordination with water providers through 

subsequent design and analysis.

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The increase in train service (two 

additional round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) on an existing rail 

corridor would require maintenance of existing infrastructure. While these 

maintenance activities on the existing rail corridor would require some water, the 

amount of water needed is anticipated to be minimal. Therefore, a less than 

significant impact is anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level

under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-45

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. New rail infrastructure improvements 

are not anticipated to require the use of groundwater supplies during operation or 

maintenance activities. However, depending on the location and type of 

amenities identified for new station facilities, there is the potential that 

groundwater supplies may be needed during operation. The Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis would identify and evaluate the potential of site-specific Project impacts 

on water supplies.

UTL-1

LU-3 

Potentially Significant. UTL-1 and LU-3 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts 

associated with water supplies through design and 

confirmation of water supply availability. However, 

impacts may remain significant and unavoidable as 

further analysis may determine that operational 

activities would result in water supply impacts.

Would the Program result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate 

capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are 

proposed or required within the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 

2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Less than Significant. During construction activities, the 

construction contractor would provide portable toilets on site, which would then 

be removed from the site on a regular basis for servicing off site at an approved 

wastewater handling facility. Therefore, construction activities are unlikely to 

produce a substantial increase in wastewater generation and would have minimal 

impacts on wastewater treatment facilities. A less than significant impact is 

anticipated at the Tier 2/Project-level analysis level under Build Alternative Option 

1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-46

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The increase in train service (two 

additional round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change 

existing land use and would not result in new generation of wastewater that 

would impact existing wastewater facilities. A less than significant impact is 

anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative 

Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. New rail infrastructure improvements 

are not anticipated to generate substantial amounts of wastewater during 

operation or maintenance activities. However, new station or maintenance 

facilities would result in a new source of wastewater that would need to be 

treated by the local wastewater treatment facility. The Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis would identify and evaluate the potential of site-specific Project impacts 

associated with wastewater treatment capacity demands.

UTL-2

LU-3 

Less Than Significant. UTL-1 and LU-3 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts 

associated with wastewater treatment capacity 

demands through design and determination of 

wastewater service capacity. 

Would the Program generate solid waste in excess or state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise 

impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? 

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are 

proposed or required within the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 

2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-47

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Less than Significant. Construction activities would be 

required to adhere to the local jurisdictions’ goals and regulations associated with 

solid waste disposal and recycling. Construction activities are unlikely to produce 

a substantial increase in solid waste and would have minimal impacts on solid 

waste facilities. Therefore, construction activities are unlikely to conflict with 

federal, state, or local regulations related to solid waste. A less than significant 

impact is anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The increase in train service (two 

additional round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change 

existing land use and would not result in new generation of solid waste that would 

conflict with solid waste regulations. A less than significant impact is anticipated 

at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 

2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Less than Significant. Operational activities would be 

required to adhere to the local jurisdictions’ goals and regulations associated with 

solid waste disposal and recycling. Operational activities are unlikely to produce a 

substantial increase in solid waste generation and would have minimal impacts 

on solid waste facilities. Therefore, operational activities are unlikely to conflict 

with federal, state, or local regulations related to solid waste. A less than 

significant impact is anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level

under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-48

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are 

proposed or required within the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 

2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Less than Significant. Construction activities would be 

required to adhere to the local jurisdictions’ goals and regulations associated with 

solid waste disposal and recycling. Construction activities are unlikely to produce 

a substantial increase in solid waste and would have minimal impacts on solid 

waste facilities. Therefore, construction activities are unlikely to conflict with 

federal, state, or local regulations related to solid waste. A less than significant 

impact is anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Operation

Western Section – Less Than Significant. The increase in train service (two 

additional round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change 

existing land use and would not result in new generation of solid waste that would 

conflict with solid waste regulations. A less than significant impact is anticipated 

at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 

2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-49

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Less than Significant. Operational activities would be 

required to adhere to the local jurisdictions’ goals and regulations associated with 

solid waste disposal and recycling. Operational activities are unlikely to produce a 

substantial increase in solid waste generation and would have minimal impacts 

on solid waste facilities. Therefore, operational activities are unlikely to conflict 

with federal, state, or local regulations related to solid waste. A less than 

significant impact is anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level

under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Would the Program result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy 

resources, during construction or operation?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are 

proposed or required within the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 

1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts are dependent on 

the location and type of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities, 

which are currently unknown. Construction of Tier 2/Project-level improvements 

would result in energy usage by construction activities. However, because 

construction would be temporary and relatively short term, energy consumed 

during construction would represent relatively negligible demand on regional fuel 

supplies over time. Once detailed construction information is available, a 

quantitative estimate of the total energy consumption during construction would 

be prepared and evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

GHG-1 Less than Significant. GHG-1 would minimize, 

reduce, or avoid potential impacts related to 

energy consumption during construction by 

preparation of a Project-specific construction 

energy conservation plan during Tier 

2/Project-level analysis.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-50

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are 

proposed or required within the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 

1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts are dependent on 

the location and type of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities, 

which are currently unknown. Operation of subsequent Tier 2/Project-level 

improvements would result in energy usage that would be needed to run the 

passenger rail system and new station facilities. Although operation of the 

Program would require energy, it is anticipated that the Program would result in 

overall energy savings because the primary source of energy consumption for 

the Program (i.e., train propulsion) is more efficient than personal on-road 

vehicles, which are largely single use. New station facilities would also be 

constructed to be energy efficient, further reducing the energy needed to operate 

the new station facilities. Once detailed Tier 2/Project-level information is 

available, a quantitative estimate of the total energy consumption during 

operation would be prepared and evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis. 

GHG-2 Less than Significant. GHG-2 would be 

implemented to minimize, reduce, or avoid

potential impacts related to energy consumption 

during operation by preparation of a 

Project-specific operational energy conservation 

plan during Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

Would the Program conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are 

proposed or required within the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 

1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-51

Impact Summary Mitigation Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – No Impact. Construction of the Program would support state 

and local plans for energy efficiency. No impacts are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional 

round-trip daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing 

land use and would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable 

energy or energy efficiency. No impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – No Impact. Operation of the Program under Build Alternative 

Option 1, 2, or 3 would result in overall energy savings because the primary 

source of energy consumption for the Program (i.e., train propulsion) is more 

efficient than personal single occupancy vehicles. Operation of the Program 

would support state and local plans for energy efficiency. No impacts are 

anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under Build Alternative 

Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Notes:

EIS/EIR=environmental impact statement/environmental impact report; ROW=right-of-way
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-52

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-53

3.12.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

Identified below are proposed programmatic mitigation strategies for further consideration in the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified 

and discussed during Tier 2/Project-level analysis after design details are known and specific 

impacts are identified. Any conflicts or potential relocations of underground utilities that would 

require ground disturbance would be analyzed in other applicable environmental resource areas. 

The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would consider whether sufficient water supplies and wastewater 

services are available to serve proposed Tier 2/Project improvements or station facilities. Tier 

2/Project-level analyses should include more detailed information on the location of water supply 

lines, wastewater conveyance lines, wastewater and water pump stations, storm drains, solid waste 

disposal, fiber-optic lines, and telecommunication lines. 

Potential mitigation measures would be developed in consultation with the agency or utility owner

with jurisdiction over the utility facility and might include avoidance by shifting infrastructure 

improvements or minimizing the acreage of a physical take of properties containing utility facilities 

during planning and design. 

Measures to reduce energy consumption include using energy efficient equipment and materials and 

preparation of a construction energy conservation plan. Proposed programmatic mitigation 

strategies, consistent with state and federal regulations, include, but are not limited to, the following:

Mitigation Strategy UTL-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, additional water supply 

documentation shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine water 

supply impacts (including groundwater basin withdrawals) associated with the operation of rail 

infrastructure or station facility proposed. If required by the identified lead agency or agencies, this 

documentation may include, but is not limited to the following: 

• Preparation of a site-specific water supply assessment per Senate Bill 610 requirements

• Obtainment of a water supply verification letters from the applicable water purveyor per 

Senate Bill 221 requirements
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-54

Mitigation Strategy UTL-2: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a site-specific utilities report shall 

be prepared for the rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The utilities report will identify the 

ability for existing utility infrastructure to serve the Project, additional utility infrastructure needs, and 

local jurisdiction/utility provider coordination. The report shall include, but not be limited to, the 

following analyses: 

• Wastewater/Sewer Infrastructure. Identification of existing sewer infrastructure, sewer 

capacity, required wastewater/sewer relocations, and site-specific wastewater generation 

estimates

• Electrical Infrastructure. Identification of existing electrical infrastructure, electrical capacity, 

required electrical infrastructure relocations, and site-specific electrical demand estimates

• Natural Gas Infrastructure. Identification of existing natural gas infrastructure, required 

natural gas infrastructure relocations, and site-specific natural gas demand estimates

Mitigation Strategy LU-2: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis and 

recommendations, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if a construction 

management plan is required for construction activities of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being 

proposed. If required, a construction management plan shall be developed by the contractor and 

reviewed by the lead agency or agencies prior to construction and implemented during construction 

activities. The construction management plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

• Measures that minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project

Study Area

• Measures pertaining to visual protection, air quality, safety controls, noise controls, and 

traffic controls to minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project

Study Area

• Measures to ensure property access is maintained for local businesses, residences, and 

community and emergency services

• Measures to consult with local transit providers to minimize effects on local and regional bus 

routes in affected communities

• Measures to consult with local jurisdictions and utility providers to minimize effects on utilities 

in affected communities

Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency 

analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of 

the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general 

plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-55

environmental resource within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area, design or siting strategies shall be 

identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or 

environmental resources. 

Mitigation Strategy GHG-1: During Tier 2/Project level analysis, a construction energy conservation 

plan to avoid excess energy consumption shall be required for the specific rail infrastructure or 

station facility proposed. The construction energy conservation plan shall identify best management 

practices including, but not limited to, the following:

• Identification of opportunities to use newer, more energy efficient construction equipment, 

vehicles, and materials

• Limit construction equipment idling

• Develop and implement a program encouraging construction workers to carpool or use 

public transportation for travel to and from construction sites

• Locate construction materials production facilities on-site or in proximity to project work sites

• Schedule material deliveries during off-peak hours to minimize highway congestion

Mitigation Strategy GHG-2: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, an operational energy 

conservation plan shall be required for the specific rail infrastructure or station facility proposed. The 

operational energy conservation plan shall identify best management practices, including, but not 

limited to, the following:

• Limit operational idling at stations

• Identify state-of-the-art locomotives to maximize fuel efficiency

• Target-market to drivers of single-occupancy vehicles to maximize the effects of rail modal 

use on energy conservation and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

• Concentrate bus-service routes to feed passengers to train stations

• Bring dispersed riders to train stations through other methods (e.g., demand response 

systems [paratransit, taxi, shuttle, call-and-ride])
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.12 Public Utilities and Energy

May 2021 | 3.12-56

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-1 

3.13 Cultural Resources 

3.13.1 Introduction

This section identifies the cultural, historic, and tribal cultural resources (TCR) within the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area and provides an evaluation of potential cultural, historic, and 

tribal resources-related effects associated with the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternative

Options. Information contained in this section is summarized from the Cultural, Historic, and Tribal 

Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix H of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). 

FRA determined its federal action to provide financial assistance for the development of this Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR is an undertaking, as defined in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation 

Act (NHPA) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800); however, this planning effort does 

not have the potential to affect historic properties. In making this determination, FRA has no further 

obligations under Section 106 with respect to this undertaking (i.e., Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). 

If one of the Build Alternative Options receives federal funding or requires federal approval to 

advance to construction during Tier 2/Project-level analysis, the funding action or approval may be 

considered a separate undertaking subject to Section 106. 

To inform future undertakings that could be required during Tier 2/Project-level analysis, this Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR provides a preliminary identification of historic properties using data on 

previously evaluated cultural resources. Information on historic properties was obtained through the 

California Historical Resources Information System, as well as consultation with Native American

tribes and other consulting parties to further identify known historic properties. 

3.13.2 Regulatory Framework

In accordance with NEPA (42 USC Section 4321 et seq.), CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR Parts 1501-1508), FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR

28545, May 26, 1999) and CEQA, FRA identified cultural, historic, and TCRs within the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area and evaluated the potential impacts on those resources as a 

result of implementing the Build Alternative Options. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-2 

Federal

National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106

Section 106 of the NHPA (1966), as amended in 2000 [36 CFR Part 800]), established a national 

policy of historic preservation and encourages such preservation. The NHPA established the 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and provided procedures for the agency to follow if a 

proposed action affects a property that is included, or that may be eligible for inclusion, in the NRHP.

The NRHP was developed as a direct result of the NHPA. 

Section 106 requires federal agencies to consider the impact of federal undertakings on any district, 

site, building, structure, or object included or eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. An undertaking is 

defined as a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect 

jurisdiction of a federal agency, including those carried out with federal funding, or requiring a federal 

permit, license, or approval. 

National Register of Historic Places

NRHP eligibility determinations require an assessment of historic resources in relation to relevant 

historic contexts through criteria set forth in 36 CFR Section 60. The Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation’s implementing regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties,” are found in 36 CFR 

Part 800. The NRHP criteria (36 CFR Part 60.4) are used to evaluate resources when complying 

with Section 106 of the NHPA. Those criteria state that eligible resources comprise “districts, sites, 

buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, and association,” and any of the following criteria:

• Criterion A: That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the 

broad patterns of our history; 

• Criterion B: That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; 

• Criterion C: That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of 

construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic value, or 

that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual 

distinction; or

• Criterion D: That has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or 

history. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-3 

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, codified in federal law at 49 USC

Section 303, declares that “it is the policy of the U.S. Government that special effort should be made 

to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation lands, wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges, and historic sites.”

Section 4(f) specifies that the Secretary of Transportation may approve a transportation program or 

project requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and 

waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, state, 

or local significance (as determined by the federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the 

park, area, refuge, or site) only if both of the following occur:

• There is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and

• The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, 

recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use.

Section 4(f) resources are addressed in more detail in Chapter 5, Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion, of 

this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 

State

Assembly Bill 4239

In 1976, AB 4239 established the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as the primary 

government agency responsible for identifying and cataloging Native American cultural resources.

Assembly Bill 52

In 2014, California Governor Jerry Brown signed AB 52 that established an additional requirement 

under CEQA for consultation with Native American tribes regarding TCRs. AB 52 requires that the 

CEQA lead agency notify any interested Native American tribes of a proposed project, only if those 

tribes have requested to be notified regarding the CEQA lead agency’s projects. The CEQA lead 

agency must consult in good faith with participating California Native American tribes prior to the 

release of the EIR. If a project has the potential to affect a TCR, the CEQA document must discuss 

whether there is a significant effect on a TCR and whether there are feasible alternatives or 

mitigation to avoid or substantially lessen effects on the TCR. Consultation is finished when one of 

the following applies: the parties agree to avoid or mitigate significant impacts on TCRs, or the 

CEQA lead agency, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual 

agreement cannot be reached.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-4 

California Health and Safety Code, Section 7050.5

This code makes it a misdemeanor to disturb or remove human remains found outside a cemetery. If 

human remains are discovered, this code also requires a project owner to halt construction and to 

contact the County Coroner.

California Register of Historical Resources

The California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) is “an authoritative listing and guide to be 

used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens to identify the existing historical 

resources of the state and indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent 

and feasible, from substantial adverse change” (California PRC Section 5024.1(a)). Certain 

resources are determined by the statute to be automatically included in the CRHR, including 

California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the NRHP (PRC Section 5024.1(d)).

Similar to NRHP, CRHR eligibility determinations require an assessment of historic resources in 

relation to relevant historic contexts through the following designation criteria: 

• Criterion 1: Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad 

patterns of local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the U.S. 

• Criterion 2: Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national 

history

• Criterion 3: Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of 

construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values

• Criterion 4: Has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory 

or history of the local area, California, or the nation

Office of Historic Preservation

The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) implements the policies of the NHPA on a statewide level. 

The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) is an appointed official who implements historic 

preservation programs within the state’s jurisdictions.

Public Resources Code 

• PRC 5097.5: Provides for the protection of cultural resources and prohibits the removal, 

destruction, injury, or defacement of archaeological features on any lands under the 

jurisdiction of state or local authorities.

• PRC 5097.97: States that no agency or party shall cause severe or irreparable damage to 

any Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-5 

sacred shrine located on public property, except on a clear and convincing showing that the 

public interest and necessity so require. No previously recorded Native American religious or 

ceremonial sites are documented within the Tier 1/ Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area. 

• PRC 5097.98 (b) and (e): Requires a landowner on whose property Native American human 

remains are found to limit further development activity in the vicinity until he/she confers with 

the NAHC-identified most likely descendants to consider treatment options. In the absence of 

most likely descendants or of a treatment acceptable to all parties, the landowner is required 

to reenter the remains elsewhere on the property in a location not subject to further 

disturbance.

• PRC 65092: Provides for notices of projects to be sent to California Native American tribes 

that are on the contact list maintained by the NAHC in the definition of "person" to whom 

notice of public hearings shall be sent by local governments.

Regional

Los Angeles County 2035 General Plan

The policies in the Los Angeles County 2035 General Plan, Conservation and Natural Resources

Element recognizes the importance of protecting cultural resources and ensures that these 

resources are considered in project planning. These policies include the preservation and 

rehabilitation of historic buildings, mitigation of impacts from new development on or adjacent to 

historic, cultural, and paleontological resources to the greatest extent feasible, and implementation 

of proper notification and recovery processes for development on or near historic, cultural, and 

paleontological resources. 

Orange County General Plan

The goals and policies in the Orange County General Plan, Resources Element recognizes the 

importance of protecting cultural resources and ensures that these resources are considered in 

project planning (Orange County 2005).

County of Riverside General Plan

The policies in the County of Riverside General Plan, Multipurpose Open Space Element recognizes 

the importance of cultural resources with the development of policies to ensure these resources are 

considered in project planning (County of Riverside 2003). These policies include application of the 

Cultural Resources Program to projects subject to environmental review; government-to-government 

consultation; application processing requirements; information databases; confidentiality of site 

locations; content and review of technical studies; professional consultant qualifications and 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-6 

requirements; site monitoring; examples of preservation and mitigation techniques and methods; 

curation and the descendant community consultation requirements of local, state, and federal law.

County of San Bernardino General Plan

The policies in the County of San Bernardino General Plan, Conservation Element recognizes the 

importance of cultural resources with the development of policies to ensure these resources are 

considered in project planning (County of San Bernardino 2014). These policies include the 

preservation and promotion of historic and prehistoric cultural heritage and the identification and 

protection of important archaeological and historic cultural resources in areas of the county that have 

been determined to have known cultural resource sensitivity. 

Local and Tribal Governments

Regulations from cities, local agencies, and tribal governments would be identified in the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis once site-specific rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are 

known.

3.13.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered NEPA process (e.g., Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to 

complete the environmental review of the Program, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 1508.28 (titled 

“Tiering”) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled 

“Joint EIS/EIR”). Tiering is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the first 

steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the broader

proposed Program scope, which defines necessary infrastructure improvements, would be known.

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR and SDP would be followed by 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements and station facilities. This 

would be considered the second tier of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that outlined the broad Program scope. This future Tier 2/Project-level analysis

would closely align with the future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific 

direct and indirect Project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or 

approvals needed for construction. If any Tier 2/Project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal 

agency, it would be subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 

2/Project-level environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. 

Construction of the proposed rail infrastructure or station facility would not commence until after 

environmental clearance is completed at the Tier 2/Project-level.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-7 

Similarly, the Section 106 implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with NEPA, per 36 CFR Part 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, 

FRA is funding the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning 

effort does not have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort 

and to facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2/Project-level analysis, FRA initiated

consultation under 36 CFR Part 800.3 and conducted a preliminary identification of historic

properties that included background research/data obtained from records search and other sources 

such as historical maps. It does not include data collected through archaeological or built 

environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. The study completed in support of 

the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR incorporates pertinent information received through consultation on 

historic properties. 

The methodology used to evaluate potential effects on historic properties in this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR is based on the methods that would inform the Section 106 process for an undertaking with 

the potential to affect historic properties. However, as site-specific locations for the Build Alternative 

Options rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities have not been selected at the Tier 

1/Program level, the analysis in this section is presented at a broader corridor level. A limited 

records search was completed for the Tier 1/Program service-level evaluation to summarize and 

provide an overview of known cultural resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study 

Area. Since the Western Section would not require ground disturbance and would use existing 

infrastructure, the limited record and archival searches were only conducted for the Eastern Section

of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area where ground-disturbing activities could occur. 

Where appropriate, publicly made data for the Western Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Cultural Study Area has been included in this section for context. The identification of known cultural 

resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area relies on data obtained from 

previously evaluated cultural resources. For this Tier 1/Program service-level evaluation, no cultural 

resources were evaluated for NRHP or CRHR eligibility. 

As part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC identified 

potential consulting parties for Section 106 and AB 52, which included federal agencies, state 

agencies, local agencies, and federally and state-recognized Native American tribes that have 

cultural and traditional affiliation within or near the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Cultural Study Area. Section 106 and AB 52 consultation letters were sent out to gather information 

from and to provide meeting opportunities with the potential consulting parties to discuss the 

Program. 

Input received from the consulting parties would be documented in this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR and 

considered in future decision making. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-8 

Potential Tier 2/Project-Level Analysis Considerations

This Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR focuses on the evaluation of service-level impacts at the Program 

Corridor level. FRA has determined that this planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties or TCRs at the Tier 1/Program-level planning stage and that the Section 106 and 

AB 52 processes are complete for purposes of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 

If federal funding is used, or a federal approval is required, to advance any of the Build Alternative 

Options to construction, that federal action would require a Tier 2/Project-level analysis and be 

considered a separate undertaking. Subsequent Section 106 and AB 52 efforts would be contingent 

on the identification of construction funding for site-specific Tier 2/Project-level rail infrastructure 

improvements and station facilities and would be led by the lead federal and state agencies for the 

Tier 2/Project-level improvement. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 and 

AB 52 processes by a lead federal and state agency encompasses the identification of an area of 

potential effects, the geographic areas within which a project may affect historic properties, and 

survey work to further identify cultural resources within the area of potential effects. The lead federal 

and state agencies would consult with the SHPO and Tribal Heritage Preservation Officers (THPO), 

other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these identifications. Those 

cultural resources identified within the area of potential effects, would be evaluated for their eligibility 

for listing in the NRHP. The lead federal and state agencies would then complete the assessment of 

effects on historic properties and the resolution of any adverse effects. 

Therefore, the preliminary identification effort described in this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR may be used 

to inform a future Tier 2/Project-level analysis, Section 106, and AB 52 consultations. Additional 

cultural resources would likely be identified during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis once site-specific 

details, such as station locations and footprints, are known. Identification of the site-specific Tier 

2/Project-level study areas based on additional engineering and design would allow for consideration 

of site-specific measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on cultural resources. 

If there is a subsequent undertaking related to the Build Alternative Options at the Tier 

2/Project-level, the lead federal agency for the undertaking would initiate consultation under Section 

106 and complete the process in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. If the lead federal and state 

agencies determine the undertaking has the potential to affect historic properties, additional outreach 

and consultation to the SHPO, Native American tribes, and other consulting parties would be 

required. This outreach and consultation may be based on the work completed for this Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. 

The findings and conclusions in this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR do not preclude the consideration of 

additional cultural or TCRs. During the Section 106 and AB 52 consultation process for this Tier 

1/Program effort, FRA and RCTC received input from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-9 

the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, La Posta 

Band Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Reservation, Pala Band of Mission Indians, San 

Manuel Band of Mission Indians, and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. Input received from these 

consultations identified areas within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area that contain 

TCRs. However, the boundaries of where these TCRs are located have not been provided due to 

confidentiality and further consultation would be required at the Tier 2/Project-level to determine 

whether site-specific TCRs are present based on advanced engineering design (e.g., site-specific 

rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities). 

Avoidance is the preferred way to address impacts on cultural resources and TCRs. To the extent 

practicable, this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR identifies avoidance measures for further consideration in a 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis and future undertaking. Site-specific avoidance, minimization, and 

mitigation measures would be developed as engineering and design progresses, and in consultation 

with SHPO, Native American tribes, the public, and other consulting parties. 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area

This service-level evaluation is limited to a desktop evaluation of the data sources described in 

Section 3.13.3. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area was combined with data from 

national, state, and local inventories of archaeological and historical resources to determine the 

location of previously documented cultural resources proximate to the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Cultural Study Area. A detailed description of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area is 

provided in Section 3.1, Introduction to Environmental Analysis.

Data Sources

Data available from the South Central Coastal Information Center and Eastern Information Center of 

the California Historical Resources Information System in addition to a variety of other sources were 

used to identify cultural resources located within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area. 

Specifically, the following data sources were reviewed: 

• Federally designated historic districts and sites: To identify sites present within the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area, the National Park Service – U.S. Department of the 

Interior NRHP database was consulted. 

• State designated historic districts and sites: To identify sites present within the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area, the OHP CRHR database was consulted. This 

database also includes sites designated as California Historical Landmarks and California 

Points of Historical Interest. Additional resources consulted include records from the OHP
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-10

Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility and the OHP Directory of Properties in the 

Historic Property Data File. 

Related Resources

This evaluation incorporates data and evaluation from related resources to contribute to the 

assessment of effects on archaeological, historical, and TCRs. These related resources are 

identified in Table 3.13-1. 

Table 3.13-1. Related Resource Inputs to Cultural Resources Assessment

Resource Input to Cultural Resources Assessment

Visual Quality and Aesthetics 

(Section 3.4)

Effects assessment on visual quality and aesthetics in relation to the NRHP-listed

resources were considered.

Noise and Vibration

(Section 3.6)

Effects assessment and identification of areas where noise and vibration 

thresholds may be exceeded in relation to any NRHP-listed resources were 

considered.

Geology, Soils, Seismicity, 

and Paleontological 

Resources 

(Section 3.10)

Geologic conditions were considered.

Notes:

NRHP=National Register of Historic Places

3.13.4 Affected Environment

Cultural resources are evidence of past human activity that includes objects, structures, sites, and 

other articles of historic, archaeological, or architectural significance. Cultural resources are present 

throughout California as a result of millennia of human history. Historic properties are cultural 

resources that are included in, or are eligible for inclusion in, the NRHP maintained by the Secretary 

of the Interior. This term, according to the NHPA (54 USC Section 300101), as amended, includes 

prehistoric or historic districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American history, 

architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture. The term also includes artifacts, records, and 

remains that are related to and located within such properties, and properties of traditional religious 

and cultural importance to a Native American tribe. Historic properties are afforded certain 

protections in accordance with state and federal legislation.

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area crosses a large geographic area within Southern 

California, spanning approximately 144 miles from its western terminus in Los Angeles to its eastern 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-11

terminus in Coachella. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area occurs within an existing 

railroad corridor that traverses areas that have predominately been heavily modified for urban 

purposes, especially in the Western Section, although some areas occur in or adjacent to lands that 

are undeveloped or contain natural vegetation. Much of the Western Section of the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area from Los Angeles to Colton is urbanized. The Eastern Section of the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area is less urbanized with vacant land comprising the 

largest land use category within the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study 

Area. 

Archaeological and Historic Resources

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area crosses through the Southern California region 

which has experienced multiple prehistory periods (Terminal Pleistocene, Paleoindian, Early 

Archaic, and Late Prehistoric). The most numerous of the archaeological resources in the Coachella 

Valley at the east end of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area date to the Late Prehistoric 

period consisting of small processing sites associated with the grinding of vegetal resources. Larger 

habitation sites were less common but displayed a wider range of activities and longer periods of 

occupation. Typical artifacts at these sites include Desert Side-notched and Cottonwood Triangular 

projectile points and Lower Colorado Buff Ware and Tizon Brown Ware ceramics. Lithic artifacts 

found at these sites are typically made from chert, volcanic, or quartz material. In addition to these 

Late Prehistoric period sites, portions of the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural 

Study Area are located within the shoreline boundaries of Lake Cahuilla, as shown on Figure 3.13-1. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-12

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-13

Figure 3.13-1. Known Historical Resource Sites within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area

(Page 1 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-14

This page is intentionally blank. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-15

Figure 3.13-1. Known Historical Resource Sites within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area

(Page 2 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-16

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-17

Figure 3.13-1. Known Historical Resource Sites within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area

(Page 3 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-18

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-19

Figure 3.13-1. Known Historical Resource Sites within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area

(Page 4 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-20

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-21

Figure 3.13-1. Known Historical Resource Sites within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area

(Page 5 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-22

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-23

Figure 3.13-1. Known Historical Resource Sites within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area

(Page 6 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-24

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-25

Lake Cahuilla was a source of natural resources (e.g., water, freshwater mussels, waterfowl, and 

fish) that had profound effects on the prehistoric people who lived in the area and groups in the 

surrounding region. As a result, there were periods of increased human occupation around the lake, 

resulting in hundreds of Late Prehistoric sites along lake’s shoreline and a lesser number that 

followed the shoreline as it receded. Eventually, silt from the Colorado River would flow through to 

Lake Cahuilla and would cut off the source of fresh water. Without a source of fresh water, Lake 

Cahuilla would quickly recede with proportional salinity. 

At least four lake stands are widely accepted to have occurred, beginning around AD 700 and 

continuing until the late-seventeenth century. A fifth infilling, occurring after AD 1580, has been 

proposed based on recessional shoreline archaeological sites but more data is required for certainty. 

As previously mentioned, portions of the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural 

Study Area lie entirely within the high stand (approximately 40-foot) area. This indicates that there is 

the potential for archaeological sites located in this area to have been occupied during periods when 

Lake Cahuilla was either receding or less likely infilling.

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area crosses through the Southern California region 

which has also experienced multiple events in what is considered the historic period (1769 AD to 

Present). These events include: 

• Initial Spanish contact in California and the subsequent colonization of Alta California, 

generally known as the Spanish Colonial period (1769-1821) and the Mexican period 

(1821-1846); 

• The rise of agricultural cultivation (with a focus on citrus cultivation) and the arrival of the 

California Southern (later the Santa Fe) and Southern Pacific Railroads during the 1870s and 

1880s; 

• Residential and commercial development associated with the post-World War I residential 

and industrial activity of Southern California during the boom years of the 1920s; and

• The rise of military-related industries and a large military presence during World War II with 

the establishment of March Field (March Air Reserve Base) and San Bernardino Air Material 

Command (Norton Air Force Base). 

Additional details related to the prehistory and historical overview of the Southern California region 

are provided in the Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix H of 

this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-26

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Due to the programmatic nature of this Tier 1/Program planning document, this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR provides a preliminary identification of historic properties using data on previously evaluated 

cultural resources (archaeological sites and historic properties), which can be used to inform a future 

undertaking. 

As shown on Figure 3.13-1, the Western Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area 

contains six NRHP-listed sites (Santa Fe Railway Passenger and Freight Depot, Fullerton UP Depot, 

Elephant Packing House, Bixby-Bryant Ranch House, Sutherland Fruit Company, and San Pedro, 

Los Angeles, and Salt Lake Railroad Depot) and passes through one National Register Historic 

District (Grand Boulevard Historic District). Information provided on NRHP-listed sites within the 

Western Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area is provided for contextual 

purposes as no construction activities are proposed within the Western Section, and operational 

activities are anticipated to remain the same as existing operations within the Western Section of the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area. 

Due to the potential for ground disturbing activities to occur within the Eastern Section of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area, a records search was conducted in July 2018 at the South 

Central Coastal Information Center and the Eastern Information Center. As summarized in 

Table 3.13-2, the records search resulted in the identification of 384 known cultural resources, 

consisting of 117 archaeological sites and 267 built resources, within the Eastern Section of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area under Build Alternative Option 1. Additional details 

associated with these resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes

(used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the NRHP and CRHR), and an 

explanation of California OHP Resource Attribute Codes are provided in the Cultural, Historic, and 

Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix H of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). 

Table 3.13-2. Summary of Known Cultural Resources Within the Eastern Section of the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area (Build Alternative Option 1)

Cultural Resource Type 

NRHP- Listed 

Property

Potentially 

Eligible 

for NRHP 

Listing

Not 

Eligible 

for 

NRHP 

Listing

Not 

Evaluated 

for NRHP 

Eligibility

Total 

Number of 

Resources

Archaeological Sites (historic only) 0 5 27 49 81

Archaeological Sites (prehistoric only) 0 3 6 18 27
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-27

Cultural Resource Type 

NRHP- Listed 

Property

Potentially 

Eligible 

for NRHP 

Listing

Not 

Eligible 

for 

NRHP 

Listing

Not 

Evaluated 

for NRHP 

Eligibility

Total 

Number of 

Resources

Archaeological Sites (historic and 

prehistoric) 

0 0 1 6 7

Archaeological Sites (unknown) 0 0 0 2 2

Archaeological Districts 0 0 0 0 0

Built environment (buildings) 1 30 106 105 242

Built environment (structures) 0 3 14 6 23

Built environment (objects) 0 0 0 2 2

Built environment (districts) 0 0 0 0 0

Total number of resources 1 41 154 188 384

Sources: Appendix H of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Notes: 

NRHP=National Register of Historic Places

As summarized in Table 3.13-2, of the 384 known archaeological sites and built resources located 

within the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area under Build Alternative 

Option 1, 42 known cultural resources are identified as historic properties or could be eligible for 

historic listing under NRHP or CRHR criteria. 188 known cultural resources have not been evaluated 

for NRHP and could potentially be identified as historic properties under NRHP or CRHR criteria. 

As shown on Figure 3.13-1, there is one NRHP-listed property within the Eastern Section of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area. This property is the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse, 

which is located in the non-station area between the Loma Linda Station Area and the Pass Area 

Station Area. 

While the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse is within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study 

Area, the resource does not intersect with the rail line, which is approximately 327 feet away. The 

San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse was found to be significant at the local level under NRHP 

Criterion A (the resource made a contribution to the major pattern of events in American history in 

the areas of education and social history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. 

As part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC identified 

potential consulting parties for Section 106 and AB 52, which included federal agencies, state 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-28

agencies, local agencies, and federally and state-recognized Native American tribes that have 

cultural and traditional affiliation within or near the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Cultural Study Area. Section 106 and AB 52 consultation letters were sent out to gather information 

from and to provide meeting opportunities with the potential consulting parties to discuss the 

Program. 

On October 15, 2019, FRA sent letters inviting the listed parties in Table 3.13-3 to review the 

preliminary identification information and provide any other information or input they may have about 

the Program. On November 22 and 26, 2019, additional follow-up emails were sent to all parties 

whose invitation letters failed to be delivered (FTA and San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society). A 

summary of responses received to date is provided in Table 3.13-3. 

The Section 106 consultation is complete for purposes of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Input 

received during the public review period of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would be taken into 

consideration as part of future Tier 2/Project-level analysis and mitigation measures. Any future Tier 

2/Project-level analysis would result in subsequent Section 106 consultation with local, state, and 

federal agencies, Native American tribes, and organizations to help identify site-specific TCR issues 

of concern. Native American Section 106 consultation efforts and summaries are provided under 

TCRs in Section 3.13.4. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-29

Table 3.13-3. Section 106 Consulting Party Consultation Summary

Consulting Party Responses Received to Date

Federal Agencies

Bureau of Indian Affairs No response received to date.

BLM October 28, 2019: The BLM (Palm Springs/South Coast Field Office) responded with a 

request to remain on mailing list for updates on the Program. 

February 13, 2020: John Dalton from the BLM Palm Springs Office attended a webinar 

about the Program. No further comments were received.

FTA November 27, 2019: FTA (Region IX) responded that it has no additional information, 

questions, or comments regarding the Program. 

December 20, 2019: FRA extended a webinar invitation to FTA to discuss the Program and 

potential historic properties. FTA did not respond to the request and did not attend the 

webinar held February 13, 2020.

USFWS No response received to date.

State Agencies

California Department of Parks and Recreation No response received to date.

Caltrans, District 8 No response received to date.

California OHP November 14, 2019: The SHPO responded with a request to be kept informed as the 

undertaking progresses past the Tier 1/Program planning stages.

February 13, 2020: Natalie Lindquist from the California SHPO attended a webinar about 

the Program. No further comments were received.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-30

Consulting Party Responses Received to Date

County Agencies

Riverside County No response received to date.

San Bernardino County No response received to date.

Local Agencies

City of Banning No response received to date.

City of Beaumont No response received to date.

City of Calimesa No response received to date.

Cathedral City No response received to date.

City of Coachella No response received to date.

City of Colton No response received to date.

City of Colton – Historic Preservation Commission No response received to date.

City of Desert Hot Springs October 30, 2019: The City of Desert Hot Springs responded with a request to be added as 

a consulting party for purposes of Section 106. 

January 7, 2020: The City of Desert Hot Springs declined to participate in the webinar 

scheduled for February 13, 2020.

City of Indio October 21, 2019: The City of Indio responded with a request to be added as a consulting 

party for purposes of Section 106.

February 13, 2020: Kevin Snyder from the City of Indio attended a webinar about the 

Program. No further comments were received.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-31

Consulting Party Responses Received to Date

City of La Quinta No response received to date.

City of La Quinta – Historic Preservation Commission No response received to date.

City of Loma Linda No response received to date.

City of Moreno Valley No response received to date.

City of Palm Desert No response received to date.

City of Palm Desert – Cultural Resource Preservation 

Committee

No response received to date.

City of Palm Springs No response received to date.

City of Palm Springs – Historic Site Preservation Board No response received to date.

City of Rancho Mirage No response received to date.

City of Rancho Mirage – Historic Preservation Commission No response received to date.

City of Redlands No response received to date.

City of Redlands – Historic and Scenic Preservation 

Commission

No response received to date.

City of San Bernardino No response received to date.

City of Yucaipa No response received to date.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-32

Consulting Party Responses Received to Date

Museums and Non-profits

Agua Caliente Cultural Museum No response received to date.

Coachella Valley Historical Society No response received to date.

Colton Area Museum No response received to date.

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum No response received to date.

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation No response received to date.

Moreno Valley Historical Society No response received to date.

Palm Springs Historical Society No response received to date.

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum No response received to date.

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design No response received to date.

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation No response received to date.

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission No response received to date.

Redlands Area Historical Society No response received to date.

Redlands Historical Museum Association No response received to date.

San Bernardino County Museum No response received to date.

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society No response received to date.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-33

Consulting Party Responses Received to Date

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society No response received to date.

Notes:

BLM=Bureau of Land Management; Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; FRA=Federal Railroad Administration; FTA=Federal Transit Administration; 

OHP=Office of Historic Preservation; SHPO=State Historic Preservation Officer; U.S.=United States; USFWS=United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-34

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-35

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

The Western Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area for Build Alternative Option 

2 is the same as identified for Build Alternative Option 1. Information provided on NRHP-listed sites 

within the Western Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area is provided for 

contextual purposes as no construction activities are proposed within the Western Section, and 

operational activities are anticipated to remain the same as existing operations within the Western 

Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area. 

As summarized in Table 3.13-4, the records search resulted in the identification of a total of 

361 known cultural resources consisting of 112 archaeological sites and 249 built resources within 

the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area under Build Alternative 

Options 2 and 3. 

Table 3.13-4. Summary of Known Cultural Resources Within the Eastern Section of the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) 

Cultural Resource Type 

NRHP- Listed 

Sites

Potentially 

Eligible 

for NRHP 

Listing

Not 

Eligible 

for NRHP 

Listing

Not 

Evaluated 

for NRHP 

Eligibility

Total 

Number 

of Sites

Archaeological Sites (historic only) 0 5 27 49 81

Archaeological Sites (prehistoric only) 0 3 6 15 24

Archaeological Sites (historic and 

prehistoric) 

0 0 1 4 5

Archaeological Sites (unknown) 0 0 0 2 2

Archaeological Districts 0 0 0 0 0

Built environment (buildings) 1 25 106 93 225

Built environment (structures) 0 3 13 6 22

Built environment (objects) 0 0 0 2 2
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-36

Cultural Resource Type 

NRHP- Listed 

Sites

Potentially 

Eligible 

for NRHP 

Listing

Not 

Eligible 

for NRHP 

Listing

Not 

Evaluated 

for NRHP 

Eligibility

Total 

Number 

of Sites

Built environmental (districts) 0 0 0 0 0

Total number of sites 1 36 153 171 361

Sources: Appendix H of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Notes: 

NRHP=National Register of Historic Places

Regional history, NRHP-listed sites, and preliminary Section 106 consultation efforts for Build 

Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build Alternative Option 1. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track)

Regional history, NRHP-listed sites, and preliminary Section 106 consultation efforts for Build 

Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build Alternative Option 2. 

Human Remains

Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5(b) specifies protocols to be followed when human remains 

are discovered. In addition, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 assigns special importance to human 

remains and establishes procedures to be used when Native American remains are discovered. 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

As summarized in Table 3.13-2, there are 117 known archaeological resources located within the 

Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area under Build Alternative Option 

1. Of these 117 known archaeological resources, human remains are present at 6 sites, 14 sites 

have the potential to contain human remains, and human remains are absent at the remaining 

97 sites. 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

As summarized in Table 3.13-4, there are 112 known archaeological resources located within the 

Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area under Build Alternative Option 

2. Of these 112 known archaeological resources, human remains are present at 6 sites, 11 sites 

have the potential to contain human remains, and human remains are absent at the remaining 

95 sites. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-37

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track)

Information related to human remains for Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build 

Alternative Option 2. 

Tribal Cultural Resources 

TCRs include site features, places, cultural landscapes, and sacred places or objects, which are of 

cultural value to a Native American tribe. Native American tribes have unique knowledge about 

sensitive resources important to tribal communities and provide insight to religious understanding, 

traditional stories, knowledge of resources (such as varying landscapes, bodies of waters, animals 

and plants), and self-identity. Knowledge of place is central to the continuation and persistence of 

culture. 

In compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and AB 52 requirements of CEQA, FRA and RCTC are

undertaking Native American consultation to identify TCRs that could potentially occur within the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area. This section provides a synopsis of the Native American 

consultation efforts that have occurred as of the date of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

As part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC identified 

potential consulting parties for Section 106 and AB 52 which included federally and state-recognized 

Native American tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation within or near the Eastern Section 

of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area. 

As part of federal government-to-government Section 106 tribal consultation efforts, a Sacred Lands 

File Search request was submitted to the NAHC for the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area on June 20, 2017, on behalf of FRA, the NEPA lead agency under 

Section 106. The NAHC responded June 27, 2017, that sites to which Native American tribes may 

attach religious and cultural significance are present within the Eastern Section of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area but provided no specific information regarding the sites’ 

nature or location other than USGS Quadrangle township and range locations. In addition, the 

NAHC provided a list of Native American tribes that may have information regarding TCRs in or near 

the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area, with recommendations to 

contact the local tribal entities for more information regarding the sites. 

No construction activities would be required to implement the Build Alternative Options within the 

Western Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area because the existing railroad 

ROW and station areas from LAUS to Colton would be used to increase service by two daily round 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-38

trips. For this reason, the Western Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area was 

not included as part of the request to NAHC.

On October 15, 2019, FRA mailed invitations to consult to the list of Native American tribes identified 

in Table 3.13-5. On November 5, 2019, a follow-up email was sent to those mailing recipients whose 

letters were returned undeliverable. On December 20, 2019, a final follow-up email was sent to all 

Native American tribes who had not yet responded, using the original October 15, 2019 letter as an 

attachment. For any Native American tribe where an email was either unavailable or undeliverable, a 

follow-up phone call was made. A summary of responses received is provided in Table 3.13-5. 

The Section 106 Native American consultation is complete for purposes of this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR. Input received during the public review period of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would be 

taken into consideration as part of future Tier 2/Project-level analysis and site-specific mitigation 

measures. Any future Tier 2/Project-level analysis would result in subsequent Section 

106 consultation with Native American tribes to identify TCR issues of concern. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-39

Table 3.13-5. Section 106 Native American Consultation Summary

Native American Tribe Responses Received to Date

Federally Recognized Tribes

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua 

Caliente Indian Reservation

November 15, 2020: The Native American tribe responded and requests

government-to-government consultation, additional information regarding the Program (shapefiles of 

the area of potential effects, copies of any cultural resource documentation), and to schedule a 

meeting with FRA to discuss the Program. 

February 13, 2020: Lacy Padilla and Patty Garcia, THPO, from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 

Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation attended a webinar about the Program. The THPO 

requested and FRA provided a copy of the presentation, shapefiles for the alignment, and all 

records search results for the internal files. No formal written comments were received from the tribe 

or THPO.

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians No response received to date

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians No response received to date

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians No response received to date

Campo Band of Mission Indians No response received to date

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians No response received to date

Jamul Indian Village of California No response received to date

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians No response received to date

La Posta Band Diegueno Mission Indians of the La 

Posta Reservation

December 20, 2019: The Native American tribe responded and recommended that if there is 

ground disturbance, a native monitor should be on site. The Native American tribe has not 

requested government-to-government consultation with FRA.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-40

Native American Tribe Responses Received to Date

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians No response received to date

Manzanita Band Diegueno Mission Indians of the 

Manzanita Reservation California

No response received to date

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indiansa January 29, 2020: Morongo THPO, Travis Armstrong, verbally discussed participating in Section 

106 consultation with FRA. 

Pala Band of Mission Indiansa March 5, 2020: Pala Band of Mission Indians THPO, Dr. Shasta Gaughen, responded that the 

Program is not within the boundaries of the recognized Pala Indian Reservation and is beyond the 

boundaries of the territory that the Pala Band of Mission Indians considers its Traditional Use Area. 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma and Yuma 

Reservationa

No response received to date

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the 

Pechanga Reservationa

No response received to date

Ramona Band of Cahuilla No response received to date

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon 

Reservationa

No response received to date

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians November 25, 2019: The Native American tribe responded that it does not elect to be a consulting 

party for purposes of the Tier 1/Program evaluation. However, the Native American tribe has 

indicated that it would like to be informed of Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of 

Californiaa

No response received to date

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians No response received to date
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-41

Native American Tribe Responses Received to Date

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indiansa November 18, 2019: The Native American tribe responded with a request for 

government-to-government consultation and to schedule a meeting with FRA. The Native American 

tribe has also requested that a Soboba Native American Monitor be present for all ground-disturbing 

activities and that procedures regarding repatriation of cultural items, treatment and disposition of 

human remains, coordination with County Coroner’s Office, and non-disclosure of reburial locations 

be implemented. 

January 30, 2020: In a separate meeting regarding a different project, Joseph Ontiveros, THPO, 

from the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, requested shapefiles of the alignment from FRA. The 

shapefiles, as requested, were sent to THPO Joseph Ontiveros on January 30, 2020

February 10, 2020: Joseph Ontiveros, THPO, from the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians provided a 

letter notifying FRA of a potentially eligible Traditional Cultural Property for the NRHP and CRHR. It 

recommended that consultation with Soboba continues, and that future federal actions associated 

with the area incorporate an approach that considers tribal resources.

February 11, 2020: Joseph Ontiveros, THPO, from the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians attended a 

webinar about the Program. The THPO requested and FRA provided a copy of the presentation, 

shapefiles for the alignment, and all records search results for the internal files. No formal written 

comments were received from the tribe or THPO.

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation No response received to date

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians No response received to date

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of 

Californiaa

No response received to date

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indiansa No response received to date
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-42

Native American Tribe Responses Received to Date

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes

Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation January 16, 2020: The Native American tribe responded with a request for 

government-to-government consultation under Section 106 and to schedule a meeting with FRA. 

January 23, 2020: The Tier 1/Program team contacted Chairman Andrew Salas on behalf of FRA to 

discuss setting up a meeting. After this initial discussion, Chairman Salas indicated that there was 

no need to meet at this time to further discuss the Tier 1/Program evaluation; however, Chairman 

Salas indicated that the Kizh Nation wants to be involved and informed of Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis. 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission 

Indians

No response received to date

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council No response received to date

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation No response received to date

Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe No response received to date

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians No response received to date

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians No response received to date

Notes:

a This indicates the Native American tribe has a THPO. 

CRHR=California Register of Historical Resources; FRA=Federal Railroad Administration; NRHP=National Register Historic Places; THPO=Tribal Historic 

Preservation Officer
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources 

May 2021 | 3.13-43

Recognizing that Native American tribes may have expertise with regard to their tribal history and 

practices, AB 52 requires that RCTC, as the lead agency under CEQA, provide notice to Native 

American tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the Project if 

they have requested notice of projects proposed within that area. As part of AB 52 Native American 

consultation efforts, RCTC mailed invitations to consult to the list of Native American tribes identified 

in Table 3.13-6. A summary of responses received, is provided in Table 3.13-6. RCTC has 

completed AB 52 Native American consultation for purposes of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-44

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-45

Table 3.13-6. Assembly Bill 52 Native American Consultation Summary

Native American Tribe Responses Received to Date

Gabrieleño Band of 

Mission Indians – Kizh 

Nation

October 19, 2016: RCTC sends out an invitation to consult on the Program for purposes of AB 52.

October 30, 2016: The Native American tribe responded with a request for government-to-government consultation under AB 52. 

August 29, 2019: RCTC provided additional information (updated Program description and background research conducted 

regarding known archaeological resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area). Since the Western Section of 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area, located largely within the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation 

Ancestral Territory, did not propose any ground-disturbing activities, RCTC asked that the Native American tribe reconfirm their 

request to consult under AB 52 for the Tier 1/Program evaluation. 

September 30, 2019: RCTC sent a follow-up email to request confirmation by October 4, 2019, from the Native American tribe on 

the need to consult further under AB 52 based on the information RCTC provided on August 29, 2019. No further response has 

been received. 

San Manuel Band of 

Mission Indians

August 29, 2019: RCTC sends out an invitation to consult on the Program for purposes of AB 52.

September 11, 2019: The Native American tribe responded with a request for further information to assess their level of 

involvement with the Tier 1/Program analysis. The Native American tribe also stated that, while the majority of the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area exists outside of Serrano ancestral territory, there are concerns regarding the portion from Colton to 

Beaumont and Banning and the Loma Linda/Redlands/Colton area within the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Cultural Study Area. 

September 30, 2019: RCTC provided additional information (copy of the Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum).

October 3, 2019: Upon review of the additional information provided, the Native American tribe noted that they did not have 

concerns with the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR and will wait until Tier 2/Project-level notifications to discuss specific activities that 

may impact resources of concern to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. 

Notes:

a This indicates the Native American Tribe has a THPO. 

AB=Assembly Bill; EIS=environmental impact statement; EIR=environmental impact report; RCTC=Riverside County Transportation Commission; THPO=Tribal 

Historic Preservation Officer
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-46

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-47

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Information related to TCRs within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build Alternative 

Option 1. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track)

Information related to TCRs within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build Alternative 

Option 1. 

3.13.5 Environmental Consequences

Overview 

An adverse effect is defined by Section 106 regulations as an effect that alters, directly or indirectly, 

the qualities that make a resource eligible for listing in the NRHP (36 CFR Part 800.5[a][1]). A 

property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association must be 

considered to the extent that these qualities contribute to the integrity and significance of a resource. 

Adverse effects may be direct and reasonably foreseeable, or they may be more remote in time or 

distances that an effect alters the qualities that make a resource eligible for listing in the NRHP, 

directly or indirectly (36 CFR Part 800.5[a][1]). 

A project that causes a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource is a 

project that may have a substantial effect under CEQA (PRC Section 15064.5[b]). A substantial 

adverse change in the significance of a historical resource means physical demolition, destruction, 

relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of 

the historical resource would be materially impaired. The significance of a historical resource is 

materially impaired if a project demolishes or materially alters any qualities that justify the inclusion 

or eligibility for inclusion of a resource in the CRHR or inclusion of the resource on a local register.

Additionally, a project with an effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance 

of a TCR is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment (PRC Section 21084.2). 

If an archaeological site does not meet the criteria for a historical resource but does meet the 

definition of a unique archaeological resource, mitigation or avoidance measures would be 

implemented (14 CCR Section 15064.5[b][3]). If an archaeological resource is neither a unique 

archaeological resource or a historical resource, the effects of the project on those resources would

not be considered a significant effect on the environment. It would be sufficient that both the 

resources and the effects on it are included in the initial study or EIR, if one is prepared to address 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-48

effects on other resources, but they need not be considered further in the CEQA process (14 CCR 

Section 15064.5[c][4]).

FRA determined its federal action to provide financial assistance for the development of this Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR is an undertaking, as defined in Section 106 of the NHPA, and its implementing 

regulations (36 CFR Part 800), but this planning effort does not have the potential to affect historic 

properties. In making this determination, FRA has no further obligations under Section 106 with 

respect to this undertaking (i.e., Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). Completion of subsequent Section 106 

processes would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 Advisory Council on Historic Preservation

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-of-Way,

as well as 36 CFR Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future undertaking associated with 

construction under Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, is used as the baseline 

for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program associated with this 

service–level evaluation. Because no physical changes would occur, no effects on cultural or tribal 

resources are anticipated under the No Build Alternative. 

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3

Historic Property Effects 

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. No construction activities would be required to implement any of the Build 

Alternative Options within the Western Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area

because the existing railroad ROW and stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. The Build 

Alternative Options would not require construction of new stations, new track or extensions to 

existing track, or the addition of sidings, wayside signals, drainage, or at-grade separations within 

the Western Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area. Therefore, no 

ground-disturbing activities would be anticipated that could result in the disturbance of known or 

previously undiscovered historic properties. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects on 

historic properties would be negligible within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 

1, 2, and 3.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-49

Eastern Section. Effects on historic properties would vary depending on the future location of a 

passenger rail system within the selected Build Alternative Option. Construction of rail infrastructure 

improvements and station facilities could result in effects on known cultural resources if the 

resources are near or within an area where an infrastructure improvement or station facility is being 

constructed. In addition, ground-disturbing activities may also result in inadvertent discovery of 

previously unknown cultural resources. 

As summarized in Table 3.13-2, there are 384 known cultural resources within the Eastern Section 

of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area under Build Alternative Option 1. Of these 

384 known cultural resources, 1 resource is a listed NRHP property, 41 resources are potentially 

eligible for NRHP or CRHR listing, and 188 resources have not been evaluated for NRHP or CRHR 

eligibility. 

As summarized in Table 3.13-4, there are 361 known cultural resources within the Eastern Section 

of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area under Build Alternative Options 2 and 3. Of these 

361 known cultural resources, 1 resource is a listed NRHP property, 36 resources are potentially 

eligible for NRHP or CRHR listing, and 171 resources have not been evaluated for NRHP or CRHR

eligibility. 

Effects on known and previously unknown cultural resources may include damage or destruction 

during ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of rail infrastructure improvements or 

station facilities within the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area. 

Damage may also be caused through vibrations caused by geotechnical testing, use of heavy 

equipment, or any earth-moving activities. 

Avoidance is the preferred way to address cultural resources. As all the Build Alternative Options 

propose use of the same corridor, avoidance options at the broad, corridor service-level are limited. 

However, as described above, decisions on avoidance methods would be evaluated and determined 

during Tier 2/Project-level analysis when site-specific details on the rail infrastructure improvement 

or station facility are known. When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 

1 could have a substantial effect on cultural resources within the Eastern Section of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build 

Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and 

reduced station options. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar and considered 

substantial when compared with the No Build Alternative.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-50

OPERATION

Western and Eastern Sections. Under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, passenger train 

frequencies proposed as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two daily round-trip, 

intercity, diesel-powered passenger trains operating the entire length of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Cultural Study Area between Los Angeles and Coachella. Operational effects are anticipated to be 

limited to maintenance of culverts, bridges, embankments, and station areas, which are not 

anticipated to result in ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, no ground-disturbing activities would 

be anticipated that could result in the disturbance of known or previously undiscovered historic 

properties. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects on historic properties would be 

negligible within the Western and Eastern Sections under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Human Remain Effects 

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. No construction activities would be required to implement any of the Build 

Alternative Options within the Western Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area

because the existing railroad ROW and stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. The Build 

Alternative Options would not require construction of new stations, new track or extensions to 

existing track, or the addition of sidings, wayside signals, drainage, or at-grade separations within 

the Western Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area. Therefore, no 

ground-disturbing activities would be anticipated that could result in the disturbance of human 

remains. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects on human remains would be 

negligible within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Construction of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities could result in 

effects on human remains if human remains are present within an area where an infrastructure 

improvement or station facility is being constructed. In addition, ground-disturbing activities may also 

result in inadvertent discovery of previously unknown human remains. CEQA Guidelines Section

15064.5€ requires that excavation activities be stopped whenever human remains are uncovered 

and the County Coroner be called in to assess the remains. If the County Coroner determines that 

the remains are those of Native Americans, the NAHC must be contacted within 24 hours. At that 

time, the lead agency must consult with the appropriate Native Americans, if any, as identified by the 

NAHC. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 directs the lead agency, under certain circumstances, to 

develop an agreement with the Native Americans for the treatment and disposition of the remains. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 could have a moderate 

effect on human remains within the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study 

Area. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-51

slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the 

magnitude of effects would be similar and considered moderate when compared with the No Build 

Alternative.

OPERATION 

Western and Eastern Sections. Under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, passenger train 

frequencies proposed as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two daily round-trip, 

intercity, diesel-powered passenger trains operating the entire length of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Cultural Study Area between Los Angeles and Coachella. Operational effects are anticipated to be 

limited to maintenance of culverts, bridges, embankments, and station areas, which are not 

anticipated to result in ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, no ground-disturbing activities would 

be anticipated that could result in the disturbance of human remains. When compared with the No 

Build Alternative, effects on human remains would be negligible within the Western and Eastern 

Sections under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Tribal Cultural Resource Effects 

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. No construction activities would be required to implement any of the Build 

Alternative Options within the Western Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area

because the existing railroad ROW and stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. The Build 

Alternative Options would not require construction of new stations, new track or extensions to 

existing track, or the addition of sidings, wayside signals, drainage, or at-grade separations within 

the Western Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area. Therefore, no construction 

activities would be anticipated that could result in the effects or impacts on TCRs. When compared 

with the No Build Alternative, effects on TCRs would be negligible within the Western Section under 

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Effects on TCRs would vary depending on the future location of a passenger rail 

system within the selected Build Alternative Option. Construction of rail infrastructure improvements 

and station facilities within the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area 

could result in effects on TCRs if the resources are near or within an area where an infrastructure

improvement or station facility is being constructed. In addition, ground-disturbing activities may also 

result in inadvertent discovery of previously unknown TCRs. Effects on TCRs may include damage 

or destruction during ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of rail infrastructure 

improvements or station facilities within the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural 

Study Area. Avoidance is the preferred way to address TCRs. As all the Build Alternative Options 

propose use of the same Program Corridor, avoidance options at the broad, corridor service-level 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-52

are limited. However, as described above, decisions on avoidance methods would be evaluated and 

determined during Tier 2/Project-level analysis when site-specific details on the rail infrastructure 

improvement or station facility are known.

When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 could have a substantial 

effect on TCRs within the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural 

Study Area. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would 

have slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, 

the magnitude of effects would be similar and considered substantial when compared with the No 

Build Alternative.

OPERATION 

Western and Eastern Sections. Under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, passenger train 

frequencies proposed as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two daily round-trip, 

intercity, diesel-powered passenger trains operating the entire length of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Cultural Study Area between Los Angeles and Coachella. The operation of the additional passenger 

trains would not anticipated to affect TCRs as passenger trains currently operate in the Western and 

Eastern Sections. Other operational activities would be limited to maintenance of culverts, bridges, 

embankments, and station areas, which are not anticipated to result in effects on TCRs. Effects 

associated with the Western and Eastern Western Sections of Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 

3 on TCRs would be negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative.

3.13.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects

Table 3.13-7 through Table 3.13-9 summarize the qualitative assessment of potential effects 

(negligible, moderate, or substantial) under NEPA for each of the Build Alternative Options. This 

service-level analysis uses the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area to determine if cultural 

resources may be affected and the relative magnitude of the effect. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-53

Table 3.13-7. NEPA Summary of Effects on Historic Properties

Alternative Option

NRHP-Listed 

Properties

Resources 

Eligible for 

Listing on the 

NRHP 

Resources Not 

Evaluated for 

NRHP 

Eligibility

Total Number of 

Previously 

Recorded 

Cultural 

Resources

Potential Intensity of 

Effect: 

Western Section

Potential Intensity of 

Effect: 

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Construction: None

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: None

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus) 7 41 188 384

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Substantial 

Operation: Negligible

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus) 7 36 171 361

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Substantial 

Operation: Negligible

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with 

Limited Third Track) 

7 36 171 361

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Substantial 

Operation: Negligible

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural 

Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be 

dependent on Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

NRHP=National Register of Historic Places
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-54

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-55

Table 3.13-8. NEPA Summary of Effects on Human Remains

Alternative Option

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: None

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: None

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Negligible

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Negligible

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Negligible

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel 

facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, 

identifying levels of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on Tier 

2/Project-level analysis.

Table 3.13-9. NEPA Summary of Effects on Tribal Cultural Resources

Alternative Option

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: None

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: None

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Substantial

Operation: Negligible

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Substantial

Operation: Negligible
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-56

Alternative Option

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Substantial

Operation: Negligible

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel 

facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, 

identifying levels of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on Tier 

2/Project-level analysis.

3.13.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts

Based on the information provided in Sections 3.13.4 and 3.13.5, and considering the CEQA 

Guidelines Appendix G Checklist questions for cultural resources and TCRs, the Build Alternative 

Options would have potentially significant impacts on cultural and TCRs when reviewed on a 

Program-wide basis. Placing the rail infrastructure improvements and new stations largely within or 

along the existing ROW reduces the potential for significant impacts associated with known 

resources. However, because the infrastructure and station sites have not been selected, some 

areas that may contain cultural and tribal resources may be significantly impacted. At the Tier 

1/Program analysis level, it is not possible to know the location, extent, and particular characteristics 

of impacts on these resources. Proposed mitigation strategies discussed in Section 3.13.8 would be 

applied to reduce potential impacts. 

Table 3.13-10 summarizes the CEQA significance conclusions for the Build Alternative Options; the 

proposed mitigation strategies that could be applied to minimize, reduce, or avoid the potential 

impacts; and the significance determination after mitigation strategies are applied. The identification 

and implementation of site-specific mitigation measures necessary for Tier 2/Project-level 

implementation would occur as part of the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-57

Table 3.13-10. CEQA Summary of Impacts on Cultural Resources 

Impact Summary Mitigation 

Strategy

Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts on historical resources are 

anticipated under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation level because no physical improvements that would require 

ground-disturbing activities are proposed or required within the Western Section.

Not 

applicable

Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts on historic resources 

depend on the location of rail infrastructure improvements, station facilities and types of 

construction activities, which have yet to be determined. The Eastern Section contains 

known historical resources and could contain additional unknown historical resources. 

Construction of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities have the potential 

to impact historical resources through ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, potentially 

significant impacts under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. Site-specific impacts on historical resources would 

be identified and evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

CUL-1 Potentially Significant. CUL-1 minimize, reduce,

or avoid potential impacts on historical resources 

through design, further analysis, and the 

avoidance of resources. However, it is unknown to 

what extent and type of impact on historical 

resources would occur. Impacts may remain 

significant and unavoidable if further analysis 

determines that a non-renewable historical 

resource would be impacted by the rail 

infrastructure improvement or station facility 

proposed. 

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional round-trip 

daily trains within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area) would not change 

existing land use and would not result in changes associated with a historical resource. 

Therefore, no operational impacts under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are 

anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. 

Not 

applicable

Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-58

Impact Summary Mitigation 

Strategy

Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – No Impact. Once construction ceases, operation of the new railroad 

infrastructure and stations under the Build Alternative Options are not anticipated to 

result in changes associated with a historical resource. Therefore, no impacts under 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation level.

Not 

applicable

Not applicable

Would the Program cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts on archaeological resources

are anticipated under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation level because no physical improvements that would require 

ground-disturbing activities are proposed or required within the Western Section.

Not 

applicable

Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts on archaeological 

resources depend on the location of rail infrastructure improvements, station facilities, 

and types of construction activities, which are currently unknown. The Eastern Section 

contains known archaeological resources and could contain additional unknown 

archaeological resources. Construction of rail infrastructure improvements and station 

facilities have the potential to impact archaeological resources through 

ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, potentially significant impacts are anticipated 

under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. 

Site-specific impacts on archaeological resources would be identified and evaluated 

during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

CUL-1 Potentially Significant. CUL-1 would minimize, 

reduce, or avoid potential impacts on 

archaeological resources through design, further 

analysis, and the avoidance of resources. 

However, it is unknown to what extent and type of 

impact on archaeological resources would occur. 

Impacts may remain significant and unavoidable if 

further analysis determines that a non-renewable 

archaeological resource would be impacted by the 

rail infrastructure improvement or station facility 

proposed. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-59

Impact Summary Mitigation 

Strategy

Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional round-trip 

daily trains within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area) would not change 

existing land use and would not result in a substantial change of an archaeological 

resource within the Western Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area. 

Therefore, no impacts are anticipated under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not 

applicable

Not applicable

Eastern Section – No Impact. Once construction ceases, operation of the new railroad 

infrastructure and stations under the Build Alternative Options are not anticipated to 

result in changes associated with an archaeological resource. Therefore, no impacts are 

anticipated under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation level.

Not 

applicable

Not applicable

Would the Program disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts on human remains are 

anticipated under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation level because no physical improvements that would require 

ground-disturbing activities are proposed or required within the Western Section.

Not 

applicable

Not applicable

Eastern Section – Less Than Significant. The potential for the inadvertent discovery 

of human remains during ground disturbing activities exists. However, implementation of 

requirements and procedures contained in California Health and Safety Code Section 

7050.5 and Section 7052 and California Public Resources Code Section 5097 would 

reduce these potential impacts to less than significant. 

Not 

applicable

Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-60

Impact Summary Mitigation 

Strategy

Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. Operational activities in the Western Section include 

the maintenance of existing rail infrastructure and station facilities. These maintenance 

activities are not anticipated to require ground-disturbing activities that could result in 

the disturbance of human remains. Therefore, no operational impacts are anticipated 

under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level.

Not 

applicable

Not applicable 

Eastern Section – No Impact. Operational activities in the Eastern Section include the 

maintenance of existing rail infrastructure and station facilities. These maintenance 

activities are not anticipated to require ground-disturbing activities that could result in 

the disturbance of human remains. Therefore, no operational impacts are anticipated 

under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level.

Not 

applicable

Not applicable 

Would the Program cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code 

section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, 

sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California 

Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts on TCRs are anticipated under 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level 

because no physical improvements are proposed or required within the Western 

Section.

Not 

applicable

Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts depend on the location of 

rail infrastructure improvements, station facilities, and types of construction activities, 

which are currently unknown. Construction of rail infrastructure improvements and 

station facilities have the potential to impact TCRs through ground-disturbing activities. 

Preliminary AB 52 Native American consultation at the Tier 1/Program evaluation phase 

has been initiated and completed. While no specific comments were received regarding 

TCRs, requests to receive Tier 2/Project-level notifications were made. Site-specific 

CUL-1 Potentially Significant. CUL-1 would minimize, 

reduce, or avoid potential impacts on TCRs

through design, further analysis, and the 

avoidance of resources. However, it is unknown to 

what extent and type of impact on TCRs would 

occur. Impacts may remain significant and 

unavoidable if further analysis determines that a 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-61

Impact Summary Mitigation 

Strategy

Significance with Mitigation Strategy

impacts on TCRs would be identified and evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis.

non-renewable TCR would be impacted by the rail 

infrastructure improvement or station facility 

proposed. Additional AB 52 Native American 

consultation is anticipated to be initiated during the 

Tier 2/Project-level environmental process. 

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. Operational activities in the Western Section include 

the maintenance of existing rail infrastructure and station facilities. These maintenance 

activities are not anticipated to require activities that could result in the impacts on

TCRs. Therefore, no operational impacts are anticipated under Build Alternative Option 

1, 2, or 3 at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. 

Not 

applicable

Not applicable 

Eastern Section – No Impact. Operational activities in the Eastern Section include the 

maintenance of existing rail infrastructure and station facilities. These maintenance 

activities are not anticipated to require activities that could result in the impacts on

TCRs. Therefore, no operational impacts are anticipated under Build Alternative Option 

1, 2, or 3 at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level.

Not 

applicable

Not applicable 

Would the Program cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in PRC section 21074 as either 

a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object 

with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported 

by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set 

forth in subdivision (c) of PRC Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American 

tribe?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts on TCRs are anticipated under 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level 

because no physical improvements are proposed or required within the Western 

Section.

Not 

applicable

Not applicable 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-62

Impact Summary Mitigation 

Strategy

Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts depend on the location of 

rail infrastructure improvements, station facilities, and types of construction activities, 

which are currently unknown. Construction of rail infrastructure improvements and 

station facilities have the potential to impact TCRs through ground-disturbing activities. 

Preliminary AB 52 Native American consultation at the Tier 1/Program evaluation phase 

has been initiated and completed. While no specific comments were received regarding 

TCRs, requests to receive Tier 2/Project-level notifications were made. Site-specific 

impacts on TCRs would be identified and evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis.

CUL-1 Potentially Significant. CUL-1 would minimize, 

reduce, or avoid potential impacts on TCRs

through design, further analysis, and the 

avoidance of resources. However, it is unknown to 

what extent and type of impact on TCRs would 

occur. Impacts may remain significant and 

unavoidable if further analysis determines that a 

non-renewable TCR would be impacted by the rail 

infrastructure improvement or station facility 

proposed. Additional AB 52 Native American 

consultation is anticipated to be initiated during the 

Tier 2/Project-level environmental process. 

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. Operational activities in the Western Section include 

the maintenance of existing rail infrastructure and station facilities. These maintenance 

activities are not anticipated to require activities that could result in the impacts on

TCRs. Therefore, no operational impacts are anticipated under Build Alternative Option 

1, 2, or 3 at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level. 

Not 

applicable

Not applicable 

Eastern Section – No Impact. Operational activities in the Eastern Section include the 

maintenance of existing rail infrastructure and station facilities. These maintenance 

activities are not anticipated to require activities that could result in the impacts on

TCRs. Therefore, no operational impacts are anticipated under Build Alternative Option 

1, 2, or 3 at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level.

Not 

applicable

Not applicable 

Notes:

AB=Assembly Bill; EIS=environmental impact statement; EIR=environmental impact report; PRC=Public Resource Code; TCR=tribal cultural resource

. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-63

3.13.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies

Identified below are proposed mitigation strategies for further consideration in the Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed 

during Tier 2/Project-level analysis after design details are known and specific impacts are identified

for the site-specific rail infrastructure improvement or station facility being proposed. If any Tier 

2/Project-level analysis results in an adverse effect on a property that is listed, eligible, or potentially 

eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR, potential site-specific mitigation measures could include 

additional research to recover data or exhaust the information potential of a site, changes in project 

design, development of a memorandum of agreement with a public involvement component, a 

programmatic agreement, site-specific archaeological treatment plans and historic building surveys, 

and other site-specific mitigation measures that may result from subsequent Tier 2/Project-level 

Section 106 and AB 52 consultation.

Additional Section 106 and AB 52 consultation with all applicable consulting parties, resource 

agencies, and/or Native American tribes over potentially affected properties would be key to

developing successful Tier 2/Project-level documents for any of the Build Alternative Options. 

Decisions on avoidance methods would be evaluated and determined during Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis when site-specific details on the rail infrastructure improvement or station facility are known.

Mitigation Strategy CUL-1: During subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a preliminary cultural 

resource screening shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine if the 

Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed has the potential to impact cultural resources. If the 

proposed Tier 2/Project-level improvement has the potential to impact cultural resources, a qualified 

cultural resources specialist shall conduct a cultural resources assessment report to document the 

existing cultural resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area. The report may include, but not 

be limited to, the following: 

• Survey and inventory for archaeological resources, including those determined to be tribal 

cultural resources, including a review of updated information for the applicable cultural 

information center and other data repositories. 

• Survey and inventory for historic, built-environment resources, including a review of updated 

information for the applicable cultural information center and other data repositories. 

• All identified cultural resources shall be recorded using the appropriate California 

Department of Parks and Recreation cultural resources recordation forms. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.13 Cultural Resources

May 2021 | 3.13-64

• Cultural resources shall be evaluated for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources, and evaluations shall be 

conducted by individuals who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualification 

standards in archaeology, history, and/or architectural history. 

• Documentation of Tier 2/Project-level Section 106 and Assembly Bill 52 Native American 

consultation efforts and site-specific recommendations and input received from Native 

American tribes including but not limited to: 

o The provision of Native American monitors on site during ground disturbance activities

o Identification of procedures regarding repatriation of cultural items

o Notification and early coordination with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and applicable 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officers for Tier 2/Project-level fieldwork and surveys 

occurring within Native American reservation lands. 

If the resource is found to be a historical resource/historic property, the agency carrying out 

implementation of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement shall be required to identify and implement 

site-specific mitigation if the Tier 2/Project-level improvement has a substantial adverse change to 

the resource, including physical damage, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the property that 

materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of the property that convey its 

significance for inclusion in or eligibility for the NRHP, California Register of Historical Resources, or 

local register. These Tier 2/Project-level site-specific mitigation measures shall be developed in 

coordination with applicable Section 106 and AB 52 consultation requirements. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-1 

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

3.14.1 Introduction

This section identifies parklands and community facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study 

Area and evaluates the effects of the Build Alternative Options on parklands and community 

facilities. Chapter 5 of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR discusses impacts on publicly owned parks and 

recreation areas protected under Section 4(f) and Section 6(f). 

3.14.2 Regulatory Framework

In accordance with NEPA (42 USC Section 4321 et seq.), CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR Parts 1501-1508); FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR

28545, May 26, 1999); and CEQA, FRA identified parklands and community facilities within the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area and evaluated the potential impacts on those resources as a result of 

implementing the Build Alternative Options. 

Federal

Federal Land Policy and Management Act

The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (43 USC Section 1701 et seq.) provides for the 

proper management and protection of property and natural and cultural resources within areas under 

the jurisdiction of the BLM, including national monuments, federal recreation areas, and 

conservation areas. The act aims to ensure that public lands be managed in a manner that protects 

the quality of scientific, scenic, historical, ecological, environmental, air and atmospheric, water 

resource, and archeological values that, where appropriate, preserve and protect certain public 

lands in their natural condition; provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; 

and provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use.

State

Park Preservation Act

The Park Preservation Act (California PRC Sections 5400–5409) prohibits local and state agencies 

from acquiring any property that is in use as a public park at the time of acquisition, unless the 

acquiring agency pays sufficient compensation or land, or both, to enable the operator of the park to 

replace the park land and any park facilities on that land.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-2 

Regional

Los Angeles County 2035 General Plan

The Los Angeles County 2035 General Plan (County of Los Angeles 2015) includes a Parks and 

Recreation Element, which provides policy direction for the maintenance and expansion of the 

county’s parks and recreation system, including Policy P/R 5.3: Protect and conserve natural 

resources on county park properties, including natural areas, sanctuaries, and open space 

preserves.

Orange County General Plan

The Orange County General Plan (Orange County 2015) contains a Recreation Element which 

contains policies and goals pertaining to the acquisition, development, operation, maintenance, and 

financing of the county’s facilities, including regional recreation facilities, local parks, and riding and 

hiking trails. 

County of Riverside General Plan

The County of Riverside General Plan (County of Riverside 2015) has several goals and policies for 

parks, recreation, and community services, including Goal LU 4.1(p): Require that new development 

be designed to provide adequate space for pedestrian connectivity and access, recreational trails, 

vehicular access and parking, supporting functions, open space, and other pertinent elements.

County of San Bernardino General Plan

The County of San Bernardino General Plan (County of San Bernardino 2014) has several goals 

and policies for parks and community services, including Goal LU 8: Beneficial facilities, such as 

schools, parks, medical facilities, sheriff and fire stations, libraries, and other public uses, as well as 

potentially hazardous sites, would be equitably distributed throughout the county. 

Local and Tribal Governments

Regulations from cities, local agencies, and tribal governments would be identified in the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis once site-specific rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are 

known.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-3 

3.14.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects

The methodology for this evaluation consists of using existing data to identify parklands and 

community facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area for each Build Alternative Option 

and evaluating the potential level of effect or impact that each Build Alternative Option could have if 

constructed. 

For purposes of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, parklands are defined as lands that have been officially 

designated as protected areas by a federal, state, or local agency for the purpose of recreation or 

conservation. Parklands may contain trails, ball fields, and other recreational resources that can also 

exist independently. For purposes of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation, community services 

include police, fire, schools, hospitals, and places of worship.

Potential effects were identified based on proximity of anticipated direct effects (e.g., land 

acquisition, limited access, or pedestrian barriers) or indirect effects (e.g., increased noise, air 

quality). Available data was overlaid using available GIS data to map parklands and community 

facilities and/or service providers in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, including those that 

could be affected by development of planned stations.

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

This service-level evaluation is limited to a desktop evaluation of the data sources described in 

Section 3.14.3. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area was combined with GIS overlays to identify 

potential parklands and community facilities that could be affected by the Program. These potential 

parklands and community facilities were identified on a broad scale using available mapping 

information. A detailed description of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area is provided in Section 

3.1, Introduction to Environmental Analysis. 

Data Sources

Data from the BLM, California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Protected Areas, 

available county GIS data and general plans, and Google Earth Pro were used to conduct an 

inventory of parklands and community facilities located within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study 

Area. 

Related Resources

This evaluation incorporates data from related resources to contribute to the assessment of 

parklands and community facilities, as applicable. These related resources are identified in

Table 3.14-1. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-4 

Table 3.14-1. Related Resource Inputs for Parklands and Community Facilities

Resource Input for Parklands and Community Facilities Assessment

Land Use and Planning

(Section 3.2) 

A land use assessment to determine existing land uses and recreational areas.

Noise and Vibration

(Section 3.6)

An assessment to determine noise and vibration effects.

Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

Discussion 

(Chapter 5)

An assessment of 49 USC Section 303, Section 4(f), and Section 6(f) federal 

parklands and recreational facilities. 

Notes:

USC=United States Code

3.14.4 Affected Environment

The Program Corridor crosses a large geographic area within Southern California, spanning 

approximately 144 miles from its western terminus in Los Angeles to its eastern terminus in 

Coachella. Numerous parks, recreational areas, and community facilities open to the public are 

located within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. Figure 3.14-1 provides a visual 

representation of parklands, open spaces, and community facilities within the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Study Area. 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

As summarized in Table 3.14-2, there are 25 recreational resources consisting of local and regional 

parks, trails, and sports complexes within the Western Section of Build Alternative Option 1. The 

majority of community facilities within the Western Section of Build Alternative Option 1 are places of 

worship, followed by parks and trails. 

As summarized in Table 3.14-2, there are 20 recreational resources consisting of local and regional 

parks, trails, and sports complexes within the Eastern Section of Build Alternative Option 1. Of the 

20 recreational resources, there is a recreational open space area jointly managed by the U.S. 

Forest Service and BLM: the Santa Rosa-San Jacinto Mountains National Monument. As shown on 

Figure 3.14-1, a portion of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area between the Pass-Area Station 

Area and the Mid-Valley Station Area crosses through the boundaries of the Santa Rosa-San 

Jacinto Mountains National Monument. In addition, the Pacific Crest Trail, which is a natural surface 

hiking trail that follows a natural drainage and traverses the Santa Rosa-San Jacinto Mountains 

National Monument, crosses under Build Alternative Option 1 in the San Gorgonio Pass area. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-5 

Similar to the Western Section, the majority of community facilities within the Eastern Section of 

Build Alternative Option 1 are places of worship, followed by parks and trails. 

Table 3.14-2. Summary of Parklands and Community Facilities (Build Alternative Option 

1) 

Parklands/Community Service Resource

Number of 

Resources 

within Western 

Section

Number of 

Resources 

within Eastern 

Section

Total Number of 

Resources

Park/trail 25 20 45

Place of worship 40 50 90

Educational facility 11 16 27

Healthcare facility 2 6 8

Fire protection facility 5 4 9

Law enforcement facility 0 6 6

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

As summarized in Table 3.14-3, there are 25 recreational resources consisting of local and regional 

parks, trails, and sports complexes within the Western Section of Build Alternative Option 2. The 

majority of community facilities within the Western Section of Build Alternative Option 2 are places of 

worship, followed by parks and trails. 

As summarized in Table 3.14-3, there are 18 recreational resources consisting of local and regional 

parks, trails, and sports complexes within the Eastern Section of Build Alternative Option 2. As 

identified for Build Alternative Option 1, a portion of Build Alternative Option 2 crosses through the 

Santa Rosa-San Jacinto Mountains National Monument and the Pacific Crest Trail. Similar to the 

Western Section, the majority of community facilities within the Eastern Section of Build Alternative 

Option 2 are places of worship, followed by parks and trails. 

There are fewer parklands and community facilities within Build Alternative Option 2 because of the 

shorter route alignment and reduced station options. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-6 

Table 3.14-3. Summary of Parklands and Community Facilities (Build Alternative Options 

2 and 3) 

Recreational/Community Service Resource

Number of 

Resources 

within Western 

Section

Number of 

Resources 

within Eastern 

Section

Total Number of 

Resources

Park/trail 25 18 43

Place of worship 40 45 85

Educational facility 11 12 23

Healthcare facility 2 4 6

Fire protection facility 5 4 9

Law enforcement facility 0 6 6

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Parklands and community facilities within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build 

Alternative Option 2. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-7 

Figure 3.14-1. Parklands and Community Facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 1 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-8 

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-9 

Figure 3.14-1. Parklands and Community Facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 2 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-10

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-11

Figure 3.14-1. Parklands and Community Facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 3 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-12

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-13

Figure 3.14-1. Parklands and Community Facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 4 of 6)

 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-14

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-15

Figure 3.14-1. Parklands and Community Facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 5 of 6)

 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-16

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-17

Figure 3.14-1. Parklands and Community Facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 6 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-18

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-19

3.14.5 Environmental Consequences

Overview 

Effects as a result of implementing the Build Alternative Options can be broadly classified into 

construction and operational effects. Long-term or permanent effects and short-term or temporary 

effects on parklands and community facilities would be anticipated as a result of constructing any of 

the Build Alternative Options. Most effects on parklands and community facilities would occur during 

construction when land acquisitions, detours, construction noise and vibration, and air quality 

impacts could adversely impact parklands and community facilities, including fire protection and 

police protection emergency response times. 

Impacts could also result from operation of any of the Build Alternative Options. New station areas 

could result in land use changes, such as transit-oriented development, which would introduce the

potential for increased population and use of parks and demand for public services. Parklands and 

community facilities potentially affected by a future passenger rail system would be further identified 

as part of the Tier 2/Project-level environmental review process. Specific types and degrees of 

impacts on individual resources (such as ROW acquisition and impacts on characteristics of a 

resource) would not be known until further design of rail facilities takes place. 

No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, is used as the baseline 

for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program associated with this 

service-level evaluation. Counties and cities in the Program Corridor would continue to grow, which 

would increase regional transportation demand; therefore, the No Build Alternative assumes 

completion of those reasonably foreseeable transportation, development, and infrastructure projects 

that are already in progress, are programmed, or are included in the fiscally constrained RTP. 

However, because no physical changes would occur, no effects on parklands and community 

facilities are anticipated within the Program Corridor under the No Build Alternative. 

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 

Parkland and Community Services Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. No construction activities would be required to implement the Build Alternative 

Options within the Western Section because the existing railroad ROW and station areas from LAUS

to Colton would be utilized. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of new 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-20

stations, new track or extensions to existing track, or the addition of sidings, wayside signals, 

drainage, or at-grade separations within the Western Section of the Program Corridor. As such, no 

construction-related effects on parklands and community facilities would be anticipated in the 

Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 when compared with the No Build 

Alternative. 

Eastern Section. Construction of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities could result in 

temporary effects on existing parklands and community facilities if the resources are near where an 

infrastructure improvement or station is being constructed. Impacts of this type might include 

increases in dust from ground disturbance; views of, and noise from, construction equipment; access 

restrictions; and temporary construction staging. These impacts would be short-term and temporary, 

as they would occur only during construction. Construction activities may also result in detours, 

which could affect travel patterns for fire and law enforcement. 

Potential effects on parklands and community facilities could also occur if the infrastructure 

improvements, such as sidings, additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, 

grade-separation structures, and stations would require any land acquisitions from existing parks 

(avoidance of these resources is usually favored). New station areas proposed under the Build 

Alternative Options could result in land use changes, such as transit-oriented development, which 

would introduce the potential for increased population and use of parks and public services. 

Therefore, effects associated with the Eastern Section of Build Alternative Option 1 on parklands 

and community facilities would be moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. When 

compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have slightly reduced 

effects on parklands and community facilities due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station 

options. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar and would be considered to be 

moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative 

Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint 

associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced third track rail 

infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and 

would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Since infrastructure improvement and new station locations have not yet been selected, site-specific 

construction effects on parklands and community services would be considered during Tier 

2/Project-level analysis once details for the needed rail and station infrastructure are known. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-21

OPERATION

Western Section. As discussed in Section 3.6, Noise and Vibration, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR,

no noise or vibration effects are anticipated in the Western Section as a result from operation of any 

of the Build Alternative Options. The additional train trips would travel within an existing railroad 

ROW and would not affect fire or police response times or service, parks, or schools when 

compared with the No Build Alternative. Operation of Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 within the 

Western Section would not result in increased use of recreational facilities or require new or 

additional government or recreational facilities when compared with the No Build Alternative. 

Eastern Section. As discussed in Section 3.6, Noise and Vibration, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR,

noise or vibration effects are anticipated to be moderate in the Eastern Section as a result from 

operation of any of the Build Alternative Options. Operation of the new railroad infrastructure and 

stations under the Build Alternative Options would not be anticipated to require new or physically 

altered fire stations, police stations, schools, or other public facilities or parks. Since infrastructure 

improvements and new station locations have not yet been selected, site-specific operational effects, 

including noise effects, on parklands and community services would be considered during Tier 

2/Project-level analysis. 

Effects associated with the Eastern Section of Build Alternative Option 1 on parklands and 

community facilities would be moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. When 

compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have slightly reduced 

effects on parklands and community facilities due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station 

options. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar and would be considered to be 

moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative 

Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint 

associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced third track rail 

infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and 

would be considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.

3.14.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects

Table 3.14-4 summarizes the qualitative assessment of potential effects (negligible, moderate, or 

substantial) under NEPA for each of the Build Alternative Options. This service-level evaluation uses 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area to determine the parklands and community facilities that may 

be affected and the relative magnitude of the effect. For parklands and community facilities, the level 

of intensity for effects is based on the number of parklands and community facilities potentially 

affected and that most effects can be mitigated. Specific mitigation measures to reduce effects 

would be identified during the Tier 2/Project-level environmental process. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-22

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-23

Table 3.14-4. NEPA Summary of Effects on Parklands and Community Facilities 

Alternative 

Option

Total 

Number of 

Resources Park/Trail

Place of 

Worship

Educational 

Facility

Healthcare 

Facility

Fire/Law 

Enforcement 

Facility

Potential Intensity of 

Effect: Western 

Section

Potential Intensity of 

Effect: Eastern 

Section

No Build 

Alternativea 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Construction: None 

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: None

Build Alternative 

Option 1 

(Coachella 

Terminus)

185 45 90 27 8 15

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate 

Build Alternative 

Option 2 (Indio 

Terminus)

172 43 85 23 6 15

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate 

Build Alternative 

Option 3 (Indio 

Terminus with 

Limited Third 

Track) 

172 43 85 23 6 15

Construction: Negligible

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate 

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study 

Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on 

Tier 2/Project-level evaluation. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-24

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-25

3.14.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts

Based on the information provided in Section 3.14.3 and 3.14.5, and considering the CEQA 

Guidelines Appendix G Checklist questions for public services and recreation, the Build Alternative 

Options are considered to have a potentially significant impact on public services and recreation

when reviewed on a Program-wide basis. Placing the infrastructure improvements and new stations 

largely within or along the existing ROW reduces the potential for significant impacts on these 

resources; however, because the sites have not been selected, some public services and recreation 

resources may be significantly impacted. At the Tier 1/Program evaluation level, it is not possible to 

know the precise location, extent, and particular characteristics of impacts on these resources. 

Proposed programmatic mitigation strategies, discussed in Section 3.14.8, would be applied to 

reduce potential impacts. Table 3.14-5 describes the CEQA significance conclusions for the Build 

Alternative Options; the proposed programmatic mitigation strategies that would be applied to 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential impacts; and the significance determination after mitigation 

strategies are applied. The identification and implementation of additional site-specific mitigation 

measures necessary for Project implementation would occur as part of the Tier 2/Project-level

analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-26

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-27

Table 3.14-5. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Parklands and Community Services

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental 

facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, 

in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: 

i. Fire protection?

ii. Police protection?

iii. Schools?

iv. Parks?

Other public facilities?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or required in 

the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not 

applicable 

Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potential impacts on public services 

depend on the location of infrastructure improvements, which are currently not known. 

Construction activities may result in detours that could impact accessibility, travel 

patterns, and response times for fire and police protection. Construction of infrastructure 

improvements could result in temporary access disruption to existing community 

facilities and parks. Changes to the road network that may impact public services would 

be coordinated with fire, police, and agencies with jurisdiction to maintain access and 

not degrade response times.

There could also be temporary noise, vibration, and air quality effects that could affect 

parklands or community facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area for Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2 or 3. Site-specific impacts would be considered during the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis. 

LU-2 Potentially Significant. Although LU-2 would 

minimize, reduce or, avoid potential impacts on 

public services through the implementation of a 

construction management plan, impacts could 

remain potentially significant if avoidance of public 

service resources is not feasible during the Tier 

2/Project-level planning and design phase.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-28

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The change in train service (an additional two daily trips 

within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use that would result in 

modifications to existing public service or park facilities. No impacts are anticipated at 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are 

proposed or required in the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not 

applicable

Not applicable

Eastern Section – Less than Significant. Once construction is completed, the 

operation of an additional two daily train trips within the Program Corridor would not 

require construction or expansion of existing public service facilities. A less than 

significant impact is anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level in the 

Eastern Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3.

Not 

applicable

Not applicable

Would the Program increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial 

physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. The change in train service (an additional two daily trips 

within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use that would result in an 

increased use of existing park facilities within the Western Section. No impacts are 

anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical 

improvements are proposed or required in the Western Section under Build Alternative 

Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not 

applicable

Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-29

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – Less Than Significant. Construction of the Program, including site 

preparation and building phases, would temporarily increase construction employment. 

However, given the relatively common nature and scale of construction associated with 

the Program, the demand for construction employment would likely be met within the 

local and regional labor market throughout Southern California. The size of the 

construction workforce would vary during the different stages of construction; however, 

a substantial number of workers from outside the region would not be expected to 

relocate permanently. Therefore, Program construction would not result in a significant 

increase in the use of existing recreational facilities under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, 

or 3. 

Not 

applicable 

Not applicable

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The change in train service (an additional two daily trips 

within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use or increase in 

population that would result in increased use of existing park facilities. Therefore, no 

impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level in the Western 

Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not 

applicable

Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Implementation of the Program under Build 

Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 in the Eastern Section would result in the operation of 

passenger rail service. The improvements envisioned include various rail infrastructure 

and station facilities and are not anticipated to result in population growth that would 

increase the use of recreational facilities in the area. However, in the event that station 

facilities include a transit-orientated development component, there is the potential for 

an increase in use at existing recreational resources. Site-specific impacts and 

mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and discussed during 

the Tier 2/Project-level after design details are known. 

PCS-1 Less than Significant. If development around 

station areas is consistent with land use plans for 

station areas as required by PCS-1, impacts would 

be reduced to less than significant.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-30

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse 

physical effect on the environment?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or required in 

the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not 

applicable

Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Although the Program would not include 

recreational facilities as part of the proposed improvements, there is the potential for the 

Build Alternative Options to require expansion of recreational facilities in the event that 

the proposed improvements require a physical take of park property. Potential impacts 

on recreational facilities depend on the location of infrastructure improvements, which 

are currently unknown. Site-specific impacts and mitigation measures, to the extent 

required, would be identified and discussed during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis after 

design details are known. 

PCS-1

LU-3 

Potentially Significant. Although PCS-1 and LU-3

would result in additional coordination with 

agencies to avoid or minimize the potential for 

parkland impacts, impacts could remain potentially 

significant if avoidance of recreational resources is 

not feasible during the Tier 2/Project-level planning 

and design phase. 

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The change in train service (an additional two daily trips 

within the Program Corridor) would not require construction or expansion of existing 

recreational facilities. No impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation level in the Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not 

applicable

Not applicable

Eastern Section – Less than Significant. Once construction is completed, the 

operation of an additional two daily train trips within the Program Corridor would not 

require construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities. A less than 

significant impact is anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level in the 

Eastern Section under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not 

applicable

Not applicable

Notes: 

EIS/EIR=environmental impact statement/environmental impact report
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-31

3.14.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies

Identified below are proposed programmatic mitigation strategies for further consideration in the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified and 

discussed during Tier 2/Project-level analysis after design details are known and specific impacts 

are identified.

Examples of programmatic mitigation strategies for recreational and community facilities would 

include a construction management plan and station areas planned consistent with local land use

plans. Proposed programmatic mitigation strategies, consistent with state and federal regulations,

include, but are not limited to, the following:

Mitigation Strategy PCS-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, recreational resources that would 

be impacted by the site-specific rail infrastructure improvement or station facility shall be identified, 

and any physical take of recreational properties shall be evaluated. Measures to avoid or minimize 

impacts on recreational properties shall include, but are not limited to, the following: 

• Selection of rail station locations that avoid recreational resources

• Moving equipment and facilities to another located within existing parkland

• Planting vegetation to offset removed vegetation or to establish visual or auditory screening 

Mitigation Strategy LU-2: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis and 

recommendations, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if a construction 

management plan is required for construction activities of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being 

proposed. If required, a construction management plan shall be developed by the contractor and 

reviewed by the lead agency or agencies prior to construction and implemented during construction 

activities. The construction management plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

• Measures that minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project 

Study Area

• Measures pertaining to visual protection, air quality, safety controls, noise controls, and 

traffic controls to minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project 

Study Area

• Measures to ensure property access is maintained for local businesses, residences, and 

community and emergency services

• Measures to consult with local transit providers to minimize effects on local and regional bus 

routes in affected communities
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.14 Parklands and Community Services

May 2021 | 3.14-32

• Measures to consult with local jurisdictions and utility providers to minimize effects on utilities 

in affected communities

Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency 

analysis shall be conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine consistency of 

the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being proposed with the applicable local jurisdictional general 

plans or programs. If the land use consistency analysis identifies sensitive land uses or 

environmental resources within the Tier 2/Project-level study area, design or siting strategies shall 

be identified by the lead agency or agencies to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land uses or 

environmental resources. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-1 

3.15 Safety and Security 

3.15.1 Introduction

This section provides an evaluation of safety- and security-related effects associated with the No 

Build Alternative and Build Alternative Options. Safety relates to the prevention of unintentional 

harm, such as from accidents, to the public and employees during construction and operation of the 

passenger rail system. Security relates to the protection of people and property from intentional acts 

that could injure or harm them. 

3.15.2 Regulatory Framework

In accordance with NEPA (42 USC Section 4321 et seq.), CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR Parts 1501-1508), FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR

28545, May 26, 1999) and CEQA, FRA identified potential safety- and security-related effects within 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area and evaluated the potential impacts on safety and security

from implementation of the Build Alternative Options. 

Federal

Federal Railroad Administration Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008

The Rail Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (RSIA) was a response to fatal rail accidents between 

2002 and 2008. The RSIA reauthorized FRA to oversee the nation’s rail safety program between 

2009 and 2013. The RSIA required the implementation of PTC systems to prevent further 

train-to-train collisions along specific rail lines by the end of 2015. Additionally, the RSIA aims to 

improve conditions of rail bridges and tunnels. The RSIA governs hours of service for workers,

standards for track inspection, conductor certification, and highway grade crossings. 

Federal Railroad Administration System Safety Program (49 Code of Federal Regulations Part 

270)

This regulatory program requires commuter and intercity passenger railroads to develop and 

implement a system safety program to improve the safety of their operations. An SSP is a structured 

program with proactive processes and procedures, developed and implemented by railroads to 

identify and mitigate or eliminate hazards to reduce the number and rates of railroad accidents, 

incidents, injuries, and fatalities.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-2 

Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (23 United States Code 11313[b])

The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act governs U.S. federal surface transportation 

spending. Section 11313(b) provides guidance on systematic processes of identifying, quantifying, 

and comparing expected benefits and costs (including safety benefits).

United States Code on Railroad Safety (49 United States Code 20101 et seq.)

Part A of Subtitle V of Title 49 of USC (49 USC Sections 20101 et seq.) contains a series of statutory 

provisions affecting the safety of railroad operations. Section 20109 of the act protects the reporting 

of safety concerns and injuries and prohibits railroads from disciplining, discharging, or retaliating in 

any form against employees who engage in protected activities. This section also prohibits the delay 

or interference of an injured employee’s treatment.

United States Department of Defense (Railroads for National Defense Program) 

In coordination with FRA, the Military Traffic Management Command Transportation Agency 

established the Railroads for National Defense Program to identify defense rails requirements and 

assure consideration for national defense in civil railroad policies, plans, and programs. As part of 

this program, certain railroad corridors were designated by the U.S. Department of Defense as part 

of the Strategic Rail Corridor Network (STRACNET). STRACNET is an interconnected and

continuous rail line network consisting of over 38,000 miles of track serving over 170 defense 

installations. Railroads designated for STRACNET must comply with defense readiness 

requirements, including maintenance conditions, clearance, operating speeds, and gross weight 

capabilities. 

United States Department of Homeland Security/Transportation Security Administration

The Transportation Security Administration provides Security Directives for Passenger Rail, 

including directives for rail transportation operators to implement certain protective measures and 

report potential threats and security concerns to the Transportation Security Administration. The Rail 

Transportation Security final rule, published on November 26, 2008, describes the Transportation 

Security Administration’s inspection program, including freight railroad carriers; intercity, commuter, 

and short-haul passenger train service providers; rail transit systems; and rail operations at certain 

fixed-site facilities that ship or receive specified hazardous materials by rail.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-3 

United States Environmental Protection Agency Emergency Planning and Community 

Right-to-Know Act

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act provides direct guidance to state and 

local planning for chemical emergencies, provides for notification in the scenario of emergency 

releases of chemicals, and addresses a community’s right-to-know about toxic and hazardous 

chemicals. 

State

California Emergency Services Act (California Government Code Section 8550 et seq.)

The Emergency Services Act supports the state’s responsibility to mitigate adverse effects of 

natural, human-produced, or war-caused emergencies that threaten human life, property, and 

environmental resources of the state. The act aims to protect human health and safety and to 

preserve the lives and property of the people of the state. The act provides the California Office of 

Emergency Services with the authority to prescribe powers and duties supportive of the act’s goals. 

In addition, the act authorizes the establishment of local organizations to carry out the provisions 

through necessary and proper actions.

California Public Utilities Commission Code Sections 7710–7727, 7661, and 7665 et seq.

CPUC Code Sections 7710–7727 cover railroad safety and emergency planning and response. 

Under this code, CPUC is required to adopt safety regulations and report sites on railroad lines that 

are deemed hazardous within California. The Rail Accident Prevention and Response Fund was 

created in an effort to support prevention regulations financially through fees paid by surface 

transporters of hazardous materials. In addition, the Railroad Accident Prevention and Immediate 

Deployment Force was created to provide immediate on-site response in the event of a large-scale 

unauthorized release of hazardous materials. Modifications of existing highway-rail crossings require 

CPUC authorization, and temporarily impaired clearance during construction requires application to 

CPUC and notice to railroads.

Section 7661 requires every railroad corporation operating in the state to develop a protocol for rapid 

communications with the California Office of Emergency Services, the Department of the California 

Highway Patrol, and designated county public safety agencies in an endangered area if there is a 

runaway train or any other uncontrolled train movement that threatens public health and safety. 

Section 7665 is also known as the Local Community Rail Security Act of 2006 and provides for the 

security and safety of local communities and local community facilities, to protect local communities 

from transportation practices that fail to secure rail facilities and equipment from the threat of 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-4 

terrorism, and to ensure proper communication between the owners and operators of rail facilities

and equipment with local and state first responders.

Regional

Goals and policies related to safety and security and applicable to the Build Alternative Options were 

identified in the Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties’ general plans. 

Los Angeles County 2035 General Plan

Policies in the Mobility Element of the Los Angeles County 2035 General Plan (County of Los 

Angeles 2015) include the following:

• Policy M 1.2: Ensure that streets are safe for sensitive users, such as seniors and children. 

• Policy M 2.4: Ensure a comfortable walking environment for pedestrians by implementing the 

following, whenever appropriate and feasible: safe and convenient crossing locations at 

transit stations and transit stops located at safe intersections. 

Orange County General Plan

One goal of the Transportation Element of the Orange County General Plan (Orange County 2005) 

is to provide a circulation plan that facilitates the safe, convenient, and efficient movement of people 

and goods throughout unincorporated areas of the county. 

County of Riverside General Plan

The Circulation Element of the Riverside County General Plan (County of Riverside 2003) states that 

Riverside County continues to support operation of passenger and freight rail systems that offer 

efficient, safe, convenient, and economical transport of Riverside County residents and commodities.

County of San Bernardino General Plan

The Transportation and Mobility Element of the San Bernardino County General Plan (County of San 

Bernardino 2014) includes goals for pedestrian, cyclist, and other active transportation infrastructure 

in mobility focus areas to safely connect neighborhoods and communities to key destinations.

Local and Tribal Governments

Regulations from cities, local agencies, and tribal governments would be identified in the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis once site-specific rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are 

known.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-5 

3.15.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects

Public safety and security is generally evaluated to understand the effects of passenger rail 

construction and operation on the following: 

• Safety of construction workers and the traveling public during construction

• Public safety at railroad-highway crossings

• Safety of train passengers and operators during passenger rail operation

• Effects of construction and operation on emergency response routes and times

• Crime risk at construction sites and within the passenger rail system during operation

This evaluation considers the operational and infrastructure aspects of each of the Build Alternative

Options, including the safety and security of passenger rail as a travel mode compared with other 

modes (motor vehicle and aviation), access to the existing railroad ROW, and how it is secured and 

maintained. For this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation, compliance with current and proposed 

safety standards and regulations are discussed qualitatively. 

Safety and security aspects include the safe operation of the passenger railroad, equipment, and 

infrastructure (e.g., tracks, structures, systems, stations, yards, etc.), as well as access to the ROW. 

Safety considerations are consistent with FRA’s mission to improve railroad safety and reduce the 

number of accidents by reducing the number and rates of accidents involving railroad train collisions 

or derailments, highway-rail grade crossings, trespassers, and railroad infrastructure. A detailed 

assessment of compliance with safety and security regulations would be considered during the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

This service-level evaluation is limited to a desktop evaluation of the data sources described in 

Section 3.15.3. A detailed description of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area is provided in 

Section 3.1, Introduction to Environmental Analysis, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 

Data Sources

Data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 

National Transportation Safety Board, California Highway Patrol, FRA, FTA, and Federal Aviation 

Administration were reviewed to establish the existing conditions for modal safety. A desktop review 

using Google Earth was conducted to generally understand how the existing railroad ROW is 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-6 

secured. Federal safety and security rules and design standards were reviewed to determine 

required design and operational practices for passenger rail systems.

Related Resources

This analysis incorporates data and evaluation from related resources pertaining to safety and 

security. These related resources are identified in Table 3.15-1. 

Table 3.15-1. Related Resource Inputs for Safety and Security Assessment

Resource Input for Safety and Security Assessment

Transportation

(Section 3.3)

Existing and proposed rail operations (including service plans and fleet 

assumptions) and the corresponding shift or change in ridership was determined.

3.15.4 Affected Environment

FRA defines total accidents/incidents as the sum of train accidents, highway-rail incidents, and other 

incidents. Train accidents are defined as a safety-related event involving on-track equipment, 

whether standing or moving, including derailments and collisions (FRA 2014). Highway/rail incidents 

are defined as involving injuries or fatalities (casualties) but not involving property damage above 

reportable thresholds. Other incidents include any event other than a highway-rail incident that 

caused a death, injury, or occupational illness to a railroad employee or that resulted in an injury or 

fatality, including incidents involving pedestrians in the rail ROW (FRA 2014). 

Passenger Rail System Safety

According to data from USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics, in 2016 there were 791 deaths

in the U.S. due to railroad-related accidents (USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics 2017). 

Unlike highway crashes, boating, or aviation accidents, most fatalities associated with train 

operations occur outside the train, such as people who are struck by trains while on track ROWs or 

people in cars struck at highway-rail grade crossings. Very few train passengers or crew members 

die in train accidents. In the 10-year period from 2007 to 2016, no passengers were killed on a train, 

but a total of 7,749 people died in railroad accidents or incidents (USDOT Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics 2017). Several hundred people die every year when struck by trains while on railroad 

property or ROWs. If they were unauthorized, they are classified as trespassers. Trespassers 

accounted for 57.2 percent of the total railroad fatalities between 2007 and 2016, an average of 

443 deaths per year. Highway-rail grade crossing fatalities averaged about 260 per year in the 

2007 to 2016 period, or roughly one-third of the total railroad-related fatalities.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-7 

Within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, the existing railroad ROW is a shared track with the 

existing UP Yuma Subdivision between Indio and Colton and the BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision 

from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton before reaching LAUS. Current service frequency and 

operators are described in Section 2.2.2 of Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, of this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR. Safety incidents along the existing railroad ROW can include injuries and fatalities 

associated with incidents at at-grade crossings and trespassing on railroad property. Accidents can 

involve train collision or derailment. 

PTC is a predictive collision avoidance technology designed to stop a train in motion where the 

continued movement may result in an accident. The RSIA required the implementation of 

PTC technology across most railroad systems, including the existing railroad ROW, by 

December 31, 2018.1 PTC has been implemented for Metrolink service within the Western Section 

of the Program Corridor. 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Table 3.15-2 summarizes the number of train accidents and incidents for all railroads, freight trains, 

and Amtrak and commuter trains operating within those counties traversed by Build Alternative 

Option 1 between 2013 and 2017. Table 3.15-3 summarizes the number of train highway-rail 

incidents by county for all railroads, freight trains, and Amtrak and commuter trains between 

2013 and 2017. 

1 In late 2015, Congress extended the deadline by at least 3 years to December 31, 2018, with the possibility of an 

extension to a date no later than December 31, 2020, if a railroad completes certain statutory requirements that are

necessary to obtain an extension.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-8 

This page is intentionally blank. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-9 

Table 3.15-2. Number of Train Accidents and Incidents by County, 2013–2017

County

Total 

Accidents/ 

Incidentsa

Total 

Accidents/

Incidents 

Fatalities

Total 

Accidents/

Incidents

Non-Fatal

Trespasser 

Deathsb

Trespasser 

Injuriesb

Train Accidents (Not at 

Grade-Crossings): 

Collisions

Train Accidents (Not at 

Grade-Crossings): 

Derailments

Train Accidents (Not at 

Grade-Crossings): 

Human Factor Caused

Train Accidents (Not at 

Grade-Crossings):

Track Caused

Train Accidents (Not at 

Grade-Crossings): Motive 

Power/ Equipment Caused

All Railroads

Los Angeles 942 81 768 56 51 8 66 59 15 9

Orange 131 25 92 17 7 — 3 2 — 1

San 

Bernardino

434 30 280 18 41 19 82 41 24 17

Riverside 197 31 136 17 18 — 9 4 3 4

Freight Operations

Los Angeles 430 29 284 20 40 8 61 56 13 7

Orange 32 8 8 7 2 — 3 2 — 1

San 

Bernardino

345 21 205 15 39 8 82 41 24 17

Riverside 127 24 75 15 15 — 9 4 3 4

Amtrak and Commuter Railroads

Los Angeles 515 52 484 36 11 — 7 3 4 2

Orange 99 17 76 10 5 — — — — —

San 

Bernardino

91 9 75 3 2 — 2 1 1 —

Riverside 71 7 61 2 3 — 1 1 — —

Source: FRA Office of Safety Analysis 2018a, 2018b

Notes:

a Total accidents is the sum of train accidents, crossing incidents, and other accidents/incidents as reported in FRA Tables 1.2 and 1.3 (FRA Office of Safety Analysis 2018a, 2018b) 

b Not at highway-rail crossing
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-10

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-11

Table 3.15-3. Number of Train Highway-Rail Incidents by County, 2013–2017 (Build 

Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3) 

County

Total 

Highway-Rail 

Incidents

Highway-Rail 

Incident Deaths

Highway-Rail 

Incident Injuries

Incidents at Public 

Crossings

All Railroads

Los Angeles 120 21 78 104

Orange 22 8 4 20

San Bernardino 48 7 12 43

Riverside 39 12 9 38

Freight Operations

Los Angeles 73 6 33 57

Orange 7 1 2 7

San Bernardino 33 2 11 28

Riverside 30 7 7 29

Amtrak and Commuter Railroads

Los Angeles 47 15 45 47

Orange 15 7 2 13

San Bernardino 15 5 1 15

Riverside 9 5 2 9

Source: FRA Office of Safety Analysis 2018a, 2018b

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Existing passenger rail system safety data and information within Build Alternative Option 2 is the 

same as Build Alternative Option 1. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Existing passenger rail system safety data and information within Build Alternative Option 3 is the 

same as Build Alternative Option 1. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-12

Grade Crossing Safety

At-grade crossings present a risk of collisions between trains and other travel modes, as well as a 

risk of collisions between vehicles, particularly rear-end-type crashes when vehicles stop at a 

crossing. Grade-separated crossings eliminate this type of safety risk because trains are separated 

from other travel modes. 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Table 3.15-4 summarizes the number of at-grade railroad crossing incidents for all cities crossed by 

the existing railroad ROW between 2013 and 2017. A total of 101 at-grade crossing incidents 

occurred in the 32 cities crossed by the existing railroad ROW between 2013 and 2017. Of these, 

53 occurred within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, with 18 fatalities, 17 injuries, and 

33 incidents with property damage. 

Table 3.15-4. Number of At-Grade Incidents by City for All Railroads, 2013–2017 (Build 

Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3) 

City

Total 

Accidents/ 

Incidents

Total within 

the Tier 1/

Program 

EIS/EIR

Study Area

Incidents with 

Fatalities within 

the Tier 1/

Program 

EIS/EIR Study 

Area

Incidents with 

Injuries within 

the Tier 1/

Program 

EIS/EIR Study 

Area

Incidents with 

Property 

Damage within 

the Tier 1/

Program 

EIS/EIR Study 

Area

Los Angeles 30 2 — — 2

Vernon 6 3 — 3 3

Commercea — — — — —

Montebello 3 1 — 1 —

Pico Rivera 2 — — — —

Santa Fe Springs 11 11 5 2 7

Norwalka — — — — —

La Mirada 3 1 -- 1 1

Buena Parka — — — — —

Fullertona — — — — —
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-13

City

Total 

Accidents/ 

Incidents

Total within 

the Tier 1/

Program 

EIS/EIR

Study Area

Incidents with 

Fatalities within 

the Tier 1/

Program 

EIS/EIR Study 

Area

Incidents with 

Injuries within 

the Tier 1/

Program 

EIS/EIR Study 

Area

Incidents with 

Property 

Damage within 

the Tier 1/

Program 

EIS/EIR Study 

Area

Anaheim 6 3 — 1 3

Placentia 3 3 2 1 1

Yorba Lindab — — — — —

Chino Hillsb — — — — —

Corona 9 9 4 2 3

Riverside 20 16 5 6 11

Grand Terrace 2 1 1 — 1

Colton 1 1 — — 1

San Bernardino 3 — — — —

Loma Lindaa — — — — —

Redlandsa — — — — —

Calimesaa — — — — —

Beaumonta — — — — —

Banning 1 1 — — —

Cabazon 1 1 1 — —

Palm Springsa — — — — —

Cathedral Cityb — — — — —

Thousand Palmsa — — — — —

Rancho Miragea — — — — —

Palm Deserta — — — — —
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-14

City

Total 

Accidents/ 

Incidents

Total within 

the Tier 1/

Program 

EIS/EIR

Study Area

Incidents with 

Fatalities within 

the Tier 1/

Program 

EIS/EIR Study 

Area

Incidents with 

Injuries within 

the Tier 1/

Program 

EIS/EIR Study 

Area

Incidents with 

Property 

Damage within 

the Tier 1/

Program 

EIS/EIR Study 

Area

Indiob — — — — —

Coachellaa — — — — —

Source: FRA Office of Safety Analysis 2018c

Notes:

a No accidents/incidents reported from 2013/2017

b No public crossings at-grade

EIR=environmental impact report; EIS=environmental impact statement

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Existing grade crossing data and information within Build Alternative Option 2 is the same as Build 

Alternative Option 1. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Existing grade crossing data and information within Build Alternative Option 3 is the same as Build 

Alternative Option 1. 

Crime Prevention and Security

As mentioned above, security refers to how the railroad ROW and station areas are secured and 

access to the ROW maintained within the Program Corridor. 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Starting in the west, from LAUS to the Fullerton Transportation Center, the existing railroad ROW

within Build Alternative Option 1 is intermittently secured by fencing and property walls. In the 

developed areas in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, the existing railroad ROW is generally 

secured with fencing and property walls. From the City of Loma Linda to the eastern terminus of 

Coachella, the existing railroad ROW is generally unsecured with some areas secured by fencing, 

short-wire and wood-post fencing, or residential property boundary walls. The existing at-grade 

crossings within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area also have various forms of warning devices, 

such as gate arms, signs/signals, pavement markings, mast-mounted flashing lights, and alarm 

bells. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-15

Existing stations within the Program Corridor generally have close-circuit security cameras, roving 

code enforcement or compliance inspectors, and a transit security force. Additionally, signs with 

phone numbers are posted at stations for use if transit patrons or the general public observe 

suspicious activity within the station areas. Consistent with current transit provider policies, anyone 

observed by the roving code enforcement inspectors in fare paid areas without proof of a paid fare 

would be asked to leave the premises. 

The entire Program Corridor from LAUS to Coachella is classified as part of STRACNET. The 

Military Traffic Management Command Transportation Engineering Agency and FRA requires 

STRACNET rail lines to meet defense readiness requirements, including maintenance conditions, 

clearance, operating speeds, and gross-weight capabilities. 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Existing crime prevention and security features within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as 

Build Alternative Option 1. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Existing crime prevention and security features within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as 

Build Alternative Option 1. 

3.15.5 Environmental Consequences

Overview 

This service-level evaluation describes the effects of the Build Alternative Options on the safety of 

the passenger rail system, grade crossings, pedestrians and bicyclists, trespassing, rail safety and 

transport of hazards materials, crime prevention and security, community emergency response 

services, and seismic safety. Certain safety and security topics (such as community emergency 

response services and seismic safety) have already been discussed in other Tier 1/Program EIS/EIS 

sections and are referenced as appropriate. Effects as a result of implementing the Build Alternative 

Options can be broadly classified into construction and operational effects. Long-term or permanent 

effects and short-term or temporary effects on safety and security would be anticipated as a result of 

constructing any of the Build Alternative Options. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-16

No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, of this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR, is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the 

Program associated with this service-level evaluation. Several existing and committed transportation 

improvement projects would still occur in the Program Corridor under the No Build Alternative.

Under the No Build Alternative, the Los Angeles Basin and San Gorgonio Pass would continue to 

face substantial mobility challenges as growth in population, employment, and tourism activity is 

anticipated to generate increased travel demand. With the growth in population, employment, and 

tourism activity, traffic volumes in the Los Angeles Basin and San Gorgonio Pass would likely 

increase, contributing to a likely increase in traffic accidents. In addition, with increases in traffic 

volumes, the potential for crossing conflicts on existing rail lines would also likely increase.

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 

Passenger Rail System Safety Effects 

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or 

station infrastructure in the Western Section because the existing railroad infrastructure and stations 

from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build Alternative, short-term and 

temporary effects related to passenger rail system safety would be negligible because no additional 

construction activities are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 

1, 2, and 3. 

Eastern Section. Construction of rail infrastructure improvements, such as sidings, additional main

line track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation structures, and stations could require 

temporary closure of lanes, sidewalks, bicycle lanes and routes, driveways, streets, and freeway 

lanes. All construction activities affecting roadways, bicycle paths, and pedestrian paths would be 

required to meet the requirements of the California MUTCD (Caltrans 2020). Once site specifics 

associated with the rail infrastructure improvement or station facility are known, the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis would identify and evaluate where temporary road closures and traffic 

detours would be needed. Mitigation strategies that require the preparation and implementation of a 

site-specific transportation management plan would help minimize, reduce, or avoid potential safety 

effects during construction activities. When compared with the No Build Alternative, short-term and 

temporary effects related to passenger rail system safety would be moderate within the Eastern 

Section under Build Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build 

Alternative Option 2 may have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-17

shorter route alignment and reduced station options; however, effects would have the same 

magnitude and considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared 

with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects 

due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and 

reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build 

Alternative Option 3 and considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.

OPERATION

Western Section. Under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, passenger train frequencies proposed 

as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two daily round-trip, intercity, diesel-powered 

passenger trains operating the entire length of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and the 

Coachella Valley. Operation of the Build Alternative Options in the Western Section would use the 

existing railroad infrastructure and stations from LAUS to Colton. 

The potential exists for passenger rail trains to derail within the Western Section of the Program 

Corridor; however, derailment is very rare. In case of a derailment, the accident would be 

communicated to all rail operators in the area and any safety measures and cleanup would be under 

the control of local jurisdiction emergency responders with assistance from rail operators. The 

addition of two daily round trips would not change the existing safety and security protocols for 

passengers, transit employees, and the public in or near the existing passenger rail system or 

station facilities. The operation of the two daily round trips on passenger trains would require the 

additional passenger trains to operate in accordance with standard operating procedures, operator 

rules, and rail emergency plans currently in place within the Western Section. When compared with 

the No Build Alternative, effects related to passenger rail system safety would be negligible under 

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Operation of the any of the Build Alternative Options would implement similar 

safety and security principles and guidelines currently used by rail operators in the Western Section 

of the Program Corridor. These safety and security principles and guidelines currently include 

onboard safety and security programs, such as regular safety meetings for front-line employees, 

forward-facing camera systems to help aid in accident investigation, and inward-facing cameras for 

onboard security. In addition, rail operators and transit system providers along the Program Corridor 

currently coordinate with local police departments for safety and security presence onboard trains 

and at stations; consider safety improvement projects such as track and signal upgrades, gate and 

warning systems, and grade separations that eliminate hazards at at-grade crossing; and engage in 

public awareness campaigns designed to educate the public about the risks of trespassing on 

railroad property. It is anticipated that operation of the two daily round trips on passenger trains 

within the Eastern Section would require the additional passenger trains to operate in accordance 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-18

with standard operating procedures, operator rules, and rail emergency plans similar to those 

currently in place within the Western Section. 

The potential exists for passenger rail trains to derail within the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor; however, derailment is very rare. In case of a derailment, the accident would be 

communicated to all rail operators in the area and any safety measures and cleanup would be under 

the control of local jurisdiction emergency responders with assistance from rail operators. The 

addition of two daily round trips within the Eastern Section would not change the existing safety and 

security protocols for passengers, transit employees, and the public in or near the existing 

passenger rail system or station facilities. The operation of the two daily round trips on passenger 

trains would require the additional passenger trains to operate in accordance with standard 

operating procedures, operator rules, and rail emergency plans currently in place within the Eastern 

Section.

For proposed station facilities, it is anticipated that new station facilities within the Eastern Section 

would implement a similar safety and security program for station operations. This would include 

preparation of safety and security management plans to maintain safety of workers and passengers 

accessing station facilities, worker safety standards, crime prevention design guidelines, safety and 

health plans, fire/life safety programs, security plans, and emergency procedures.

Implementing project design features or mitigation measures requiring compliance with FRA’s 

Collision Hazard Analysis Guide: Commuter and Intercity Passenger Service (FRA 2007) would 

identify and determine rail and rail facility hazards and vulnerabilities so that they can be addressed

and either eliminated or reduced. In addition, intrusion-detection technology or PTC would also alert 

the presence of inert objects, such as derailed freight trains, helping to avoid collisions. 

The existing railroad ROW is equipped with wayside signaling and centralized traffic control. As 

mentioned above, the RSIA requires the implementation of PTC technology across most railroad 

systems by December 31, 2018, and PTC is expected to be implemented throughout the existing 

railroad ROW prior to operation of the Program. Communication towers and ancillary facilities could 

be included in the existing railroad ROW to implement the FRA PTC requirements. PTC 

infrastructure would consist of integrated command, control, communications, and information 

systems for controlling train movements that improve railroad safety by reducing the potential for 

collisions between trains, casualties to roadway workers and equipment, and over-speed accidents. 

For portions of the railroad that are classified as part of the STRACNET network, additional 

coordination with the U.S. Army’s Transportation Engineering Agency and FRA would occur during 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis to ensure readiness capability to support defense deployment and 

peacetime needs. A detailed assessment of safety and security onboard trains and stations, as well 

as how the railroad ROW would be secured and access would be managed, would be considered in 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-19

the Tier 2/Project-level analysis once site-specific rail infrastructure or station facility details are 

known. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects related to passenger rail system safety would 

be moderate within the Eastern Section under Build Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build 

Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 may have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller 

footprint associated with a shorter route alignment and reduced station options; however, the 

magnitude of effect would be similar and considered moderate when compared with the No Build 

Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may 

have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, 

reduced station options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of 

effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and considered moderate when compared with 

the No Build Alternative.

Grade-Crossing Safety Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or 

station infrastructure in the Western Section because the existing railroad infrastructure and stations 

from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build Alternative, short-term and 

temporary effects related to grade crossing safety would be negligible because no additional 

construction activities are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 

1, 2, and 3. 

Eastern Section. Construction of rail infrastructure improvements, such as sidings, additional main

line track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation structures, and stations could require 

temporary closure of lanes, sidewalks, bicycle lanes and routes, driveways, streets, and freeway 

lanes near existing grade crossings. All construction activities affecting roadways, bicycle paths, and 

pedestrian paths would be required to meet the requirements of the California MUTCD (Caltrans 

2020). Once site specifics associated with rail infrastructure improvement or station facilities are 

known, the Tier 2/Project-level analysis would identify and evaluate where temporary road closures 

and traffic detours would be needed and if those closures and detours would impact existing grade 

crossings. Mitigation strategies that require the preparation and implementation of a site-specific 

transportation management plan would help minimize, reduce, or avoid potential grade-crossing 

effects during construction activities. When compared with the No Build Alternative, short-term and 

temporary effects related to grade-crossing safety would be moderate within the Eastern Section 

under Build Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative 

Option may have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-20

alignment and reduced station options; however, effects would have the same magnitude and 

considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build 

Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to a 

smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced 

third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative 

Option 3 and considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.

OPERATION 

Western Section. Under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, passenger train frequencies proposed 

as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two daily round-trip, intercity, diesel-powered 

passenger trains operating the entire length of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and the 

Coachella Valley. The number of trains traveling through the existing grade crossings between 

LAUS and Colton would increase with implementation of the Program. However, the traffic control 

devices at these existing crossings provide the level of advanced warning and protection from an 

oncoming train required by CPUC and the California MUTCD (Caltrans 2020). These existing grade 

crossings currently meet the requirements of CPUC and the California MUTCD. Operation of the 

Program in the Western Section would not modify the existing grade crossing devices and would not 

require the approval of CPUC. It is anticipated that gate operation at these existing grade crossings 

would be optimized to accommodate the increased number of activities. Effects associated with the 

Western Section of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 would be 

negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Eastern Section. Similar to the Western Section, under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, 

passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two 

daily round-trip, intercity, diesel-powered passenger trains operating the entire length of the Program 

Corridor between Los Angeles and the Coachella Valley. The number of trains traveling through the 

existing grade crossings between Colton and the eastern terminus (Coachella for Build Alternative 

Option 1, Indio for Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) would increase with implementation of the 

Program. The traffic control devices at these existing crossings provide the level of advanced 

warning and protection from an oncoming train required by CPUC and the California MUTCD

(Caltrans 2020). These existing grade crossings currently meet the requirements of CPUC and the 

California MUTCD. 

Depending on the type and location of new rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities 

being proposed within the Eastern Section, there is the possibility for the creation of new grade 

crossings or the need for modification of existing grade crossings which would require the approval 

of the CPUC. A detailed assessment of effects on existing and proposed grade crossings would be 

prepared during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis once site-specific rail infrastructure improvements 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-21

or station facility details are known. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects related to 

grade-crossing safety would be moderate within the Eastern Section under Build Alternative Option 

1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 may have slightly 

reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment and reduced 

station options; however, effects would have the same magnitude and considered moderate when 

compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build 

Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a 

shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, 

the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and considered moderate

when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Effects

Pedestrian and bicycle safety effects are discussed in detail in Section 3.3, Transportation, of this 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR.

Transport of Hazardous Materials Effects

Transport of hazard materials effects are discussed in detail in Section 3.11, Hazards and 

Hazardous Materials, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR.

Community Emergency Response Services Effects

Community emergency response service effects are discussed in detail in Section 3.14, Parklands 

and Community Services, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 

Seismic Safety Effects

Seismic safety effects are discussed in detail in Section 3.10, Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and 

Paleontological Resources, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 

Crime Prevention and Security Effects

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or 

station infrastructure in the Western Section because the existing railroad infrastructure and stations 

from LAUS to Colton would be used. When compared with the No Build Alternative, short-term and 

temporary effects related to crime prevention and security would be negligible because no additional 

construction activities are planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 

1, 2, and 3. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-22

Eastern Section. Construction of Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3 in the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor would require the construction of rail stations, reconfiguration of existing or 

creation of new rail facilities, and potential ROW acquisition. Generally, active construction sites 

would include fencing, protective barriers, and/or signs that would prohibit and prevent the general 

public from entering or traversing construction areas. Construction laydown areas would generally 

be secured using fencing, lighting, and/or night patrols. In addition, contractors would be required to 

comply with applicable safety training and procedures while working in railroad ROW, including the 

use of flagman, safety barriers to provide separation between construction activities and active 

tracks, and temporary slow orders placed on train operations for certain conditions. 

Potential effects depend on where the infrastructure improvements, including new stations, would be 

located, which have not yet been selected. The properties that would be affected by the future 

construction and operation of a passenger rail system and to what extent cannot be determined at 

this time. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would evaluate the safety and security risk for the 

selected sites. When compared with the No Build Alternative, short-term and temporary effects 

related to crime prevention and security would be moderate within the Eastern Section under Build 

Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 may 

have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment and

reduced station options; however, effects would have the same magnitude and be considered 

moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative 

Option 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint 

associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced third track rail 

infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and 

considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.

OPERATION 

Western Section. Under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, passenger train frequencies proposed 

as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two daily round-trip, intercity, diesel-powered 

passenger trains operating the entire length of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and the 

Coachella Valley. Existing stations within the Western Section of Program Corridor generally have 

close-circuit security cameras, roving code enforcement or compliance inspectors, and a transit 

security force. Additionally, signs with phone numbers are posted at stations for use if transit patrons 

or the general public observe suspicious activity within the station areas. Consistent with current 

transit provider policies, anyone observed by the roving code enforcement inspectors in a fare paid 

areas without proof of a paid fare would be asked to leave the premises. When compared with the 

No Build Alternative, effects related to crime prevention and security would be negligible within the 

Western Section under Build Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-23

1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have the same magnitude of effect and be considered 

negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Eastern Section. Under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, passenger train frequencies proposed 

as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two daily round-trip, intercity, diesel-powered 

passenger trains operating the entire length of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and the 

Coachella Valley. Existing stations within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor would 

continue to implement existing security protocols, such as station monitoring, roving code 

enforcement or compliance inspectors, and a transit security force. New stations that could be 

constructed within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor would be anticipated to implement a 

similar set of crime prevention and security protocols. In addition, new stations would be designed 

using Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design principles and would require preparation of 

safety and security certification plans that addresses design, construction, testing, and initiation into 

revenue service. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects related to crime prevention 

and security would be moderate within the Eastern Section under Build Alternative Option 1. When 

compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 may have slightly reduced 

effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment and reduced station 

options; however, effects would have the same magnitude and be considered moderate when 

compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Options 1 or 2, Build 

Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a 

shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, 

the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and considered moderate

when compared with the No Build Alternative. 

3.15.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects

Table 3.15-5 summarizes the qualitative assessment of potential effects (negligible, moderate, or 

substantial) under NEPA for each of the Build Alternative Options. This service-level evaluation uses 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area to determine how safety and security may be affected and, 

more importantly, the relative magnitude of potential effects. Specific mitigation measures to avoid 

and minimize effects would be analyzed during the Tier 2/Project-level environmental process.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-24

Table 3.15-5. NEPA Summary of Effects on Safety and Security

Alternative Options

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: None 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: None

Operation: Negligible

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible 

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible 

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate 

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with Limited 

Third Track) 

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible 

Construction: Moderate

Operation: Moderate 

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel 

facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels 

of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis.

3.15.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts

The CEQA Guidelines Appendix G checklist does not include a safety and security section; however, 

elements pertaining to safety and security (including road closures, evacuation routes, and other 

hazards) are analyzed in Section 3.3, Transportation; Section 3.10, Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and 

Paleontological Resources; Section 3.11, Hazards and Hazardous Materials; and Section 3.14, 

Parklands and Community Services; of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-25

3.15.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies

Identified below are proposed programmatic mitigation strategies for further consideration in the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis. Coordination with local agencies and stakeholders would occur to develop 

Project-specific mitigation measures during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis after design details are 

known. Proposed programmatic mitigation strategies or design considerations, consistent with state 

and federal regulations may include, but are not limited to, the following: 

Mitigation Strategy LU-2: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis and 

recommendations, the identified lead agency or agencies shall determine if a construction 

management plan is required for construction activities of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement being 

proposed. If required, a construction management plan shall be developed by the contractor and 

reviewed by the lead agency or agencies prior to construction and implemented during construction 

activities. The construction management plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 

• Measures that minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project 

Study Area

• Measures pertaining to visual protection, air quality, safety controls, noise controls, and 

traffic controls to minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project 

Study Area

• Measures to ensure property access is maintained for local businesses, residences, and 

community and emergency services

• Measures to consult with local transit providers to minimize effects on local and regional bus 

routes in affected communities

• Measures to consult with local jurisdictions and utility providers to minimize effects on utilities 

in affected communities

Mitigation Strategy SS-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a Project-specific collision hazard 

analysis shall be required and would be prepared in coordination local jurisdictions in which the 

specific rail infrastructure or station facility is located. The collision hazard analysis shall be prepared 

in compliance with the Federal Railroad Administration’s Collision Hazard Analysis Guide: 

Commuter and Intercity Passenger Service (Federal Railroad Administration 2007), which provides a 

step-by-step procedure on how to perform a hazard analysis and how to develop effective mitigation 

strategies that would improve passenger rail safety.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.15 Safety and Security

May 2021 | 3.15-26

Mitigation Strategy SS-2: Based on the results of a subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis and 

recommendations, safety and security certification plans shall be developed for the specific rail 

infrastructure or station facility proposed. The safety and security certification plan shall be prepared 

in compliance with the Federal Railroad Administration, Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, California Public Utilities Commission, and other applicable agencies and address 

design, construction, testing and initiation into revenue service. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-1 

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

3.16.1 Introduction

This section provides an evaluation of the potential effects associated with the No Build Alternative 

and Build Alternative Options on the socioeconomic conditions of established communities 

throughout the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. Information contained in this section is 

summarized from the Socioeconomic Technical Memorandum (Appendix I of this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR). 

3.16.2 Regulatory Framework

In accordance with NEPA (42 USC Section 4321 et seq.), CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR Parts 1501–1508), FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR

28545, May 26, 1999), and CEQA, FRA identified existing socioeconomic conditions within the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area and evaluated the potential socioeconomic impacts on communities 

as a result of implementing the Build Alternative Options. 

Federal

Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 rules that no person in the U.S. shall be excluded from participation in, 

be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any federal program or activity on 

the grounds of race, color, or national origin. All relocation services and benefits would be 

administered without regard to race, color, national origin, or sex in compliance with Title VI of the 

Civil Rights Act (Title 42 USC Section 2000d, et seq.). Benefits for eligible owners and tenants are 

determined on an individual basis and explained in detail by an assigned ROW specialist.

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 

The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (Uniform Act) 

provides uniform and equitable treatment of persons displaced from their homes, businesses, 

non-profit associations, or farms by federal and federally assisted programs and establishes uniform 

and equitable land acquisition policies. 

The Uniform Act requires the owning agency to notify affected owners of the agency’s intent to 

acquire an interest in their property, including a written offer letter of just compensation that 

specifically describes those property interests and assigns a ROW specialist to each property owner 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-2 

to assist them with this process. The Uniform Act also provides financial and advisory benefits to 

displaced individuals to help them relocate their residence or business. Benefits are available to 

owners and tenants of residential and business properties.

In compliance with the Uniform Act, property owners and tenants would receive relocation 

assistance and be compensated. If required, housing of last resort would be used, which may 

involve payments for replacement housing costs that exceed the maximum amounts allowed under 

the Uniform Act or other methods of providing comparable decent, safe, and sanitary housing within 

the financial means of the displaced persons.

State

California Relocation Assistance Act

The California Relocation Assistance Act includes requirements for just compensation for real 

property. Owners of private property have federal and state constitutional guarantees that their 

property will not be taken for public use or damaged unless they first receive just compensation. Just 

compensation is measured by the fair market value of the acquired property. According to the Code 

of Civil Procedure Section 1263.320a: 

Fair market value is considered to be the highest price on the date of valuation that would be 

agreed to by a seller, being willing to sell, but under no particular or urgent necessity for so 

doing, nor obliged to sell; and a buyer, being ready, willing and able to buy but under no 

particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the other with the full knowledge of all the 

uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available.

3.16.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects

This methodology identifies the approach, assumptions, and data sources for describing existing 

conditions for socioeconomics and analyzing environmental consequences of implementing the 

Build Alternative Options. 

Socioeconomic indicators include historic population growth, population projections, employment, 

community facilities, race and ethnicity, household income, median household income and income 

below poverty, and limited English proficiency. Population demographic data is presented for

counties, cities, and census block groups located partially or fully within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Study Area, as defined below. The Build Alternative Options traverses 288 census block groups 

within these counties and cities, including unincorporated areas of Los Angeles, Orange, San 

Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. Data for counties and cities is presented in data tables included 

in Appendix I of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-3 

The evaluation of environmental consequences on socioeconomics included a qualitative 

assessment of residential, commercial, and other property effects resulting from acquisition; fiscal 

implications resulting from residential or business migration out of the community or reductions in 

local government revenues; potential effects on community cohesion; and changes to regional 

mobility and connectivity. The evaluation of environmental consequences on socioeconomics is 

organized as follows:

• Potential effects from acquisitions, easements, and displacements (public or private) were

evaluated in compliance with the Uniform Act and broadly analyzed on a county-by-county 

basis. This evaluation did not identify specific properties that would be affected by land 

acquisition, displacement, or relocation, as construction data and potential station areas are

not yet known. Specific properties that would be affected by land acquisition, displacement, 

or relocation would be identified in the Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

• Regional economic effects that may occur as a result of construction and operation of the 

Program are evaluated at the scale of the four-county region (Los Angeles, Orange, San 

Bernardino, and Riverside Counties). Effects on local government services and revenue are 

analyzed at the scale of counties and cities. 

Localized socioeconomic effects, regardless of scale, cannot be quantified until specific Project

design details (i.e., construction footprint, road crossings, and station locations), construction 

expenditures, and the details of planned rail operations are known. Therefore, existing 

socioeconomic conditions within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area are described 

quantitatively, while the potential effects of the Build Alternative Options are described qualitatively in 

this evaluation. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would address site-specific potential effects

resulting from construction and operation of new stations, maintenance facilities, and other 

infrastructure.

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

For purposes of socioeconomic and community analysis, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Socioeconomics Study Area encompasses 0.5 mile centered on the railroad centerline (0.25 mile on 

either side). 

Data Sources

Social and economic characteristics were gathered from the U.S. Census Bureau, from the 1970 to 

2010 decennial U.S. Census and the 2012-2016 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year 

estimates. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-4 

Population projections were obtained from the California Department of Finance, Demographic 

Research Unit. Population, household income, and employment characteristics were gathered to 

describe the population demographics within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. The 

description of the socioeconomic environment also includes identification of minority, low-income, 

and limited English proficiency households. The source and scale of economic and demographic 

data is summarized in Appendix I of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 

Related Resources

This evaluation incorporates data and analyses from related resources to contribute to the 

assessment of socioeconomics and communities affected. These related resources are identified in 

Table 3.16-1. 

Table 3.16-1. Related Resource Inputs to Socioeconomic Assessment 

Resource Input for Socioeconomic Assessment

Land Use and Planning

(Section 3.2)

Supplemental information about the land use types and areas were 

used to assess the potential for displacement of residences, 

businesses, or community facilities due to construction of new 

infrastructure or stations outside of the existing railroad ROW.

Transportation

(Section 3.3)

The location of existing and proposed transportation corridors and 

facilities were used to assess compatibility with the Program. 

The location of existing and proposed passenger rail stations was

used to assess potential effects on communities.

Visual Quality and Aesthetics 

(Section 3.4)

Supplemental information about temporary effects on visual 

resources was used to inform visual disruptions to communities 

during construction.

Noise and Vibration

(Section 3.6)

Land use and zoning data identified the location of sensitive 

receptors to assess the potential for disruption to communities.

Parklands and Community Services 

(Section 3.14)

Supplemental information about parklands, community services, and 

facilities; including service or facility type, service area, and proximity 

to the Build Alternative Options; were used to inform the 

socioeconomic assessment.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-5 

Resource Input for Socioeconomic Assessment

Environmental Justice

(Chapter 4)

Socioeconomic information identified the location of EJ populations 

and assessed the potential for disproportionate effects.

Notes:

EIR=environmental impact report; EIS=environmental impact statement; EJ=environmental justice; 

ROW=right-of-way 

3.16.4 Affected Environment

The Program Corridor crosses a large geographic area within Southern California, spanning 

approximately 144 miles from its western terminus in Los Angeles to its eastern terminus in 

Coachella. The Program Corridor occurs within an existing railroad corridor that traverses areas that 

have predominately been heavily modified for urban purposes, especially in the Western Section, 

although some areas occur in or adjacent to lands that are undeveloped or contain natural 

vegetation. Much of the Program Corridor from Los Angeles to Colton is urbanized. The Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor is less urbanized with vacant land comprising the largest land use 

category within the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. 

Historical and Projected Population

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Between 1970 and 2010, the four-county region of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San 

Bernardino Counties (which the Program Corridor crosses through) grew by more than 7.4 million 

people. In 2010, the region was home to approximately 46.0 percent of the state of California’s

population. Los Angeles County has the largest population in the four-county region, followed by 

Orange County. Historical growth patterns between 1970 and 2010 show that Riverside and San 

Bernardino Counties grew at a faster rate than Los Angeles and Orange Counties; Riverside County 

and San Bernardino County grew at an average annual rate of 4.0 percent and 2.8 percent, 

respectively, while Los Angeles County and Orange County grew annually by 0.8 percent and 

1.9 percent, respectively. 

Population projections prepared by the California Department of Finance forecast that the population 

within the four-county region will continue to grow between 2018 and 2050; however, the annual 

growth rate is anticipated to slow to 0.5 percent annually for the region as a whole with higher annual 

growth rates forecast for San Bernardino County (1.0 percent) and Riverside County (1.1 percent) 

compared with Los Angeles County (0.3 percent) and Orange County (0.4 percent), consistent with 

historical trends (California Department of Finance 2018). 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-6 

The four-county region is projected to grow approximately 17.0 percent overall between 2018 and 

2050, for a total population of approximately 21.3 million people in 2050. By then, the four-county 

region will account for approximately 43.0 percent of the state population. These growth forecasts 

suggest that the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and San Bernardino Counties will continue 

to support a substantial portion of the state’s population in 2050. 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Existing and projected population data and trends within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as 

Build Alternative Option 1.

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track)

Existing and projected population data and trends within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as 

Build Alternative Option 1.

Employment

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

According to ACS 2012 to 2016, 5-year estimates of the largest employment sectors in the state of 

California include the education, health care, and social services sector, followed by the 

professional, scientific, management, administrative, and waste management services sector and 

the retail trade sector. The employment characteristics of communities within the Program Corridor 

generally mirror those of the state. 

Most of the economies outside the larger urban centers follow the regional trends. The education, 

health care, and social services sector is the leading employment division in almost all the counties 

and cities within the Program Corridor. The smallest employment sectors in the Program Corridor

include agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting and mining; information; wholesale trade; and, 

public administration. 

Relative to other communities within the Program Corridor, the Cities of Vernon, Indio, and 

Coachella are three exceptions from the general trends, as detailed below:

• The City of Vernon is an industrial city of 5.2 square miles located several miles southeast of 

downtown Los Angeles. The City of Vernon is home to more than 1,800 businesses that 

employ approximately 55,000 people (City of Vernon 2018). However, most employees are 

non-resident, as evidenced by the fact that the employed civilian labor force in Vernon was 

estimated at only 57 individuals in the ACS 2012-2016 5-year estimates. Approximately 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-7 

47.0 percent of those individuals are employed in finance, insurance, real estate, and rental 

and leasing (Appendix I of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). 

• The City of Indio has been one of Southern California's most important agricultural regions 

with a history of date cultivation and currently produces 41.4 million pounds of dates annually 

(City of Indio 2018). Historically, many residents were employed by the agricultural industry; 

however, development related to residential uses, recreation, tourism, and hospitality has 

begun to displace agriculture in the region today. Per the ACS 2012-2016 5-year estimates, 

the primary employment sector in Indio is arts, entertainment, and recreation and 

accommodation and food services, accounting for 19.9 percent of the civilian employment

pool. 

• In the City of Coachella, agriculture remains an important employment sector, with 

11.3 percent of civilian employment attributed to agriculture, forestry, fishing, hunting, and 

mining.

Major employers in Los Angeles County and Orange County include multiple healthcare systems 

(e.g., Kaiser Permanente and Los Angeles Health System), educational services (e.g., University of 

California and California State University), entertainment services (Walt Disney Company), and 

transportation services (e.g., Metro, SCRRA, and Orange County Transportation Authority). 

Major employers in San Bernardino County and Riverside County include transportation services 

(e.g., SCRRA, Omnitrans Public Transit Agency, Riverside Transit Agency, Ontario International 

Airport, and Palm Springs International Airport), warehousing and logistics services (e.g., Amazon, 

Ross, ALDI, Harbor Freight, and Lowes), and entertainment services (Morongo Casino, Resort and

Spa, Spotlight 29 Casino, and Fantasy Springs Resort Casino). 

ACS 2012-2016 5-year estimates report an unemployment rate of 8.7 percent in California and 

9.0 percent throughout the four-county area. The percent of the civilian labor force that is 

unemployed is higher than the four-county average of 9.0 percent in 12 of the 27 cities located within 

the four counties. The Cities of Coachella, San Bernardino, and Banning have the highest 

unemployment rates at 17.2 percent, 14.1 percent, and 14.0 percent, respectively. 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Existing and projected employment data and trends within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same 

as Build Alternative Option 1.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-8 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track)

Existing and projected employment data and trends within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same 

as Build Alternative Option 1.

Community Facilities

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

Community facilities occurring throughout the Program Corridor include parks, schools, libraries, 

places of worship, healthcare facilities, police and fire stations, and veteran services 

(Section 3.14, Parklands and Community Services, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Existing community facility information and data within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as 

Build Alternative Option 1.

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track)

Existing community facility information and data within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as 

Build Alternative Option 1.

Race and Ethnicity

The U.S. Census Bureau reports race and ethnicity as two separate categories. An individual can 

identify their race as White, Black or African American, Asian, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific 

Islander, Some Other Race, or Two or More Races. Ethnicity is defined as whether a person is of 

Hispanic origin or not. Ethnicity, therefore, is broken out in two categories: Hispanic or Latino and 

Not Hispanic or Latino. Individuals identifying as Hispanic may be of any race. 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

According to the 2012-2016 ACS 5-year estimates, California was home to approximately 

38.7 million people. Of the total population, approximately 14.9 million people (or 38.6 percent) are 

of Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. The remaining 23.8 million are of non-Hispanic or Latino origin. Of the 

state’s non-Hispanic or Latino population, the greatest number of people identified their race as 

White, followed by Asian, and Black or African American. Those identifying as American Indian and 

Alaska Native or Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander make up the smallest racial categories 

in the state, totaling less than 1.0 percent each of the entire population. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-9 

The racial composition trends in the four counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San 

Bernardino Counties) follow those of the state. The greatest proportion of individuals identify their 

race as White, followed by Asian, and Black or African American. However, a greater percent of the 

population identifies as Hispanic or Latino in the four-county region (46.1 percent) compared with the 

state (38.6 percent). San Bernardino County has the largest Hispanic or Latino population, 

accounting for 51.7 percent of the county’s total population. Orange County has the smallest 

Hispanic or Latino population, estimated at 34.2 percent of its population. 

Several communities in the four-county area have a larger share of minority populations when 

compared with the region. The Cities of Commerce, Bell, and Pico Rivera are all predominantly 

Hispanic, with greater than 90.0 percent of their population descending from Hispanic or Latino 

ethnicity. The City of Banning in Riverside County has the highest proportion of American Indian and 

Alaska Native individuals, totaling almost 2.4 percent of its population. The Morongo Indian 

Reservation, consisting mainly of the Cahuilla and Serrano tribal groups, is located northeast of the 

City of Banning. Refer to Appendix I of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for additional information on race 

and ethnicity in the counties and cities within the Program Corridor. 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Existing race and ethnicity information and data within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as 

Build Alternative Option 1.

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track)

Existing race and ethnicity information and data within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as 

Build Alternative Option 1.

Household Income

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

ACS 2012-2016 5-year estimates report the median household income for the state of California to 

be $63,783. In the four-county area, the median household income ranged from a high of $78,145 in 

Orange County, to a low of $54,469 in San Bernardino County. Several communities had higher 

median household incomes compared with the four counties, including Yorba Linda ($119,697), La 

Mirada ($81,956), and Placentia ($80,668). Communities in the Program Corridor with the lowest 

median household income include Vernon ($38,333), Bell ($38,823), San Bernardino ($38,456), and 

Coachella ($36,124). Appendix I of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR provides a breakdown of 

households per income bracket and median household income for the counties and cities in the 

Program Corridor. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-10

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Existing household income information and data within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as 

Build Alternative Option 1.

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track)

Existing household income information and data within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as 

Build Alternative Option 1.

Poverty

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

According to the ACS 2012-2016 5-year estimates, statewide, 11.8 percent of families were 

estimated to have incomes below the poverty level. Within the four-county region, family poverty 

rates for three of the four counties were higher than the state average, including Los Angeles County 

(13.9 percent), Riverside County (12.8 percent), and San Bernardino County (15.4 percent). The 

family poverty rate in Orange County is lower than the state average at 8.7 percent. 

Communities in the Program Corridor with the highest percentage of families in poverty include 

Vernon (46.7 percent), San Bernardino (28.1 percent), and Coachella (26.6 percent). Five of the six 

incorporated cities located in Riverside County in the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor have 

poverty rates exceeding 12.8 percent, which is the average poverty rate for Riverside County. Two 

of the five incorporated cities located in San Bernardino County in the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor have poverty rates that exceed 15.4 percent, which is the average poverty rate for 

Riverside County (California State Data Center 2016a). Refer to Appendix I of this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR for additional information on poverty rates within the counties and cities in the Program 

Corridor. 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Existing poverty information and data within Build Alternative Option 2 are the same as Build 

Alternative Option 1.

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track)

Existing poverty information and data within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as Build 

Alternative Option 1.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-11

Limited English Proficiency

Limited English proficiency is characterized in this section in terms of a U.S. Census respondent’s 

ability to speak English. U.S. Census respondents who reported speaking a language other than 

English are then asked to indicate their English-speaking ability based on one of the following 

categories: “Very well,” “Well,” “Not well,” or “Not at all.” Those who answered “Well,” “Not well,” or 

“Not at all” are reported as “Speaking English ‘Less than Very Well.’” 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

In the four counties, the percent of the population age 5 and over that speaks English “Less than 

Very Well” is highest for Los Angeles County (24.9 percent), followed by Orange County 

(20.2 percent), San Bernardino County (15.7 percent), and Riverside County (15.0 percent). Cities 

located in the Program Corridor with the highest rates of limited English proficiency include 

Coachella (47.1 percent), Bell (41.0 percent), Buena Park (32.7 percent), and Commerce 

(31.5 percent) (California State Data Center 2016b). Refer to Appendix I of this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR for additional information on rates of limited English proficiency within the counties and 

cities in the Program Corridor. 

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Existing limited English proficiency information and data within Build Alternative Option 2 are the 

same as Build Alternative Option 1.

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Existing limited English proficiency information and data within Build Alternative Option 3 are the 

same as Build Alternative Option 1.

3.16.5 Environmental Consequences

Overview 

The service-level evaluation provides qualitative information on the potential economic effects of 

construction and operation of the Program, including construction employment, property tax effects, 

and operational benefits. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would include a quantitative analysis that 

includes the number of short-term benefits associated with construction along with the potential 

property tax losses associated with property acquisitions. 

It is anticipated that any of the Build Alternative Options would have an overall positive effect on the 

communities within and along the Program Corridor in terms of generating construction jobs, 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-12

increasing the potential for new employment opportunities around station areas, reducing congestion 

on highways, and improving regional connectivity. 

The Build Alternative Options would generally be within existing transportation corridors through 

urban areas and would not further bisect communities but could increase the intensity of noise 

effects. Construction of the alternatives would potentially result in temporary construction effects 

including an increase in noise, dust, and traffic congestion, and effects would be greater in the urban 

areas especially where construction occurs close to sensitive uses such as residential development 

and schools.

No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, of this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR, is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the 

Program associated with this service–level evaluation. Economic activity within the four-county Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area is dependent on adequate transportation infrastructure for localized 

and regional economic growth potential. Under the No Build Alternative, the economies of these 

communities would experience reduced transportation capacity, thereby affecting socioeconomic 

conditions. The No Build Alternative would also forego the short-term and long-term job creation and 

increases in sales tax revenue that is projected under the Build Alternative Options. However, 

potential community disruption and division associated with construction and operation of the 

enhanced passenger rail system would be avoided under the No Build Alternative. 

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 

Construction 

Western Section. No construction activities would be required to implement any of the Build 

Alternative Options within the Western Section of the Program Corridor because the existing railroad 

ROW and stations from LAUS to Colton would be used. The Build Alternative Options would not 

require construction of new stations, new track or extensions to existing track, or the addition of 

sidings, wayside signals, drainage, or at-grade separations within the Western Section of the 

Program Corridor. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects on land acquisition, 

displacement and relocations, job creation, property or sales and use tax losses, sales tax gains, or 

community cohesion would be negligible within the Western Section under Build Alternatives 

Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Socioeconomic and community effects are expected to be both positive and 

negative. In terms of negative socioeconomic and community effects, land acquisition for rail 

infrastructure improvements or station facilities within the Eastern Section under any of the Build 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-13

Alternative Options could result in property tax revenue losses for local jurisdictions if residential or 

business properties are removed from the property tax assessment roll. Community effects could 

include disruptions to local communities and may require displacements or relocations of residences 

and businesses. 

Rail infrastructure improvements and potential new stations that would be needed in the Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor could require land acquisitions. It is anticipated that rail 

infrastructure improvements for sidings, additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, and 

grade-separation structures are anticipated primarily within the existing rail ROW or consist of sliver 

acquisitions adjacent to the existing track. Land acquisitions for new passenger rail stations could be 

more extensive, depending on final siting of station locations. If construction of new rail infrastructure 

or stations requires property outside of the existing railroad ROW, residences, businesses, or 

community facilities could be displaced. Site-specific effects related to potential land acquisition, 

displacements, and relocations would be identified and evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis.

The provisions of the Uniform Act would apply to all acquisitions of real property or displacements of 

persons resulting from a transportation project. Because the Uniform Act requires the owning agency 

to notify affected owners of the agency’s intent to acquire an interest in their property, this process 

would occur prior to construction with services of a ROW specialist assigned to each property owner 

to assist him or her through the acquisition process. The Uniform Act also provides benefits to 

displaced individuals to assist them financially and with advisory services related to relocating their 

residence or business operation. Benefits are available to both owner occupants and tenants of 

either residential or business properties. 

In addition, the potential for land acquisition in the Eastern Section could result in property tax 

revenue losses for local jurisdictions if residential or business properties are removed from the 

property tax assessment roll. Property tax losses are calculated based on the assessed value of 

properties that would be full or partial fee acquisitions. The acquisition of temporary and permanent 

easements would not result in property tax losses because the landowner would retain fee interest in 

the land and would continue to pay property tax.

Land acquisitions could also result in sales and use tax revenue losses, if sales and use 

tax-generating businesses are displaced and relocated outside of their current tax district. Relocation 

of businesses in the same tax district could result in temporary sales and use tax revenue losses 

during the time when affected businesses are closed for relocation. Site-specific effects related to

potential property or sales and use tax losses would be identified and evaluated during the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-14

Construction on the Eastern Section (sidings, additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, 

grade-separation structures, and stations) may also temporarily affect communities along the 

Program Corridor. These effects could include temporary relocation of public roads or road closures 

resulting in local residents, commercial vehicles, and/or emergency service providers needing to find 

alternate routes through the construction area. Elevated levels of noise and air emissions from 

construction vehicles and equipment, traffic detours and vehicle delay, and visual disruption during 

construction under any of the Build Alternative Options in the Eastern Section could cause 

temporary disruptions to communities adjacent to the railroad ROW. 

Although construction of any of the Build Alternative Options may potentially result in negative 

socioeconomic effects, construction activities within the Eastern Section would also would result in 

several socioeconomic and community benefits including the creation of direct, indirect, and induced 

jobs and temporary increases in sales tax revenues within the counties and cities where the 

construction activities would take place. 

Of the short-term employment opportunities that could be generated, the largest job growth is 

anticipated to be in the construction industry followed by the retail trade sector due in large part to 

spending on goods and services by the temporary construction workforce. Because infrastructure 

improvements are unknown as this time, quantitative effects related to potential short-term job 

creation would be identified and evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

During construction activities, a temporary increase in sales tax revenues would be anticipated

within the counties and cities in the Eastern Section where construction would occur. This increase 

would result from spending associated with construction equipment and materials. Unless 

specifically exempted, all transactions for tangible assets utilized during construction activities would 

be subject to sales tax. Site-specific effects related to potential sales tax revenues would be 

considered during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

As discussed above, the construction of the Program would be beneficial in reducing localized 

effects in some cases and have adverse effects in other cases. When compared with the No Build 

Alternative, socioeconomic effects could be substantial within the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build 

Alternative Option 2 may have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a 

shorter route alignment and reduced station options; however, the magnitude of effect would be 

similar and be considered substantial when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared 

with Build Alternative Option 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due 

to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and 

reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build 

Alternative Option 3 and considered substantial when compared with the No Build Alternative.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-15

However, while construction of the Program within the Eastern Section could have socioeconomic 

effects on communities, construction activities are also anticipated to generate socioeconomic 

benefits in the form of new employment opportunities and increases in temporary sales tax revenue. 

Operation

Western Section. During operation, passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the Program

would consist of the addition of two daily, round-trip intercity diesel-powered passenger trains 

operating between Los Angeles and Coachella. 

Operation of the Build Alternative Options in the Western Section of the Program Corridor are not 

anticipated to cause long-term disruptions to residences and businesses located near the existing 

railroad ROW. In addition, operation of the Program in the Western Section of the Program Corridor 

would not require land acquisitions or result in displacements or relocations, as the existing railroad 

infrastructure and stations would be utilized. Therefore, substantial residential or business migration 

out of the community or substantial reductions in revenue sources for local governments because of 

property tax or sales and use tax losses is not anticipated under any of the Build Alternative Options. 

The long-term operation of the enhanced passenger rail system proposed as part of the Program 

would result in the creation of direct jobs, as well as additional indirect and induced jobs. The 

majority of permanent jobs resulting from long-term operation and maintenance activities of the 

Program would be in the economic sector of transit and ground passenger transportation, which 

includes jobs related to train operations, dispatching, maintenance of equipment, and maintenance 

of infrastructure. In the long term, the Program is also anticipated to result in job creation due to 

improvements to regional accessibility. For example, improvements in accessibility can result in 

long-term dynamic economic effects, such as enhanced labor market accessibility, increased 

business travel and transactions, direct transport cost savings, improved business and worker 

productivity, and support of tourism and other important service sectors requiring patron 

accessibility. 

Long-term socioeconomic benefits associated with the Program would be realized within the 

counties and cities that the Program Corridor crosses. Enhanced passenger rail service within the 

Program Corridor would provide additional connections to major economic generators within the 

Program Corridor, including the Cities of Los Angeles, Fullerton, Riverside, and Palm Springs. The 

improved access would likely result in increased economic activity within cities directly served by the 

passenger rail, particularly near stations. 

Improved access within the region and affected cities is anticipated to have social benefits including 

better access to jobs, community amenities, and facilities. Improving regional mobility and 

connections between economic and employment centers, education centers, other cultural and 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-16

recreational activity centers, and to shops and services adjacent to station areas would enhance 

socioeconomic conditions throughout the region. 

Connecting urban areas and communities by improving access and mobility could expand 

employment opportunities over the larger geographic area, benefitting both employers (by expanding 

the labor pool) and employees (by offering more choices regarding where to live and work). 

Passenger rail service could also offer travel time reductions for transit patrons and regional 

commuters by reducing congestion by shifting trips from the roadway system to the passenger rail 

system. 

Therefore, the improvements in regional mobility and connectivity within the Western Section of the 

Program Corridor associated with an enhanced passenger rail system are anticipated to result in a 

permanent increase in sales tax revenues within the counties and cities where the Build Alternative 

Options would operate. Site-specific effects related to potential sales tax revenues would be 

considered during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, socioeconomic effects on communities within the 

Program Corridor would be negligible under Build Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build 

Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have the same magnitude of effect and 

be considered negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative. The communities within the 

Program Corridor for all Build Alternative Options would also experience socioeconomic benefits 

from improved mobility and connectivity and the generation of new tax revenue and employment 

opportunities. 

Eastern Section. During operation, passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the Program 

would consist of the addition of two daily, round-trip intercity diesel-powered passenger trains 

operating between Los Angeles and Coachella. Socioeconomic and community effects are expected 

to be both positive and negative within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. In terms of 

negative socioeconomic and community effects, land acquisition for the Build Alternative Options 

could result in property tax revenue losses for local jurisdictions if residential or business properties 

are removed from the property tax assessment roll. Community effects could include disruptions to 

local communities and may require displacements or relocations of residences and businesses. 

Site-specific effects related to potential land acquisitions, displacements, or relocations and property 

or sales and use tax losses would be identified and evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis.

The additional passenger rail services that would occur under any of the Build Alternative Options 

within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor would result in several socioeconomic and 

community benefits: the creation of direct, indirect, and induced jobs; permanent increases in sales 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-17

tax revenues within the counties and cities where the Build Alternative Options would operate; and 

improved regional mobility and connectivity. 

Within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, new station facilities could encourage 

redevelopment in the surrounding area and the potential for transit-oriented development. These 

additional developments could provide additional employment opportunities and new housing 

opportunities to address the projected employment and population growth within the Eastern Section 

of the Program Corridor. The potential for development around each station facility would depend on 

the type of station planned, which would be determined during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. Any 

new development in the station areas would also result in the potential for additional property tax 

and sales tax revenues, which would benefit the counties and cities where the station facilities would 

be located.

As discussed above, the operation of the Program would be beneficial in reducing localized effects 

in some cases and have adverse effects in other cases. When compared with the No Build 

Alternative, socioeconomic effects could be substantial within the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build 

Alternative Option 2 may have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a 

shorter route alignment and reduced station options; however, the magnitude of effect would be 

similar and considered substantial when compared with the No Build Alternative. When compared 

with Build Alternative Option 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due 

to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station options, and 

reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar for Build 

Alternative Option 3 and considered substantial when compared with the No Build Alternative. 

While operation of the Program within the Eastern Section could have socioeconomic effects on 

communities, operational activities are also anticipated to generate socioeconomic benefits in the 

form of new employment opportunities and permanent sales tax revenue. 

3.16.6 NEPA Summary of Potential Effects

Table 3.16-2 summarize the qualitative assessment of potential effects (negligible, moderate, or 

substantial) under NEPA for each of the Build Alternative Options. This service-level evaluation uses 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area to determine the potential socioeconomic and community 

effects and, more importantly, the relative magnitude of the effect. Specific mitigation measures to 

reduce effects would be identified during the Tier 2/Project-level environmental process.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-18

Table 3.16-2. NEPA Summary of Socioeconomic Effects 

Alternative Options

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Western Section

Potential Intensity of Effect:

Eastern Section

No Build Alternativea Construction: None

Operation: None

Construction: None

Operation: None

Build Alternative Option 1 

(Coachella Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Substantial 

Operation: Substantial 

Build Alternative Option 2 

(Indio Terminus)

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Substantial 

Operation: Substantial 

Build Alternative Option 3 

(Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track) 

Construction: Negligible 

Operation: Negligible

Construction: Substantial 

Operation: Substantial 

Notes:

a The No Build Alternative includes existing and potential expansion of roadway, passenger rail, and air travel 

facilities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area; however, for the service-level evaluation, identifying levels 

of effect from potential expansion of those facilities is speculative and would be dependent on Tier 2/Project-level 

specific analysis.

EIR=environmental impact report; EIS=environmental impact statement

3.16.7 CEQA Summary of Potential Impacts

Based on the information provided in Section 3.16.4 and 3.16.5, and considering the CEQA 

Guidelines Appendix G Checklist questions for population and housing, the Build Alternative Options 

are considered to have the potential to result in significant population and housing impacts when 

reviewed on a Program-wide basis. Placing the infrastructure improvements and new stations largely 

within or along the existing ROW reduces the potential for significant impacts; however, because the 

proposed stations have not been selected, existing housing and communities may be significantly 

impacted. At the programmatic analysis level, it is not possible to know the location, extent, and 

characteristics of impacts on population and housing. 

Proposed programmatic mitigation strategies discussed in Section 3.16.8 would be applied to reduce 

potential impacts. Table 3.16-3 describes the CEQA significance conclusions for the Build 

Alternative Options; the proposed programmatic mitigation strategies that would be applied to 

minimize, reduce, or avoid the potential impacts; and the significance determination after mitigation 

strategies are applied. The identification and implementation of additional site-specific mitigation 

measures necessary for Project implementation would occur as part of the Tier 2/Project-level

analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-19

Table 3.16-3. CEQA Summary of Impacts for Population and Housing

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and 

businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

Construction 

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or 

required in the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1,2, and 3.

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Less than Significant. Construction activities that would occur within 

the Program Corridor are not anticipated to induce substantial unplanned population 

growth, as activities are temporary and would be filled by those who reside within the 

region. Impacts are anticipated to be less than significant at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation level under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. The increase in train service (two additional round-trip 

daily trains within the Program Corridor) would not change existing land use that would 

cause or contribute to physical division of communities. Therefore, no impacts are 

anticipated under Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potentially significant impacts may result with 

implementation of Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. Potential impacts due to population 

growth are dependent on the location of new infrastructure improvements. Build 

Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 may result in new infrastructure that may result in additional 

growth within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. Site-specific impacts would be 

identified and evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

PH-1 

LU-3 

Less than Significant. PH-1 and LU-3

would minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts through design and further 

analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-20

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Would the Program displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing 

elsewhere?

Construction

Western Section – No Impact. No construction impacts are anticipated at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level because no physical improvements are proposed or 

required in the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Not applicable Not applicable

Eastern Section – Potentially Significant. Potentially significant impacts may result with 

implementation of Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. Potential impacts due to displacing 

substantial numbers of existing people or housing are dependent on the location of 

infrastructure improvements, which are currently unknown. The Program may require the 

acquisition of land neighboring the ROW. Site-specific impacts would be identified and 

evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

PH-1 Less than Significant. PH-1 would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid potential 

impacts from displacing substation 

numbers of existing people or housing 

through the implementation of a relocation 

mitigation plan.

Operation

Western Section – No Impact. Operational activities in the Western Section include the 

maintenance of existing rail infrastructure and station facilities. These maintenance 

activities are not anticipated to require activities that could result in the impacts associated 

with displacement of people that would require replacement housing. Therefore, no 

operational impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-21

Impact Summary

Mitigation 

Strategy Significance with Mitigation Strategy

Eastern Section – No Impact. Operational activities in the Eastern Section include the 

maintenance of existing rail infrastructure and station facilities. These maintenance 

activities are not anticipated to require activities that could result in the impacts associated 

with displacement of people that would require replacement housing. Therefore, no 

operational impacts are anticipated at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation level under 

Build Alternative Option 1, 2, or 3. 

Not applicable Not applicable 

Notes:

EIR=environmental impact report; EIS=environmental impact statement; ROW=right-of-way
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-22

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-23

3.16.8 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies

Identified below are proposed programmatic mitigation strategies for further consideration in the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis. Specific mitigation measures, to the extent required, would be identified 

and discussed during Tier 2/Project-level analysis after design details are known and specific 

impacts are identified. Proposed programmatic mitigation strategies, consistent with state and 

federal regulations, could include, but are not limited to, the following:

Mitigation Strategy PH-1: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, any required acquisitions related to 

the construction of infrastructure improvements (such as sidings, additional main line track, wayside 

signals, drainage, grade-separation structures, and stations) shall be identified. If the proposed 

Project would have the potential to result in property acquisitions that would require residential or 

commercial displacement, a relocation mitigation plan shall be prepared, in consultation with 

affected property owners. The relocation mitigation plan shall be designed to meet the following 

objectives: 

• Provide affected property and business owners and tenants a high level of individualized 

assistance in situations when acquisition is necessary, and the property owner desires to 

relocate the existing use

• Coordinate relocation activities that would result in displacements to ensure all displaced 

persons and businesses receive fair and consistent relocation benefits

• Minimize the permanent closure of businesses and non-profit agencies as a result of 

property acquisition 

• Within the limits established by law and regulation, minimize the economic disruption caused 

to property owners by relocation 

• Provide regulatory compliance assistance to those business owners who require complex 

permitting

The relocation mitigation plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following components: 

• A description of the appraisal, acquisition, and relocation process, as well as a description of 

the activities of the appraisal and relocation specialists 

• A means of assigning appraisal and relocation staff to affected property owners, tenants, or 

other residents on an individual basis 

• Individualized assistance to affected property owners, tenants, or other residents in applying 

for funding and researching areas for relocation 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.16 Socioeconomics and Communities Affected

May 2021 | 3.16-24

• Identification of a single point of contact for property owners, residents, and tenants with 

questions about the relocation process. This point of contact shall also act to address 

concerns about the relocation process; it applies to the individual situations of property 

owners, tenants, and other residents

Mitigation Strategy LU-2: Based on the results of Tier 2/Project-level analysis and 

recommendations, a construction management plan shall be developed by the contractor prior to 

construction and implemented during construction activities. The construction management plan 

shall include, but is not limited to, the following: 

• Measures that minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project 

Study Area

• Measures pertaining to visual protection, air quality, safety controls, noise controls, and 

traffic controls to minimize effects on populations and communities within the Tier 2/Project 

Study Area

• Measures to ensure property access is maintained for local businesses, residences, and 

community and emergency services

• Measures to consult with local transit providers to minimize effects on local and regional bus 

routes in affected communities

• Measures to consult with local jurisdictions and utility providers to minimize effects on utilities 

in affected communities

Mitigation Strategy LU-3: During Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a land use consistency analysis shall 

be conducted to determine consistency with the applicable local jurisdictional general plans or 

programs. Recommendations shall be identified to avoid or minimize conflicts with sensitive land 

uses or environmental resources. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-1 

3.17 Cumulative Effects

3.17.1 Introduction

This section provides an evaluation of overall cumulative effects associated with the Build Alternative

Options and No Build Alternative taken together with other past, present, and probable future 

projects producing related effects, as required by the CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR Section 15130) and 

reasonably foreseeable future projects under NEPA implementing regulations (40 CFR Part 1508.7). 

This analysis has two primary purposes: to determine whether the overall long-term effects of all

cumulative projects would be cumulatively adverse and to determine whether the Program itself 

would cause a cumulatively considerable (and thus adverse) incremental contribution to any such 

cumulatively adverse effect (CEQA Guidelines [CCR Sections 15064(h), 15065(c), 15130(a), 

15130(b), and 15355(b)]. In other words, the required analysis first creates a broad context in which 

to evaluate the Program’s incremental contribution to anticipated cumulative effects, viewed on a 

geographic scale well beyond the Program. The analysis then determines whether the Program’s 

incremental contribution to any adverse cumulative effects from all projects is itself adverse (i.e., 

cumulatively considerable). This section presents a discussion of cumulative effects according to the 

presentation of each resource issue area identified in Sections 3.2 through 3.16 of this Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. 

3.17.2 Regulatory Framework

Federal 

NEPA 

CEQ regulations implementing provisions of NEPA define cumulative effects as “the effect on the 

environment which results from the incremental effect of the action when added to other past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (federal or 

non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions” (40 CFR Part 1508.7). Cumulative effects can 

result from individually minor, but collectively adverse, actions over time (40 CFR Part 1508.8). They 

are caused by the incremental increase in total environmental effects when the evaluated project is 

added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. Cumulative effects can thus 

arise from causes that are totally unrelated to the project being evaluated, and the analysis of 

cumulative effects looks at the life cycle of the effects, not the project at issue.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-2 

State

CEQA 

Cumulative effects are defined in the CEQA Guidelines (CCR Section 15355) as “two or more 

individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase 

other environmental effects.” A cumulative effect occurs from “the change in the environment which 

results from the incremental effect of the project when added to other closely related past, present, 

and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative effects can result from individually 

minor but collectively adverse projects taking place over a period of time” (CCR Section 15355[b]). 

Consistent with the CEQA Guidelines (CCR Section 15130[a]), the discussion of cumulative effects 

in this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR focuses on adverse and potentially adverse cumulative effects. The 

CEQA Guidelines (CCR Section 15130[b]) state that:

The discussion of cumulative effects shall reflect the severity of the effects and their likelihood 

of occurrence, but the discussion need not provide as great detail as is provided for the 

effects attributable to the Project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards of 

practicality and reasonableness and should focus on the cumulative effect to which the 

identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes of other projects which do not 

contribute to the cumulative effect.

3.17.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects

The CEQA Guidelines identify two basic methods for establishing the cumulative environment in 

which the Program is to be considered: the use of a list of past, present, and probable future projects 

(i.e., the list approach) or the use of adopted projections from a general plan, other regional planning 

document, or certified EIR for such a planning document (i.e., the plan approach). Either of these 

methodologies also fulfills the NEPA requirements for cumulative effect analysis (CEQ 1997a). For 

this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation, the list approach was utilized to generate the most reliable 

future projections possible for assessing potential cumulative effects at the regional scale and 

temporally over the duration of Program construction and future operation. 

Publicly available documents were reviewed in accordance with CEQA and NEPA guidelines on 

assessing cumulative effects, including the following:

• Identification of major transportation projects in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, as 

defined in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, through planning documents and transportation 

improvement plans
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-3 

• Internet sources, such as agency or news websites

• Land use information

To correspond to the level of detail associated with this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation, the list of 

past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future related projects includes broader categories of 

projects and actions, rather than site-specific projects. During the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, when

infrastructure improvement and station locations have been identified, site-specific projects would be 

analyzed for cumulative effects. 

3.17.4 Affected Environment

The cumulative context includes the geographic area, timeframe, and/or type of projects or planning 

activities that would contribute to the potential cumulative effect. This context may differ for each 

resource issue area because the geographic range considered for the cumulative analysis can vary 

based on the resource area. Table 3.17-1 presents the projects considered as part of the regional

cumulative analysis within the Program Corridor. State, regional, and local planning documents were 

reviewed and considered as part of the cumulative analysis in this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR

evaluation. 

The list of past, present, and probable future projects used for this cumulative analysis is restricted 

to major development, transportation, and infrastructure projects that overlap with the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. For the purposes of this cumulative analysis, the projects that may 

have a cumulative effect on resources considered in this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation are

referred to as the cumulative projects. These projects are identified in Table 3.17-1. The analysis of 

cumulative environmental effects associated with the Build Alternative Options and No Build 

Alternative addresses the potential incremental contributions of the Program to cumulative 

environment effects in combination with these related projects. The list of projects in Table 3.17-1 is 

not intended to be an all-inclusive list of projects, but rather an identification of larger projects 

approved or planned within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area that could contribute to 

cumulative effects for one or more resources. 

3.17.5 Environmental Consequences

Overview 

The following section discusses the potential for the Program to result in cumulatively considerable 

effects together with the related projects and regional development (Table 3.17-1) for each of the 

environmental issue areas evaluated in Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and 

Mitigation, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-4 

This page is intentionally blank. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-5 

Table 3.17-1. Cumulative Projects

Project

Identification Project Title Project Description Location Stage/Schedulea Constructionb Operationc

1 California HSR

System – Burbank to 

Los Angeles and Los 

Angeles to Anaheim 

Project Sections 

California High-Speed Rail Authority is 

planning for the introduction of the HSR 

system from San Francisco to the Los 

Angeles basin by 2033. The Burbank to 

Los Angeles Project Section would extend 

from LAUS to the north, and the Los 

Angeles to Anaheim Project Section 

would extend from LAUS to the south.

California High-Speed Rail Authority

would conduct a full project-level 

environmental review for the planned 

HSR system, including the construction 

and operational environmental evaluation 

for the entirety of the planned HSR 

system. 

Various locations 

within Los 

Angeles County

Anticipated 

between 2033 

and 2035

No Yes

2 Metro Division 20 

Portal Widening and 

Turnback Facility

To accommodate increased service levels 

on the Metro Red/Purple Lines, Metro is 

planning critical facility improvements, 

including a widening of the heavy rail 

tunnel south of US-101 (Portal Widening) 

and a new turnback facility (Turnback 

Facility) in the Division 20 rail yard. With 

these improvements, new tracks and 

switches would allow trains to turn around 

more quickly at LAUS.

Division 20 rail 

yard 

Under 

construction; 

anticipated 

project 

completion in 

2023

No Yes
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-6 

Project

Identification Project Title Project Description Location Stage/Schedulea Constructionb Operationc

3 Regional Connector 

Transit Project – 

Little Tokyo/Arts 

District Station (at 1st 

Street/Central 

Avenue)

The 1.9-mile Metro Regional Connector 

Transit Project includes development of

three new stations, including one located 

on the southeast corner of 1st Street and 

Central Avenue.

LAUS, First 

Street, and 

Central Avenue

Under 

construction; 

operational in 

2022 

No Yes

4 Link Union Station The project proposes to reconstruct the 

track and station infrastructure at LAUS to 

meet long-term rail travel needs and 

improve passenger comfort, safety, and 

ease of navigation through the facility. 

LAUS Final EIR for the 

Link Union 

Station Project 

was approved in 

June 2019; a 

Draft EIS is 

under 

preparation

No Yes

5 Third Main Line 

Track Project

The project would provide 32 additional 

passenger/commuter slots between Los 

Angeles and Fullerton

15 miles between 

Los Angeles and 

Fullerton within 

BNSF's ROW

Construction 

underway

No Yes

6 2159 Bay Street 

Project 

The project includes development of a 

three-building office campus that would be 

comprised of an eight-story commercial 

high-rise building and two two-story 

commercial buildings.

Los Angeles NOC issued No No
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-7 

Project

Identification Project Title Project Description Location Stage/Schedulea Constructionb Operationc

7 Rosecrans/Marquardt 

Grade Separation 

Project 

The project proposes to improve the 

safety and track flow of the Rosecrans 

and Marquardt Avenues intersection by 

eliminating the existing at-grade crossing 

of BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision, 

which runs diagonally through the 

intersection of the two streets, and 

replacing it with an overpass that would 

carry Rosecrans Avenue above the 

tracks. 

City of Santa Fe 

Springs 

Under 

construction; 

anticipated

completion in 

2023

No Yes

8 Norwalk/Los Nietos 

Grade Separation

The project proposes grade separation on 

BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision in the 

City of Santa Fe Springs. 

City of Santa Fe 

Springs 

Proposed No Yes

9 Lakeland Road 

Grade Separation

The project proposes grade separation on 

BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision in the 

City of Santa Fe Springs. 

City of Santa Fe 

Springs 

Proposed No Yes

10 Pioneer Boulevard 

Grade Separation

The project proposes grade separation on 

BNSF’s San Bernardino Subdivision in the 

City of Santa Fe Springs. 

City of Santa Fe 

Springs 

Proposed No Yes

11 San Bernardino 

Freeway (I-10) 

High-Occupancy 

Vehicle-Lane Project 

(Caltrans) 

The project proposes construction of one 

high-occupancy vehicle lane along the 

San Bernardino Freeway (I-10) in each 

direction between the San Gabriel River 

Freeway (I-605) and Orange Freeway (SR 

57).

City of West 

Covina

Under 

construction; 

anticipated to 

completed by 

Summer 2021

No Yes
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-8 

Project

Identification Project Title Project Description Location Stage/Schedulea Constructionb Operationc

12 Westbound SR 91 

Project 

The project proposes improvements,

include widening the SR 91 by adding one 

new general-purpose lane in the 

westbound direction in Cerritos and 

Artesia. 

Cities of Cerritos 

and Artesia

Notice of 

determination

issued; 

construction 

anticipated to 

start in 2021

No No

13 Santa Ana River Trail

– Phase 1 Project 

(RCTC)

The project proposes a 12.8-mile trail 

along the Santa Ana River Trail system, 

connecting Orange, Riverside, and San 

Bernardino Counties. This portion of the 

trail along the Prado Basin would facilitate 

pedestrian, equestrian, and cycling trail 

use with nature-viewing opportunities, and 

provide a non-motorized transit route that 

would not otherwise exist in the area.

West of Norco Engineering and 

environmental 

studies are 

underway

No No

14 West of Devers 

Upgrade Project 

(Southern California 

Edison) 

The project includes the removal and 

upgrade of existing 220-kilovolt

transmission lines. 

Riverside and 

San Bernardino 

Counties

Under 

construction; 

anticipated 

completion in 

2022

No No
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-9 

Project

Identification Project Title Project Description Location Stage/Schedulea Constructionb Operationc

15 Coachella Valley Link 

(Coachella Valley 

Association of 

Governments) 

Coachella Valley Link is a 50-mile, 

alternative transportation corridor for 

bicycles, pedestrians, and low-speed (up 

to 25 miles per hour) electric vehicles 

along the Whitewater River and Tahquitz 

Creek that would initially stretch from 

Palm Springs to Coachella. 

Palm Springs to 

Coachella

First segment 

constructed; 

construction

anticipated to 

start on 

additional 

20-mile segment 

in early 2021 

once 

construction 

contracts have 

been authorized

Yes Yes

16 Agua Caliente 

Casino expansion 

Project

The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 

Indians proposes an expansion of the 

Agua Caliente Casino Resort Spa. 

Rancho Mirage Proposed; NOP 

for Tribal EIR 

issued

Yes Yes

17 Agua Caliente Band 

of Cahuilla Indians 

Cathedral City 

Fee-to-Trust Casino 

Project 

The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 

Indians proposed to build a gaming facility 

and ancillary amenities on land it owns 

within the City of Cathedral City.

Cathedral City Under 

construction

Yes Yes

18 Rehabilitate 

Whitewater River 

Bridges Project

The project would include rehabilitation of 

two bridges located on I-10 between 

Tipton Road and Kellogg Road at 

Milepost 27.69.

Palm Springs Notice of 

determination

issued

Yes No
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-10

Project

Identification Project Title Project Description Location Stage/Schedulea Constructionb Operationc

19 2017/18 Non-Potable 

Water Connections 

Project (Coachella 

Valley Water District)

The project proposes construction and 

operation of approximately 9.5 miles of 

non-potable water pipeline segments and 

connections to provide irrigation water for 

several locations.

Palm Desert and

Bermuda Dunes

Notice of 

determination

issued

Yes No

20 20/21 Non-Potable 

Water Connections 

Project (Coachella 

Valley Water District)

The project proposes construction and 

operation of approximately 12.9 miles of 

non-potable water pipeline segments and 

connections to provide irrigation water for 

several locations.

Palm Desert, 

Thousand Palms, 

Rancho Mirage, 

Indian Wells, and

La Quinta

Notice of 

determination

issued

Yes No

Notes:

a Information available as of March 2021. 

b The project has the potential to overlap in time or location with the Program. Tier 2/Project-level analysis would consider updates to construction schedules.

c The operation of the project has the potential to have cumulative impacts with the Program. 

Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; EIR=environmental impact report; EIS=environmental impact statement; HSR=high-speed rail; I=Interstate; 

LAUS=Los Angeles Union Station; Metro=Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority; NOC=notice of completion; NOP=notice of preparation; 

RCTC=Riverside County Transportation Commission; ROW=right-of-way; SR=State Route; US-101=United States Highway 101
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-11

No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, of Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the 

Program associated with this service-level evaluation and would not meet the Purpose and Need of 

the Program. Counties and cities in the Program Corridor would continue to grow, which would 

increase regional transportation demand; therefore, the No Build Alternative assumes completion of 

those reasonably foreseeable transportation, development, and infrastructure projects that are 

already in progress, are programmed, or are included in the fiscally constrained RTP. 

Cumulative Land Use and Planning Effects

The No Build Alternative would not be consistent with federal, state, and local plans and policies that 

promote expansion of existing transportation options and multimodal connectivity throughout the 

region. Therefore, traffic congestion is likely to worsen with the No Build Alternative, resulting in air 

quality impacts and potentially additional noise impacts on the surrounding land uses, which could 

disrupt established communities adjacent to existing transportation corridors. 

Cumulative Transportation Effects

Under the No Build Alternative, accommodation of additional future transportation demand resulting 

from continued local and regional growth would be limited by the existing transportation 

infrastructure’s capacity and capacity increases resulting from other approved projects in the region. 

An increase in traffic and VMT is expected under the No Build Alternative because more cars would 

be on the roadways compared with what would occur with implementation of the Program. 

Therefore, the No Build Alternative could result in air quality impacts and potential additional noise 

impacts on the surrounding land uses, which could disrupt established communities adjacent to 

existing transportation corridors. However, disruption of established communities related to 

construction and operation of the Program would be avoided.

Cumulative Visual Quality and Aesthetic Effects

Under the No Build Alternative, an enhanced passenger rail system would not be built, and impacts 

on visual quality and aesthetics are not anticipated beyond those that would occur as a result of 

other reasonably foreseeable transportation, development, and infrastructure projects. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-12

Cumulative Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Effects

Under the No Build Alternative, an increase in traffic and VMT is expected because more cars would 

be on the roadways compared with what would occur with implementation of enhanced passenger 

rail service within the Program Corridor. Therefore, traffic congestion is likely to worsen with the No 

Build Alternative, resulting in air quality impacts. With the continued trend in substantial increases in 

VMT within the Program Corridor, energy consumption and GHG emissions would likely increase 

under the No Build Alternative. 

Cumulative Noise and Vibration Effects

Under the No Build Alternative, no construction or increase in noise level that would be associated 

with Program implementation would occur. Ambient noise and vibration levels from existing train 

operations and local traffic would continue; however, an increase in traffic and VMT is expected 

under the No Build Alternative because more cars would be on the roadways compared with what 

would occur with implementation of the Program. Therefore, the No Build Alternative could result in 

potential additional noise impacts on the surrounding land uses, which could disrupt established 

communities adjacent to existing transportation corridors. 

Cumulative Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Effects

Under the No Build Alternative, an enhanced passenger rail system would not be built, and impacts 

on jurisdictional waters and wetland resources are not anticipated beyond those that would occur as 

a result of other reasonably foreseeable transportation, development, and infrastructure projects. 

Cumulative Biological Resource Effects

Under the No Build Alternative, an enhanced passenger rail system would not be built, and impacts 

on biological resources are not anticipated beyond those that would occur as a result of other 

reasonably foreseeable transportation, development, and infrastructure projects. 

Cumulative Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality Effects

Under the No Build Alternative, an enhanced passenger rail system would not be built; therefore, 

impacts are on floodplains, hydrology, and water quality are not anticipated beyond those that would 

occur as a result of other reasonably foreseeable transportation, development, and infrastructure 

projects. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-13

Cumulative Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resource Effects

Under the No Build Alternative, an enhanced passenger rail system would not be built; therefore, 

geology, soils, seismicity, or paleontological resource impacts are not anticipated beyond those that 

would occur as a result of other reasonably foreseeable transportation, development, and 

infrastructure projects. 

Cumulative Hazard and Hazardous Material Effects

Under the No Build Alternative, an enhanced passenger rail system would not be built; therefore, 

hazards and hazardous materials impacts are not anticipated beyond those that would occur as a 

result of other reasonably foreseeable transportation, development, and infrastructure projects. 

Cumulative Public Utilities and Energy Effects

Under the No Build Alternative, existing utility infrastructure and energy use within the Program 

Corridor would be unaffected, and the energy associated with on-road vehicle travel would not be 

reduced. With the continued trend in increases in VMT and energy consumption within the Program 

Corridor associated with local and regional growth, cumulative energy effects would likely increase 

under the No Build Alternative. 

Cumulative Cultural Resource Effects

Under the No Build Alternative, an enhanced passenger rail system would not be built. Therefore, 

impacts on cultural resources are not anticipated beyond those that would occur as a result of other 

reasonably foreseeable transportation, development, and infrastructure projects. 

Cumulative Parkland and Community Service Effects

Under the No Build Alternative, an enhanced passenger rail system would not be built. Therefore, 

impacts on parklands or community services are not anticipated beyond those that would occur as a 

result of other reasonably foreseeable transportation, development, and infrastructure projects. 

Cumulative Safety and Security Effects

Under the No Build Alternative, no Program construction activities or increase in passenger rail 

service would occur. However, existing train operations and local traffic would continue, and the Los 

Angeles Basin and San Gorgonio Pass would continue to face substantial mobility challenges as 

growth in population, employment, and tourism activity is expected to generate increased travel 

demand. Traffic volumes in the Los Angeles Basin and San Gorgonio Pass would likely increase, 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-14

contributing to a likely increase in traffic accidents. In addition, with increases in traffic volumes, the 

potential for crossing conflicts on existing rail lines would also likely increase. 

Cumulative Socioeconomic and Community Effects

Under the No Build Alternative, an enhanced passenger rail system would not be built; however, 

existing train operations and local traffic would continue within the Program Corridor. An increase in 

traffic and VMT is expected under the No Build Alternative because more cars would be on the 

roadways compared with what would occur with implementation of the Program. Therefore, the No 

Build Alternative could result in air quality impacts and potential additional noise impacts on the 

surrounding land uses, which could disrupt established communities adjacent to existing 

transportation corridors. Disruption of established communities related to construction and operation 

of the Program would be avoided.

Benefits associated with increases in economic growth (e.g., creation of new jobs and services) or 

fiscal gains (e.g., additional revenue from operation of passenger trains and stations) from 

implementation of the Program would not occur under the No Build Alternative beyond those that 

would occur as a result of other reasonably foreseeable transportation, development, and 

infrastructure projects. 

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3

No construction activities would be required to implement any of the Build Alternative Options within 

the Western Section of the Program Corridor because the existing railroad ROW and stations from 

LAUS to Colton would be used. The Build Alternative Options would not require infrastructure 

improvements (such as sidings, additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, 

grade-separation structures, and stations) to accommodate the proposed service within the Western 

Section of the Program. For the Eastern Section of the Program, construction of rail infrastructure 

improvements and station facilities would be required. 

During operation, passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the Program would consist of the 

addition of two daily, round-trip intercity diesel-powered passenger trains operating the entire length 

of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and Coachella. Operational activities are anticipated 

to be limited to maintenance of culverts, bridges, embankments, and station areas, which are not 

anticipated to result in ground-disturbing activities.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-15

Cumulative Land Use and Planning Effects

WESTERN SECTION 

Operation of any of the Build Alternative Options would utilize existing rail infrastructure and station 

facilities and would not change existing land uses or result in effects on agricultural resources within 

the Western Section of the Program Corridor. Based on these considerations, cumulative effects on 

land use and agricultural resources are not anticipated within the Western Section under Program 

implementation. 

EASTERN SECTION 

Implementation of the Program under any of the Build Alternative Options would require the 

construction of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities within the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor. Construction of rail infrastructure improvements is anticipated to mainly occur 

within the existing rail ROW; however, construction of new station facilities may require land use 

acquisition and potential amendments to local planning documents. Implementation of the Program 

under any of the Build Alternative Options could result in temporary land use compatibility effects 

with adjacent land uses and sensitive receptors. However, the identification of specific sensitive 

receptors near the rail infrastructure improvements and station locations and a review of land use 

consistency would be identified and evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

The Build Alternative Options, in combination with planned projects including residential, 

transportation, and commercial projects under the cumulative condition, would also result in changes 

in the pattern and density of land uses during construction if construction of the Build Alternative 

Options occurs at the same time as construction of other planned projects. This could result in a 

cumulative effect on various land uses if they become part of, or are near, a temporary construction 

easement, such as a staging area. These types of impacts, which could include visual changes, 

lighting and glare, increased air quality emissions, noise and vibration, and increased traffic, would 

be limited to the construction activities and temporary. Generally, affected parcels would be returned 

to previous/existing land use functions in the same or better condition as before their use. 

Although these effects would be temporary, when combined with other planned projects, they could 

be cumulatively considerable. To address these potentially cumulatively considerable impacts, 

mitigation could include, but is not limited to, the preparation and implementation of a construction 

management plan, which would detail construction BMPs to reduce or eliminate potential air, noise, 

visual, traffic, and other construction impacts. Generally, the application of construction BMPs would 

minimize, reduce, or avoid land use impacts. Site-specific construction effects, along with applicable 

and appropriate mitigation measures to minimize those effects, would be identified and evaluated at 

the Tier 2/Project-level analysis.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-16

For agricultural resources, cumulative effects on farmland could occur if future development and 

transportation projects, in combination with the Build Alternative Options, result in additional land use 

conversions. When planned projects are within existing transportation corridors, it is not anticipated 

that there would be cumulative effects on agricultural resources. However, if existing areas of 

farmland are converted to transportation-related or urban development use, there would be 

cumulative effects with the Build Alternative Options if the conversions are adjacent to or outside the 

existing transportation corridor and result in areas being bisected or isolated. 

Operation of the Build Alternative Options within the Eastern Section could result in impacts on

adjacent, sensitive land uses due to the increase in rail activity at new station facilities. These effects 

could result in a cumulative impact if combined with additional operational impacts from other 

projects. However, substantial growth is projected in the Eastern Section of the Build Alternative and 

the cities and communities along the Build Alternative Alignment. Under the cumulative condition, 

local land use plans and projects are planned to accommodate that growth. Generally, development 

would occur in the framework of existing general or specific plans of the municipality in which it 

occurs. Planning documents relevant to the municipalities (including land use elements of general 

plans, community plans, and other planning documents) generally encourage infill and 

higher-density development near transit corridors to provide more travel choices. Local jurisdictions 

are implementing these policies regardless of whether a project is constructed. 

Cumulative Transportation Effects

WESTERN SECTION 

Cumulative traffic effects may occur when more than one project has an overlapping construction 

schedule that generates excessive construction-related traffic. No new rail infrastructure or station 

facilities would be constructed in the Western Section under any of the Build Alternative Options. 

Therefore, construction-related effects on transportation are negligible, and cumulative 

transportation effects are not anticipated within the Western Section. 

Operation of the Build Alternative Options within the Western Section would result in an additional 

two daily, round-trip passenger trains operating within the existing rail railway and accessing existing 

stations. During operation, local traffic volumes and parking demand is likely to increase around and 

at the existing stations due to increases in ridership, which could combine with cumulative traffic 

generated by other local development projects. In addition, anticipating population growth and 

accompanying development in the Western Section’s metropolitan areas would likely contribute to 

the cumulative local transportation effects. However, as population growth occurs in these urban 

areas of the Western Section, there would be a greater number of transportation users and a 

potentially greater cumulative shift in mode share as rail becomes a more effective alternative 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-17

transportation mode within the Program Corridor. This could result in a cumulative reduction in VMT 

and highway congestion. 

EASTERN SECTION

Implementation of the Program under any of the Build Alternative Options would require the 

construction and operation of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities within the Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor. In the Eastern Section, future planned projects and development 

could have the potential to cause cumulative local transportation effects during construction if the 

timing of the Build Alternative Options and projects overlap. Potential increases in vehicle trip 

generation would vary based on the project type, location, schedule, size of workforce, equipment 

needs, and other factors. The distribution of construction trips on the road network would also 

depend on the location of individual projects and the project staging area. While construction 

activities for the Build Alternative Options would be temporary, such effects would be cumulatively 

long term given that construction could be ongoing for many years and could combine with other 

nearby construction projects. 

During operation, cumulative effects on local traffic conditions and parking could occur in areas 

where new development is proposed, combined with the increases in local traffic and parking 

demand around and at the stations due to increases in rail ridership. However, as population growth 

occurs within the Eastern Section, there would also be a greater number of transportation users, and 

a potentially greater cumulative shift in mode share as rail becomes a more effectively alternative 

transportation mode within the Program Corridor. Therefore, operation of the Build Alternative 

Options in the Eastern Section is anticipated to reduce vehicle trips and VMT on the regional 

highways, improve safety, and reduce congestion resulting in a cumulative reduction in VMT and 

highway congestion. 

From a cumulative impact context, future regional and local projects would accommodate increased 

traffic, reduce congestion, and enhance safety for motorists in the long term. Operation of the Build 

Alternative Options in the Eastern Section would provide transportation alternatives for regional 

travel, potentially reducing the number of automobiles travelling across the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor. Taken together, these transportation projects would provide a cumulative regional 

improvement to transportation circulation and access in the region.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-18

Cumulative Visual Quality and Aesthetics Effects

WESTERN SECTION

No new rail infrastructure or station facilities would be constructed in the Western Section under any 

of the Build Alternative Options. Therefore, construction-related effects on visual quality and 

aesthetics are negligible, and cumulative visual quality and aesthetic effects are not anticipated 

within the Western Section. Operation of the Build Alternative Options within the Western Section 

would result in an additional two daily, round-trip passenger trains operating within the existing 

railway and accessing existing stations. The operation of the Build Alternative Options within the 

Western Section would not change the existing visual environment and would result in a negligible 

effect on visual quality and aesthetics. Therefore, the Build Alternative Options would result in no 

cumulative effects on visual resources within the Western Section of the Program Corridor. 

EASTERN SECTION

Implementation of the Program under any of the Build Alternative Options would require the 

construction of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities within the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor. The Build Alternative Options, in combination with planned projects, could 

cumulatively contribute to light sources during construction or operation. 

The operation of additional passenger rail trains along the rail ROW within the Eastern Section 

would result in relatively minor physical changes to the landscape seen by sensitive viewers. These 

changes would likely be unnoticeable or barely noticeable to sensitive viewers and is not anticipated 

result in cumulative effects on aesthetics and visual quality. However, once constructed and 

operational, built elements would be introduced throughout the Eastern Section in the form of tracks, 

grade-separated ROWs, and station facilities. Visual changes resulting from these build elements 

would also be introduced in the form of landform alterations associated with grading/realignment, 

lighting and signage, and roadway realignments. Visual effects may occur if permanent elements of 

the Program block views of important visual resources, negatively alter the existing visual character, 

or introduce new sources of light or glare that have an adverse effect on adjacent land uses. 

Combined with other planned projects, there is the potential for the Build Alternative Options to 

cumulatively contribute to effects on aesthetic and visual quality within the Eastern Section, 

particularly in suburban and rural areas where population growth and related development could 

occur. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-19

Cumulative Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases Effects

WESTERN SECTION 

No new rail infrastructure or station facilities would be constructed in the Western Section under any 

of the Build Alternative Options. Therefore, construction-related effects on air quality and GHGs are 

negligible, and cumulative air quality and GHG effects are not anticipated within the Western 

Section. Based on current ridership projects, it is expected that during operation, the Build 

Alternative Options would result in a reduction in VMT. This reduction in VMT would result in lower 

regional air emissions relative to the No Build Alternative. Therefore, the Build Alternative Options 

would result in beneficial cumulative effects during operation when combined with other planned 

projects within the Western Section of the Program. 

EASTERN SECTION 

Implementation of the Program under any of the Build Alternative Options would require the 

construction of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities within the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor. Temporary construction emissions are expected from implementation of any of 

the Build Alternative Options; however, air quality and GHG emissions would vary daily depending 

on the level of construction activity, specific operation of construction equipment, and duration of 

construction activities. Future planned projects and developments, such as the Agua Caliente 

Casino Resort expansion, which is adjacent to the Build Alternative Options, would have the 

potential to cause cumulative air quality and GHG effects during construction if the timing of the 

projects overlap. However, these potential cumulative effects would be analyzed during Tier 

2/Project-level analysis. 

Under the cumulative condition within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, planned 

infrastructure and development projects would result in more vehicles on the roadway and increased 

emissions of air pollutants and GHGs. However, as population growth occurs in the Eastern Section 

of the Program Corridor, there would also be a greater number of transportation uses, and a 

potentially greater cumulative shift in mode share as rail becomes an effective alternative 

transportation mode within the Program Corridor. Therefore, the cumulative effects of the Build 

Alternative Options with other planned transit projects are anticipated to promote decreased reliance 

on highway travel while reducing regional emissions of air pollutants and GHGs. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-20

Cumulative Noise and Vibration Effects

WESTERN SECTION 

No new rail infrastructure or station facilities would be constructed in the Western Section under any 

of the Build Alternative Options. Therefore, construction-related effects on noise and vibration are 

negligible and cumulative noise and vibration effects are not anticipated within the Western Section. 

Operation of the Build Alternative Options within the Western Section would result in an additional 

two daily, round-trip passenger trains operating within the existing railway and accessing existing 

stations. The operation of the Build Alternative Options within the Western Section would not change 

the existing noise environment and would result in a negligible effect on noise and vibration. 

Therefore, the Build Alternative Options would result in no cumulative increase in noise or 

operational vibration, and cumulative effects would be negligible. 

EASTERN SECTION 

Implementation of the Program under any of the Build Alternative Options would require the 

construction of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities within the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor. Construction activities may result in moderate noise and vibration effects on

sensitive noise receptors within, or adjacent to, construction sites identified for the specific rail 

infrastructure improvement or station facility. There is the potential for cumulative noise and vibration 

effects during construction within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, particularly where a 

rail infrastructure improvement or station facility and other future transportation and development 

projects would be constructed adjacent to sensitive land uses. However, the temporary nature of the 

construction activities, adherence to local noise ordinances, and the use of construction BMPs would 

likely minimize the potential for cumulative effects. 

Operation of the Build Alternative Options within the Eastern Section would result in an additional 

two daily, round-trip passenger trains operating within the existing rail railway and accessing station 

facilities. The operation of the Build Alternative Options within the Eastern Section could change the 

existing noise environment (through the provision of new noise generating sources) and would result 

in a moderate effect on noise and vibration. Population growth and accompanying development 

within the Eastern Section would also contribute to increased noise and vibration levels. However, it 

is anticipated that operational noise and vibration effects of the Build Alternative Options would be 

avoided, minimized, and mitigated at the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, which would reduce the 

potential for cumulative effects. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-21

Cumulative Jurisdictional Waters and Wetland Resource Effects

WESTERN SECTION 

No new rail infrastructure or station facilities would be constructed in the Western Section under any 

of the Build Alternative Options. Therefore, construction-related effects on jurisdictional waters and 

wetlands are negligible, and cumulative effects are not anticipated within the Western Section with 

implementation of the Program. Operation of the Build Alternative Options within the Western 

Section would result in an additional two daily, round-trip passenger trains operating within the 

existing rail railway and accessing existing stations. The operation of the Build Alternative Options 

within the Western Section would not require modification to jurisdictional waters or wetlands, 

resulting in a cumulative negligible effect on these resources. 

EASTERN SECTION

Implementation of the Program under any of the Build Alternative Options would require the 

construction of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities within the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor. Construction activities may result in moderate effects on jurisdictional waters or 

wetland resources through the permanent removal of wetland area and additional pollutants entering 

wetland or jurisdictional water areas. The severity of effects is dependent on the location of new rail 

infrastructure and station facilities, temporary roads, laydown yards, and other Program-related 

components. 

Cumulative projects identified within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor would result in an 

increase in impervious surfaces that have the potential to cause additional runoff or the removal of 

wetlands, which would increase the severity of the effects. Therefore, effects associated with the 

Build Alternative Options, in combination with development associated with growth and planned 

projects, would contribute to a cumulative effect on jurisdictional waters and wetlands in the Eastern 

Section. However, the effects of the Build Alternative Options on jurisdictional waters and wetlands 

would be avoided, minimized, and mitigated at the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, when feasible, which 

would reduce the potential for cumulative effects. 

Cumulative Biological Resource Effects 

WESTERN SECTION 

No new rail infrastructure or station facilities would be constructed in the Western Section under any 

of the Build Alternative Options. Therefore, construction-related effects on biological resources are 

negligible, and cumulative effects are not anticipated within the Western Section with implementation 

of the Program. Operation of the Build Alternative Options within the Western Section would result in 

an additional two daily, round-trip passenger trains operating within the existing rail railway and 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-22

accessing existing stations. Operational activities associated with the two daily, round-trip intercity 

passenger trains are anticipated to have negligible effects on special-status plant species, wildlife 

species, or wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife that may be present within the Western Section of 

the Program Corridor have been exposed to disturbances associated with railroad operations and 

habituated to existing noise and vibrations associated with railroad operations. Therefore, the 

operation of the Build Alternative Options within the Western Section would remain similar to existing 

conditions, resulting in a negligible cumulative effect on biological resources. 

EASTERN SECTION

Implementation of the Program under any of the Build Alternative Options would require the 

construction of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities within the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor. Construction activities may result in substantial effects on biological resources 

within, or adjacent to, construction sites identified for the specific rail infrastructure improvement or 

station facility. Construction effects could include removal or disturbance of vegetation, dust, soil 

compaction, accidental spills, habitat degradation, separation or fragmentation, erosion and runoff, 

altered hydrology, risk of fire, introduction of invasive or noxious plant species, noise and vibration, 

and potential for equipment or vehicles strikes. Severity of effects is dependent on the location of 

new infrastructure, temporary roads, laydown yards, and other Program-related components in 

relation to potential biological resources that may be present. There is the potential for cumulative 

biological resources effects during construction within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, 

particularly where a rail infrastructure improvement or station facility and other future transportation 

and development projects would be constructed adjacent to biological resources. Therefore, the 

Build Alternative Options would result in a potential cumulative effect on biological resources within 

these areas. The effects of the Build Alternative Options on biological resources would be avoided, 

minimized, and mitigated at the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, when feasible, which would reduce the 

potential for cumulative effects. 

Operation of the Build Alternative Options within the Eastern Section would result in an additional 

two daily, round-trip passenger trains operating within the existing rail railway. Although operational 

activities are anticipated to be the same at the stations within the Eastern Section as they are in the 

Western Section, the station facilities could result in moderate effects on biological resources as they 

could be constructed adjacent to areas containing biological resources. Due to the anticipated 

population growth and associated development within the Eastern Section, the Build Alternative 

Options could have a cumulative effect on biological resources. However, the effects of the Build 

Alternative Options on biological resources would be avoided, minimized, and mitigated at the Tier 

2/Project-level, when feasible, which would reduce the potential for cumulative effects. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-23

Cumulative Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality Effects

WESTERN SECTION 

No new rail infrastructure or station facilities would be constructed in the Western Section under any 

of the Build Alternative Options. Therefore, construction-related effects on floodplains, hydrology, 

and water quality are negligible, and cumulative effects on these resources are not anticipated within 

the Western Section. Operation of any of the Build Alternative Options within the Western Section of 

the Program Corridor would remain within the existing rail ROW, and station facilities and would not 

introduce new pollutants or result in new effects on floodplains, hydrology, and water quality. As a 

result, operational activities would have a negligible effect on floodplains, hydrology, and water 

quality, and it is unlikely that any of the Build Alternative Options would contribute to cumulative 

water quality effects within the Western Section. 

EASTERN SECTION

Implementation of the Program under any of the Build Alternative Options would require the 

construction of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities within the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor. Construction activities in the Eastern Section could result in soil erosion and 

stormwater discharges of suspended solids, increased turbidity, and potential mobilization of other 

pollutants from Program-related construction sites. The Build Alternative Options would have effects 

on hydrology and water quality during construction activities and could have cumulative effects with 

other planned transportation and development projects in the Eastern Section of the Program 

Corridor. However, because appropriate design features and construction BMPs (as required by the 

CWA and other regulations) would be incorporated, effects on hydrology and water quality are 

expected to be moderate. Implementation of these regulatory requirements would reduce water 

quality and erosion effects associated with construction activities. Although there are no assurances 

that other cumulative projects would incorporate the same degree or methods of treatment as the 

Program, each related project would be required to comply with its NPDES General Construction 

Permit and local stormwater ordinances, at a minimum. Water quality effects during construction 

would be minimized and are not anticipated to result in cumulative effects. 

Operation of the Program within the Eastern Section would result in an increase in pollutants (e.g., 

fuel and oils) from trains and station parking lots and an increase in impervious surfaces and runoff 

that could result in substantial hydrology and water quality effects. Depending on where the rail 

infrastructure improvements and station facilities are located, cumulative effects on hydrology and 

water quality could be potentially greater if future transportation projects and new development is 

located in the same area, or adjacent, to the location. However, regional programs and the MS4 

Permit Program have been designed in anticipation of future urbanization with the regional control 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-24

measures taking into account cumulative hydrology and water quality effects of proposed 

development. In addition, the Build Alternative Options and cumulative projects would be required to 

comply with the regulations. Because appropriate design features and operational BMPs would be 

expected to be incorporated, cumulative hydrology and water quality effects are anticipated to be 

moderate. 

Cumulative Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources Effects

WESTERN SECTION 

No new rail infrastructure or station facilities would be constructed in the Western Section under any 

of the Build Alternative Options. Therefore, construction-related effects on geologic resources are 

negligible, and cumulative effects on these resources are not anticipated within the Western Section.

Operation of any of the Build Alternative Options within the Western Section of the Program Corridor 

would remain within the existing rail ROW and station facilities. As a result, operational activities 

would have a negligible effect on geologic resources, and it is unlikely that any of the Build 

Alternative Options would contribute to cumulative geologic resource effects within the Western 

Section. 

EASTERN SECTION

Implementation of the Program under any of the Build Alternative Options would require the 

construction of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities within the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor. Construction activities would require clearing, grading, and excavating of soils, 

which could include cut and fill activities that cause slope instability and landslides, as well as the 

loss of availability of known mineral and paleontological resources. Project-specific effects 

associated with geologic hazards would not be considered cumulative because the effects are not 

incrementally affected by additional projects (for example, the effect on a single project by an 

earthquake or the shrink/swell of clay soils would not be affected by other projects in the area). 

However, effects on geologic resources could be incrementally affected by multiple projects. 

Cumulative effects on geologic resources would be expected if construction of multiple projects 

resulted in slope instability in a given area or if use of mineral resources for construction (such as 

sand and gravel) caused a substantial overall depletion of these resources. While there are areas 

within the Eastern Section that have steep-slope topography, the majority of the Eastern Section of

the Program Corridor has generally flat topography. Potential effects due to slope instability (such as 

landslides or earthquake-induced liquefaction) would be easily addressed during Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis and final design. Sand and gravel would be needed for construction of any of the Build 

Alternatives, but because reserves are plentiful throughout the region, none of the Build Alternative 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-25

Options, in combination with other planned projects in the area, would be expected to contribute to 

limiting availability to these resources. 

Operation of any of the Build Alternative Options within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor 

would require ongoing maintenance activities associated with the rail infrastructure and station 

facilities with maintenance activities not requiring ground-disturbing activities. As a result, operational 

activities would have a negligible effect on geologic resources, and it is unlikely that any of the Build 

Alternative Options would contribute to cumulative geologic resource effects within the Eastern 

Section. 

Cumulative Hazards and Hazardous Materials Effects

WESTERN SECTION 

No new rail infrastructure or station facilities would be constructed in the Western Section under any 

of the Build Alternative Options. Therefore, construction-related effects on hazards and hazardous 

materials are negligible, and cumulative effects are not anticipated within the Western Section.

Operation of any of the Build Alternative Options within the Western Section of the Program Corridor 

would remain within the existing rail ROW and station facilities. As a result, operational activities 

would have a negligible effect on hazards and hazardous materials, and it is unlikely that any of the 

Build Alternative Options would contribute to cumulative hazards and hazardous material effects 

within the Western Section. 

EASTERN SECTION 

Implementation of the Program under any of the Build Alternative Options would require the 

construction and operation of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities within the Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor. Construction activities could include disturbances on properties 

with known potential for hazardous materials exposure. Any hazardous wastes or materials 

encountered through ground-disturbing activities would be handled and disposed of in accordance 

with federal, state, and local regulatory requirements. All planned projects would also be subject to 

the same local, regional, state, and federal regulations. During operation, the Build Alternative 

Options and cumulative projects would all involve the storage, use, disposal, and transport of 

hazardous materials to varying degrees during construction and operation. Effects from the Build 

Alternative Options would be negligible because the storage, use, disposal, and transport of 

hazardous materials are extensively regulated by federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and 

policies. Based on these considerations, the Build Alternative Options combined with planned 

projects are not anticipated to not result in cumulative effects on hazards and hazardous materials. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-26

Cumulative Public Utilities and Energy Effects

WESTERN SECTION 

No new rail infrastructure or station facilities would be constructed in the Western Section under any 

of the Build Alternative Options. Therefore, construction-related effects associated with public utilities

and energy consumption are negligible, and cumulative effects on public utilities and energy are not 

anticipated within the Western Section. Operation of any of the Build Alternative Options within the 

Western Section of the Program Corridor would remain within the existing rail ROW, and station 

facilities and would not result in changes in land use or the provision of public utilities within the 

Western Section. As a result, operational activities would have a negligible effect on public utilities, 

and it is unlikely that any of the Build Alternative Options would contribute to cumulative public utility 

effects within the Western Section. 

Operation of the Program within the Western Section is expected to increase transit ridership under 

the Build Alternative Options. Therefore, operation of the Build Alternative Options would result in a 

long-term net energy benefit because of changes in ridership from high-energy consumption modes 

of travel to the lower-energy mode of passenger rail. The Build Alternative Options, combined with 

other future transit projects within the Western Section, would have a beneficial cumulative effect on 

energy consumption and would contribute toward offsetting increased energy consumption that 

would result from future road transportation projects and new development to accommodate 

population growth. 

EASTERN SECTION

Implementation of the Program under any of the Build Alternative Options would require the 

construction of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities within the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor. Construction activities would generate wastewater and could potentially conflict 

with existing utilities (e.g., electrical transmission lines and natural gas pipelines), particularly in 

urban areas where there is a high density of utility lines. The Build Alternative Options combined with 

planned projects would contribute to potential cumulative effects on utilities. However, the effects of 

the Build Alternative Options on utilities would be avoided, minimized, and mitigated at the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis once rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities locations are 

identified, which would reduce the potential for cumulative effects. 

Construction activities would also require the consumption of energy in the form of gasoline and 

diesel fuel. Under cumulative conditions within the Eastern Section, future transportation projects 

and new development to accommodate population growth would also result in consumption of 

energy during construction. The Build Alternative Options combined with these future projects would 

cumulatively contribute to the consumption of energy during construction. However, operation of the 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-27

Build Alternative Options would result in a long-term net energy benefit because of the changes in 

ridership from high-energy consumption modes of travel to the lower-energy mode of passenger rail. 

The Build Alternative Options, combined with other future transit projects in the Eastern Section, 

would have a beneficial cumulative effect on energy consumption and would contribute toward 

offsetting increased energy consumption that would result from future road transportation projects 

and new development to accommodate population growth. 

Cumulative Cultural Resource Effects 

WESTERN SECTION 

No new rail infrastructure or station facilities would be constructed in the Western Section under any 

of the Build Alternative Options. Therefore, construction-related effects associated with 

archaeological, historical, or TCRs are anticipated to be negligible, and cumulative effects on cultural 

resources are not anticipated within the Western Section. Operation of any of the Build Alternative 

Options within the Western Section of the Program Corridor would remain within the existing rail 

ROW and station facilities and would not result in changes that could affect cultural resources. As a 

result, operational activities would have a negligible effect on archaeological, historical, or TCRs, 

and it is unlikely that any of the Build Alternative Options would contribute to cumulative cultural 

resource effects within the Western Section. 

EASTERN SECTION

Implementation of the Program under any of the Build Alternative Options would require the 

construction of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities within the Eastern Section of the 

Program Corridor. Construction activities would involve ground-disturbing activities that could have 

the potential to affect archeological, historic, or tribal resources. Disturbance of such resources 

under the Build Alternative Options, in combination with other future planned projects, would have a 

cumulatively substantial effect and contribute to the loss of cultural resources within the Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor. Compliance with Section 106 of NHPA would ensure cultural 

resources are treated properly, which may include avoidance, data collection, or other mitigation

strategies. Site-specific effects would be identified and evaluated in the Tier 2/Project-level analysis, 

which would reduce the potential for cumulative effects. 

Similar to the Western Section, operational activities under any of the Build Alternative Options are

not be expected to result in effects on cultural, historic, and tribal resources. Therefore, it is unlikely 

that any of the Build Alternative Options would contribute to cumulative cultural resource effects 

within the Eastern Section. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-28

Cumulative Parklands and Community Service Effects 

WESTERN SECTION 

No new rail infrastructure or station facilities would be constructed in the Western Section under any 

of the Build Alternative Options. Therefore, construction-related effects associated with parklands 

and community services are negligible, and cumulative effects on parklands and community services 

are not anticipated within the Western Section. Operation of any of the Build Alternative Options 

within the Western Section of the Program Corridor would remain within the existing rail ROW, and 

station facilities and would not result in changes in parklands or the provision of community services. 

As a result, operational activities would have a negligible effect on parklands and community 

services, and it is unlikely that any of the Build Alternative Options would contribute to cumulative 

parkland and community service effects within the Western Section. 

EASTERN SECTION

Implementation of the Program under any of the Build Alternative Options would require the 

construction and operation of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities within the Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor. Construction activities could result in temporary disruption of 

access to existing community facilities and parks and could result in detours, which could affect 

travel patterns for fire and law enforcement. Under cumulative conditions within the Eastern Section,

future transportation projects and new development to accommodate population growth may also 

result in temporary disruptions of access to existing parks and require detours, which could affect 

travel patterns for fire and law enforcement if located in the same construction area. The Build 

Alternative Options, combined with these future projects, could result in cumulative effects on parks 

and community facilities. However, these effects would be identified and evaluated during the Tier 

2/Project-level analysis, once rail infrastructure improvements and station locations are identified. 

The communities within the Eastern Section are expected to incrementally add park resources and 

community services according to their development plans, which is appropriate for the projected rate 

of growth. Therefore, park resources and community services within the Eastern Section are likely to 

increase proportionately to population-driven development, which would result in a net increase in 

park resources and community services. With avoidance of existing park resources, and an increase 

in park resources proportional to development, there is a low likelihood for the Build Alternative 

Options to contribute to a cumulative effect of park resources during operation. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-29

Cumulative Safety and Security Effects

WESTERN SECTION 

No new rail infrastructure or station facilities would be constructed in the Western Section under any 

of the Build Alternative Options. Therefore, safety and security construction-related effects are 

negligible since there would be no construction that would occur. Operation of any of the Build 

Alternative Options within the Western Section of the Program Corridor would result in negligible 

safety and security effects as operational activities would remain the same as existing conditions. As 

a result, operational activities would have a negligible effect on safety and security, and it is unlikely 

that any of the Build Alternative Options would contribute to cumulative safety and security effects 

within the Western Section. 

EASTERN SECTION

Implementation of the Program under any of the Build Alternative Options would require the 

construction and operation of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities within the Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor. Where future planned projects and development are adjacent to 

the Build Alternative Options, there is the potential for cumulative safety and security effects during 

construction if the timing of the projects overlap. Mitigation identified in the Tier 2/Project-level

analysis would reduce cumulative effects. 

Operation of the Build Alternative Options, in combination with cumulative projects, could result in an 

increased potential for rail incidents, including collisions at-grade roadway-rail crossings, derailed or 

errant vehicle in the ROW obstructing the tracks, or derailments. However, these potential effects 

would be mitigated by complying with FRA’s Collision Hazard Analysis Guide: Commuter and 

Intercity Passenger Service and requiring preparation of safety and security management plans. 

Site-specific cumulative effects would be identified and evaluated at the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

The operation of any of the Build Alternative Options would include passenger trains, stations, and 

other maintenance facilities. Combined with other planned development, the Build Alternative

Options may contribute to an increased demand for emergency services. However, transportation 

and new or expanded development projects would be designed and constructed to be consistent 

with local land use plans and would comply with agencies’ approval conditions, including fair-share 

development fees to pay for additional emergency services required to maintain service standards. 

With the payment of development fees, the cumulative effect on emergency services from operation 

of the Build Alternative Options, in combination with planned development projects, would not be 

cumulatively considerable. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-30

Cumulative Socioeconomics and Community Effects

WESTERN SECTION 

No new rail infrastructure or station facilities would be constructed in the Western Section under any 

of the Build Alternative Options. Therefore, construction-related effects associated with 

socioeconomics and communities are negligible since there would be no land acquisition, 

displacement, and relocations needed within the Western Section.

Operation of any of the Build Alternative Options within the Western Section of the Program Corridor 

would remain within the existing rail ROW and station facilities and would not result in changes in 

land use or community cohesion. The additional passenger rail services that would occur under any 

of the Build Alternative Options would result in several benefits: the creation of direct, indirect, and 

induced jobs; permanent increases in sales tax revenues within the counties and cities where the 

Build Alternative Options operate; and improved regional mobility and connectivity. Several projects 

listed in Table 3.17-1 would also result in creation of jobs, sales tax revenues, and improved regional 

mobility and connectivity, resulting in a beneficial cumulative effect. 

EASTERN SECTION

Implementation of the Program under any of the Build Alternative Options would require the 

construction and operation of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities within the Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor. Socioeconomic and community effects are expected to be both 

positive and negative. In terms of negative socioeconomic and community effects, land acquisition 

for the Build Alternative Options could result in property tax revenue losses for local jurisdictions if 

residential or business properties are removed from the property tax assessment roll. Community 

effects could include disruptions to local communities and may require displacements or relocations

of residences and businesses. If cumulative projects in the area also require land acquisition and 

displace and relocate sales and use tax-generating businesses outside of their current tax district, 

then the Build Alternative Options could contribute to cumulative effects on socioeconomics and 

communities. Without the specific station locations and unknown cumulative projects in the vicinity of 

the station locations, the severity of this impact is unknown. Site-specific effects related to potential 

land acquisitions, displacements or relocations, and property or sales and use tax losses would be 

identified and evaluated during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-31

The additional passenger rail services that would occur under any of the Build Alternative Options 

within the Western and Eastern Section of the Program Corridor would result in several 

socioeconomic and community benefits: the creation of direct, indirect, and induced jobs, permanent 

increases in sales tax revenues within the counties and cities where the Build Alternative Options 

would operate, and improved regional mobility and connectivity. 

Within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, new station facilities could encourage 

redevelopment in the surrounding area and the potential for transit-oriented development. These 

additional developments could provide additional employment opportunities and new housing 

opportunities to address the projected employment and population growth within the Eastern Section 

of the Program Corridor. The potential for development around each station facility would depend on 

the type of station planned, which would be determined during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. Any 

new development in the station areas would also result in the potential for additional property tax 

and sales tax revenues, which would benefit the counties and cities where the station facilities would 

be located. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

3.17 Cumulative Effects

May 2021 | 3.17-32

This page is intentionally blank. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-1 

4 Environmental Justice

4.1 Introduction 

U.S. EPA defines EJ as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of 

age, sex, disability, race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, 

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies (U.S. EPA 2020). 

This chapter provides an evaluation of the No Build Alternative and Build Alternative Options in 

relation to EJ populations within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. Further, this chapter

establishes the framework for conducting public outreach within the EJ populations potentially 

affected by implementation of the Build Alternative Options. 

4.2 Regulatory Framework

In accordance with NEPA (42 USC Section 4321 et seq.), CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR Parts 1501-1508), FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 

28545, May 26, 1999), and CEQA, FRA identified EJ communities within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Study Area and evaluated the potential effects on those communities as a result of implementing the 

Build Alternative Options.

Federal

Executive Order 12898

EO 12898, Federal Action to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations, was issued by President Clinton on February 4, 1994. It requires each federal agency 

“to make achieving environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority and low-income populations” (59 FR 7629, February

16, 1994). In a memorandum to agency department heads that accompanied the EO, President 

Clinton specifically recognized the importance of NEPA procedures for identifying and addressing EJ

concerns. The memorandum states, “each federal agency shall analyze the environmental effects, 

including human health, economic, and social effects, of federal actions including effects on minority 

and low-income communities, when such analysis is required by NEPA.” The memorandum also 

calls out the importance of NEPA’s public participation process, by directing each federal agency to 

“provide opportunities for community input in the NEPA process” and “identify potential effects and 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-2 

mitigation measures in consultation with affected communities, and improve the accessibility of 

meetings, crucial documents, and notices” (The White House 1994).

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 

EJ is partially based on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, one of the laws integrated into the 

procedures of NEPA. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the grounds of 

race, color, or national origin, and protects classes of people from being denied the benefits of, or

being excluded from participation in, any program or activity receiving federal assistance (Title VI, 

42 USC Section 2000[d]). NEPA requires federal agencies to serve as trustees of the environment 

for succeeding generations and ensure that all Americans have “safe, healthful, productive, and 

aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings” (42 USC Section 4331(b)(2)).

United States Department of Transportation Order 5610.2(a)

On May 2, 2012, USDOT issued Order 5610.2(a), Order to Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, which updates USDOT Order 5610.2 and 

describes how USDOT operating administrations comply with EO 12898. The update reaffirms 

USDOT’s commitment to EJ’s following guiding principles:

• To avoid, minimize, and mitigate disproportionately high and adverse effects

• To ensure the full and fair participation by all potentially affected communities

• To prevent the denial of, reduction in, or significant delay in receipt of benefits by minority 

and low-income populations

The order also directs federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or environmental effects of agency actions to promote the principles 

of EJ in all USDOT programs, policies, and activities. It requires that EJ principles be fully 

considered throughout planning and decision-making processes using the “principles of NEPA; Title 

VI; the Uniform Act, as amended; the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991; and 

other USDOT statutes, regulations, and guidance that address or affect infrastructure planning and 

decision making; social, economic, or environmental matters; public health; and public involvement.”

USDOT Order 5610.2(a) defines a disproportionately high and adverse effect as one that would 

meet either characteristic below: 

• The effect would be predominantly borne by a minority and/or low-income population.

• The effect suffered by the minority and/or low-income population would be appreciably more 

severe than the effect suffered by the non-minority and/or non-low-income population. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-3 

Meaningful involvement means that (1) potentially affected community residents have an appropriate 

opportunity to participate in decisions about a proposed activity that would affect their environment 

and/or health; (2) the public's contribution can influence the regulatory agency's decision; (3) the 

concerns of all participants involved will be considered in the decision making process; and (4) the 

decision makers seek out and facilitate the involvement of those potentially affected.

State

CEQA

An EJ analysis is required by federal law but is not explicitly required by the state of California. 

CEQA focuses on whether a project would have a significant impact on the physical environment. 

Although specific provisions of CEQA require consideration of how the environmental impacts of a 

project would affect certain communities (e.g., through consideration of the physical division of an 

established community and the assessment of cumulative impacts of a project), CEQA does not 

directly address EJ. 

4.3 Methods for Evaluating Environmental Effects

This analysis identifies EJ populations within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area that coincide 

with potential environmental effects identified as a result of implementation of the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR. Because this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR represents a high-level of analysis for all resources, 

identifying potential disproportionate effects on EJ populations was not possible. However, this 

analysis presents identified benefits to EJ populations and those EJ areas that are most susceptible 

to having multiple resource areas affected because of implementation of the Build Alternative 

Options. 

The methodology for conducting the review and evaluation of minority and low-income populations is 

in accordance with federal regulations and guidelines, including Title VI, EO 12898, USDOT Order 

5610.2(a), and CEQ’s EJ guidance titled Environmental Justice: Guidance under the National 

Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997b).
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-4 

Population and demographic data; including race, ethnicity, and income; are reported through the 

ACS, an ongoing U.S Census Bureau survey that samples a percentage of the population every 

year. GIS mapping was used to identify where EJ populations are located relative to the Build 

Alternative Options per threshold criteria established for identifying a minority or low-income 

population. For the purpose of this Tier 1/Program service-level evaluation, a minority individual is 

defined as any person who identified their race as American Indian or Alaskan Native, Asian, Native 

Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, or Black—or their ethnicity as Hispanic or Latino (independent of 

race)—in response to the ACS. 

The number of individuals identified as minority individuals was then compared with the total 

population to calculate the minority percentage for each census block group in the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Study Area. The percentage of the population that is low income was calculated based on 

the percentage of the population in each census block group that reported income below the poverty 

level in response to the ACS (U.S. Census Bureau 2016b). 

Each census block group was then reviewed to determine whether it contained an EJ population per 

the following threshold criteria established for identifying minority and low-income populations: 

1. Minority or low-income percentage of the population in the census block group is greater 

than 50 percent

2. Minority or low-income percentage of the population in the census block group is at least 

10 percentage points higher than the minority or low-income percentage of the general 

population in the corresponding county

Because EJ effects are location-specific, EJ effects cannot be fully described until specific Project 

design details (e.g., construction footprint, road crossings, station locations) and resulting 

site-specific effects (e.g., related to land acquisition and displacement, noise and vibration, air 

quality) are known. Consequently, potential effects on EJ populations can only be described 

qualitatively consistent with a Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area for the EJ evaluation includes all census block groups that 

occur within the Program Corridor. 

Data Sources

Demographic data from 2012–2016 ACS 5-year estimates were obtained at the county and census 

block group level (U.S. Census Bureau 2016b). 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-5 

Related Resources

This evaluation incorporates data and evaluation from related resources to contribute to the 

assessment of EJ. These related resources are identified in Table 4-1. 

Table 4-1. Related Resource Inputs for Environmental Justice Assessment 

Resource Input for EJ Assessment

Transportation

(Section 3.3)

Existing and proposed transportation infrastructure and service characteristics identified

potential effects on EJ populations. 

Visual Quality and 

Aesthetics 

(Section 3.4)

Areas where built elements of the Build Alternative Options would introduce long-term 

visual changes were identified.

Air Quality and 

Greenhouse Gases

(Section 3.5)

Areas where air quality emissions may change or increase as a result of construction or 

operation of the Build Alternative Options were identified. 

Noise and Vibration

(Section 3.6)

Areas where noise and vibration thresholds may be exceeded by construction or 

operation of the Build Alternative Options were identified. 

Hazards and 

Hazardous Materials

(Section 3.11)

Hazardous waste and contaminated material sites that have the potential to be affected 

by construction or operation of the Build Alternative Options were identified. 

Socioeconomics and 

Communities Affected

(Section 3.16)

Demographics data and community profiles were assessed.

Notes:

EJ=environmental justice

4.4 Affected Environment

The percentage of the population that is minority or that has income levels below the poverty 

threshold are summarized by county in Table 4-2. The minority percentage of the population is 

highest in Los Angeles County (70.8 percent), followed by San Bernardino County (67.0 percent), 

Riverside County (60.1 percent), and Orange County (55.3 percent). The percentage of the 

population with income below poverty ranges from 12.5 percent in Orange County to 19.1 percent in 

San Bernardino County.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-6 

Table 4-2. Minority Population and Population below Poverty by County

County Total Population Percent Minority Percent Below Poverty

Los Angeles 10,057,155 70.8 17.8

Orange 3,132,211 55.3 12.5

Riverside 2,323,892 60.1 16.5

San Bernardino 2,106,754 67.0 19.1

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2016b 

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

The minority population percentages for the census block groups included in the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Study Area are shown on Figure 4-1. As depicted on Figure 4-1, the minority population 

percentage is generally higher in the Western Section compared with the Eastern Section and 

exceeds 50 percent at many locations throughout the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. The 

minority population percentage is highest (exceeding 75 percent) in census block groups within the 

Western Section of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and Fullerton and in the vicinity of 

the Cities of Corona and Colton. Within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor, the minority 

population percentage is highest in census block groups in the vicinity of the Cities of Indio and 

Coachella. 

The locations of EJ populations, as determined by the threshold criteria of greater than 50 percent 

minority, are shown on Figure 4-2. Because all four counties crossed by the Build Alternative

Options have minority populations greater than 50 percent, application of the second threshold 

criteria (minority population of the census block group greater than 10 percent higher than the 

general population in the corresponding county) did not yield inclusion of additional census block 

groups for designation of EJ populations. 

The percentage of the population in census block groups with incomes below poverty level (i.e., low

income) is shown on Figure 4-3. Figure 4-4 shows the location of EJ populations as determined by 

the threshold criteria for identifying low-income populations (i.e., greater than 50 percent of the 

population has income levels below poverty or the percentage of the population with incomes below 

poverty exceeds the percentage in the corresponding county by greater than 10 percent). Based on 

this criteria, low-income populations are located throughout the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

but are most notable in the Western Section between Los Angeles and Bell and between Corona 

and Loma Linda; and in Eastern Section in the vicinity of the Cities of Calimesa, Banning, Indio, and 

Coachella.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-7 

Figure 4-1. Percentage of Minority Population within Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area Census Block Groups 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-8 

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-9 

Figure 4-2. Environmental Justice Population within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area per Minority Threshold 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-10

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-11

Figure 4-3. Percentage of Low-Income Population within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area Census Block Groups 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-12

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-13

Figure 4-4. Environmental Justice Populations within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area per Income Threshold 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-14

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-15

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

Existing EJ population data and information within Build Alternative Option 2 is the same as Build 

Alternative Option 1. 

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track)

Existing EJ population data and information within Build Alternative Option 3 is the same as Build 

Alternative Option 1. 

4.5 Environmental Consequences

Overview 

It is anticipated that implementation of the Program would have an overall positive effect on the 

communities within the Program Corridor in terms of generating construction jobs, increasing the 

potential for new employment and housing opportunities around station areas, reducing congestion 

on highways, and improving regional air quality and connectivity.

Effects associated with implementation of the Program can be broadly classified into construction 

and operational effects. Long-term or permanent effects and short-term or temporary effects on EJ 

populations would be anticipated as a result of constructing any of the Build Alternative Options. 

Generally, impacts on EJ populations would occur during construction when land acquisitions, traffic 

detours, construction noise and vibration, and air quality impacts would adversely affect people living 

and working in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. 

Effects would also result from operation of any of the Build Alternative Options. Permanent changes 

to the roadway network, particularly in the vicinity of proposed stations, could have long-term effects 

on circulation and access near stations, while passenger rail operation could also cause localized 

increases in pollutant concentrations near stations and commuter parking lots, as traffic would be 

concentrated in those areas. Operation of the Build Alternative Options, including the proposed 

stations, has the potential to result in displacement and relocation of residences, businesses, and/or 

community facilities; disruptions to community cohesion; and community effects related to changes 

in the overall character of a community due to secondary effects related to, for example, traffic, noise 

and vibration, ambient air quality, or aesthetic changes. 

At the conceptual level, the Build Alternative Options are unlikely to result in disproportionately high 

and adverse effects on minority and low-income communities. As part of Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis, a more detailed and refined study will be completed to document the presence of 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-16

low-income and minority communities and then to evaluate if there would be disproportionately high 

and adverse site-specific effects on those communities.

Based on the analysis in this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, traffic, visual quality, air quality, noise and 

vibration, and socioeconomic effects were considered at the conceptual level to assess potential 

impacts on EJ communities. Impacts on these resources have the potential to disproportionately 

effect EJ communities depending on site-specific considerations and would be analyzed further in a 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, is used as the baseline 

for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the Program associated with this 

service-level evaluation and would not meet the Purpose and Need of the Program. Counties and 

cities in the Program Corridor would continue to grow, which would increase regional transportation 

demand; therefore, the No Build Alternative assumes completion of those reasonably foreseeable 

transportation, development, and infrastructure projects that are already in progress; are 

programmed; or are included in the fiscally constrained RTP. 

However, an increase in traffic and VMT is expected under the No Build Alternative because more 

cars would be on the roadways compared with what would occur with implementation of the 

Program. With an increase in rail service and increases in cars on the roadways, all populations, 

including minority and low-income populations, within the Program Corridor would not experience 

the regional access, mobility, and economic benefits provided through access to enhanced 

passenger rail services. 

Under the No Build Alternative, the enhanced passenger rail system would not be constructed or 

operated. Therefore, effects on and benefits experienced by EJ populations from construction and 

operation associated with implementation of the Program would not occur.

Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 

Environmental Justice Population Effects 

CONSTRUCTION

Western Section. No construction activities would be required to implement the Build Alternative 

Options within the Western Section of the Program Corridor because the existing railroad ROW and 

station areas from LAUS to Colton would be used to increase passenger rail service by two daily 

round-trip intercity passenger trains. Impacts on EJ communities are not anticipated from 

construction of the Build Alternative Options in the Western Section. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-17

Eastern Section. Construction activities required for rail infrastructure improvements (e.g., sidings, 

additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, and grade-separation structures) and station 

facilities would result in short-term increases traffic, air quality emissions, and noise levels in and 

around the construction site. Traffic, air quality emissions, and noise would be generated from the 

use of equipment to conduct vegetation clearing, grading, and excavation; transport of materials and 

waste; and construction vehicles entering and exiting the construction site. The traffic, air quality 

emissions, and noise that would be generated would vary depending on the length of the 

construction period, specific construction activity (e.g., grading, paving, and pile driving), types of 

equipment, and number of personnel, as follows: 

• Traffic. Potential construction effects on transportation include lane or road closures and 

traffic detours that may temporarily disrupt vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle, and transit 

circulation patterns near construction sites and cause vehicle delay during the construction 

period. Construction traffic-related delays would also result in increased response times for 

law enforcement, fire, and emergency services. 

• Visual quality. While the presence of construction materials, equipment, on-site workers, 

and vehicle detours during construction would result in visual changes to communities

adjacent to the railroad ROW, these activities would not permanently obstruct views of the 

landscape, change the visual character, or result in degradation of visual quality within the 

Eastern Section of the Program Corridor.

• Air quality. Emissions from construction equipment have the potential to cause elevated 

concentrations of air within or adjacent to the construction site. Design specifics and 

locations of the rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are not known at this 

time; the air quality emissions that would be generated and potential sensitive receptors that 

would be affected during specific construction activities cannot be quantified at the Tier 

1/Program-level. 

• Noise and vibration. Noise generated from construction activities under any of the Build 

Alternative Options may exceed FTA and local daytime and nighttime noise standards at 

nearby noise sensitive receptors, depending on the locations of specific rail infrastructure 

improvements and station facilities relative to the noise sensitive receptors. Design specifics 

and locations of the rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are not known at 

this time; the noise levels that would be generated and potential sensitive receptors that 

would be affected during specific construction activities cannot be quantified at the Tier 

1/Program-level. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-18

• Socioeconomics. Socioeconomic and community effects are expected to be both positive 

and negative. In terms of negative socioeconomic and community effects, land acquisition for 

the Build Alternative Options could result in property tax revenue losses for local jurisdictions 

if residential or business properties are removed from the property tax assessment roll. 

Community effects would include disruptions to local communities and may require 

displacements or relocations of residences and businesses. Construction of the rail 

infrastructure improvements and station facilities that would occur under any of the Build 

Alternative Options would result in several socioeconomic and community benefits, including 

the creation of direct, indirect, and induced jobs. 

Based on a conceptual-level analysis, disproportionately high and adverse effects on EJ 

communities as a result of construction of the Build Alternative Options in the Eastern Section are 

unlikely. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, visual quality effects on EJ populations would be 

negligible within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1. When 

compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have slightly reduced 

effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the magnitude of 

effects would be similar and considered negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative. 

When compared with Build Alternative Option 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly 

reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station 

options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be 

similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and negligible when compared with the No Build Alternative. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, traffic effects on EJ populations would be moderate 

within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1. When 

compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have slightly reduced 

effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the magnitude of 

effects would be similar and considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative.

When compared with Build Alternative Option 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may have slightly 

reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, reduced station 

options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of effects would be 

similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, air quality, noise, and socioeconomic effects on EJ 

populations would be substantial within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor under Build 

Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 

would have slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. 

However, the magnitude of effects would be similar and considered substantial when compared with 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-19

the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1 or 2, Build Alternative 

Option 3 may have reduced effects due to a slightly smaller footprint associated with a shorter route 

alignment, reduced station options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the 

magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and substantial when compared 

with the No Build Alternative. 

Although construction of the Build Alternative Options in the Eastern Section would result in potential

impacts on EJ communities, these impacts are not anticipated to be predominantly borne by a 

minority or low-income population, as all populations adjacent to construction areas would be 

exposed to the same level of effects. In addition, potential effects from the Build Alternative Options 

would be short term, occurring at a location only while construction work is in progress. Construction 

activities would comply with applicable local, state, and federal regulations, and BMPs would be 

implemented to minimize emissions and construction effects on all sensitive receptors, which include 

EJ populations within the area. Socioeconomic benefits would also be generated for all populations, 

including EJ populations in the form of expanded job and economic opportunities during construction 

activities.

OPERATION

Western Section. During operation, passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the Program

would consist of the addition of two daily, round-trip intercity diesel-powered passenger trains 

operating the entire length of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and Coachella.

Operational activities are anticipated to be limited to maintenance of culverts, bridges, 

embankments, and station areas. Operation of the Tier 1/Program within the Western Section would 

result in the following potential effects:

• Traffic. Implementation of the Program would not result in noticeable effects associated with 

rail operation traffic. During operation of the Program, local streets around each existing rail 

station would likely be affected due to additional auto traffic that could be generated by 

patrons accessing and departing from each station, which would affect access in and around 

the station. However, implementation of the Program is expected to reduce regional auto 

trips and VMT due to a shift from auto travel to rail travel. 

• Visual quality. Operation of the Build Alternative Options in the Western Section would not 

result in effects on existing visual resources, as the additional train trips would travel within 

an existing railroad ROW. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-20

• Air quality. The Program would be beneficial in reducing localized effects in some cases 

and have adverse effects in other cases. Operation of any of the Build Alternative Options 

would generally result in a long-term net benefit to air quality by reducing emissions of

criteria pollutants, air toxics, and GHG through a reduction in VMT and vehicle emissions. 

However, localized air quality emissions from Program operation would have the potential to 

expose nearby population to increased air quality pollutants. 

• Noise and vibration. When compared with existing ambient noise levels along the Western 

Section of the Program Corridor, operation of the enhanced passenger rail system under the 

Build Alternative Options is not anticipated to result in changes associated with operational 

noise from passenger rail trains or the continuation of operational activities at existing rail 

stations. 

• Socioeconomics. The additional passenger rail services that would occur under the Build 

Alternative Options within the Western Section of the Program Corridor would result in 

several socioeconomic and community benefits: the creation of direct, indirect, and induced 

jobs; permanent increases in sales tax revenues within the counties and cities where the 

Build Alternative Options would operate; and improved regional mobility and connectivity. 

Based on a conceptual-level analysis, disproportionately high and adverse effects on EJ 

communities as a result of operation of the Build Alternative Options in the Western Section are 

unlikely. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, visual quality, noise, and socioeconomic effects on EJ 

populations would be negligible within the Western Section of the Program Corridor under Build 

Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 

2 and 3 would have the same magnitude of effect and be considered negligible when compared with 

the No Build Alternative. Socioeconomic benefits would also be generated for all populations, 

including EJ populations in the form of expanded job and economic opportunities and improved 

regional accessibility and mobility.

When compared with the No Build Alternative, traffic effects on EJ populations would be moderate 

within the Western Section of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Option 1. When 

compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have the same 

magnitude of effect and be considered moderate when compared with the No Build Alternative. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, air quality effects on EJ populations would be 

substantial within the Western Section of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative Option 

1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have the 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-21

same magnitude of effect and be considered substantial when compared with the No Build 

Alternative. 

Although operation of the Build Alternative Options would result in potential effects on EJ 

communities, these impacts are not anticipated to be predominantly borne by EJ populations. In 

addition, the Build Alternative Options would benefit EJ communities within the Program Corridor by 

reducing traffic and VMTs due to the anticipated shift from auto travel to rail travel. 

Eastern Section. During operation, passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the Program

would consist of the addition of two daily, round-trip intercity diesel-powered passenger trains 

operating the entire length of the Program Corridor between Los Angeles and Coachella.

Operational activities are anticipated to be limited to maintenance of culverts, bridges, 

embankments, and station areas. Operation of the Tier 1/Program within the Eastern Section would 

result in the following potential effects:

• Traffic. Implementation of the Program would not result in noticeable effects associated with 

rail operation traffic. During operation of the Program, local streets around proposed rail 

stations would likely be affected due to additional auto traffic that could be generated by 

patrons accessing and departing from each station, which would affect access in and around 

the station. It is possible that the addition of auto trips to the existing roadway network could 

result in effects on local roadways that would require mitigation. While operation of the 

Program within the Eastern Section would add auto trips to local street network, the Build 

Alternative Options are anticipated to shift auto trips to intercity rail passenger trips, thereby 

reducing vehicle trips and VMT on the regional highways.

• Visual quality. Permanent visual changes (physical elements) that could result from 

implementation of the Program would include the presence of new railroad track, bridges, 

grade crossing, train stations, parking facilities, noise walls, open cuts, cut-and-fill areas, 

retaining walls, removed vegetation, and night lighting. Because rail infrastructure 

improvements would be located along the existing railroad ROW, the rail infrastructure 

improvements would generally not represent a change in visual character from existing 

conditions. However, effects would occur if the improvements would remove structures or 

landscaping or introduce visual elements that are out-of-scale or otherwise visually 

incompatible with the existing visual character. This would most likely occur if substantial 

ROW widening was necessary at grade separations or stations and associated parking 

areas. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-22

• Air quality. Operation of the Program within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor 

would increase passenger train trips and associated locomotive emissions. Passenger rail 

operation would also cause localized increases in air quality pollutant concentrations near 

stations and commuter parking lots, as additional traffic would be added in those areas. 

However, operation of the Program is anticipated to contribute to the region’s long-term 

attainment of air quality goals by reducing VMT, which, in turn, would reduce air quality 

emissions. 

• Noise and vibration. Operation of the enhanced passenger rail system within the Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor under the Build Alternative Options is not be anticipated to 

result in changes associated with operational noise from passenger rail trains. However, it is 

currently unknown if operation of the enhanced passenger rail system would require rail 

infrastructure improvements that would change the existing noise environment (e.g., the 

provision of grade separations, bridges, or sidings). In addition, operation of new rail station 

facilities would also result in new sources of mobile (e.g., vehicles accessing the station) and 

stationary noise (e.g., building heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems and truck 

deliveries [if there are commercial uses included as part of the station facility]), which may 

result in exceedances of FTA or local standards on adjacent sensitive noise receptors. 

Design specifics and locations of the rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities 

are not known at this time; therefore, the operational noise that would be generated and 

potential sensitive receptors that would be affected during operational activities cannot be 

quantified at the Tier 1/Program-level evaluation.

• Socioeconomics. Socioeconomic and community effects are expected to be both negative

and positive. In terms of negative socioeconomic and community effects, land acquisition for 

the Build Alternative Options could result in property tax revenue losses for local jurisdictions 

if residential or business properties are removed from the property tax assessment roll. 

Community effects would include disruptions to local communities and may require 

displacements or relocations of residences and businesses. However, the additional 

passenger rail services that would occur under any of the Build Alternative Options within the 

Eastern Section of the Program Corridor would result in several socioeconomic and 

community benefits: the creation of direct, indirect, and induced jobs; permanent increases in 

sales tax revenues within the counties and cities where the Build Alternative Options would 

operate; and improved regional mobility and connectivity. In addition, new station facilities 

could encourage redevelopment in the surrounding area and the potential for transit-oriented 

development. These additional developments would provide additional employment 

opportunities and new housing opportunities to address the projected employment and 

population growth within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-23

Based on a conceptual-level analysis, disproportionately high and adverse effects on EJ 

communities as a result of operation of the Build Alternative Options in the Eastern Section are 

unlikely. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, visual quality and noise effects on EJ populations 

would be moderate within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor under Build Alternative 

Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 2 would have 

slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the 

magnitude of effects would be similar and considered moderate when compared with the No Build 

Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1 or 2, Build Alternative Option 3 may 

have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route alignment, 

reduced station options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the magnitude of 

effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and moderate when compared with the No 

Build Alternative. 

When compared with the No Build Alternative, traffic, air quality, and socioeconomic effects on EJ 

populations would be substantial within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor under Build 

Alternative Option 1. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Option 

2 would have slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. 

However, the magnitude of effects would be similar and considered substantial when compared with 

the No Build Alternative. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1 or 2, Build Alternative 

Option 3 may have slightly reduced effects due to a smaller footprint associated with a shorter route 

alignment, reduced station options, and reduced third track rail infrastructure. However, the 

magnitude of effects would be similar for Build Alternative Option 3 and considered substantial when 

compared with the No Build Alternative. 

Although operation of the Build Alternative Options in the Eastern Section would result in potential 

impacts on EJ communities, these impacts are not anticipated to be predominantly borne by EJ 

populations. In addition, the Build Alternative Options would benefit EJ populations within the 

Program Corridor in the form of expanded job and economic opportunities and improved regional 

accessibility and mobility.

4.6 Outreach to Environmental Justice Communities

As summarized in Chapter 7, Public and Agency Outreach, public outreach was initiated and 

conducted during the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process and would continue in a Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis. Opportunities for public involvement have been made available throughout the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR environmental process. Additional opportunities for public involved would be 

available during a Tier 2/Project-level environmental review process to ensure EJ populations have 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-24

access to information on Tier 2/Project efforts and an opportunity to provide input about 

community-based concerns. 

As part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR environmental process, steps were taken by FRA, RCTC, and 

Caltrans to provide meaningful access to those limited English proficiency individuals expected to be 

most regularly encountered by providing, as necessary, translation services at public meetings and 

meeting notifications and materials advertised in English and Spanish. Three public scoping 

meetings were held at three locations (Indio, Riverside, and Los Angeles) during the NOI/NOP 

comment period to educate the public on the purposed and need for the Program, share the history 

of the Program, outline the Program benefits, highlight the Program elements, explain next steps, 

and gather public comments per the requirements of CEQA and NEPA. To ensure that the 

multilingual needs of the community were met, the Program fact sheet was available in Spanish. In 

addition, team staff members were available to interpret the presentation in Spanish. Program fact 

sheets and comment cards were provided as handouts at the public scoping meetings. 

During the circulation of the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, the Notice of Availability (NOA) will be 

distributed and posted on local, state, and federal websites, through various email lists, and 

published in multiple English and Spanish newspapers within the Program Corridor. The public will 

be invited to review the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR and provide feedback and comments that 

would be taken into consideration as part of the Final Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process. 

Additionally, a community profile discussing cohesion and community facilities, including additional 

focus on the communities with stations, would be developed during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

A demographic analysis at a smaller geography with Tier 2/Project-level analysis will also need to be 

conducted to better understand which populations would be affected and which populations would 

benefit from construction and operation. The demographic analysis would also focus on EJ 

populations to help determine if these populations would be adversely affected by construction and 

operation. The EJ analysis would review all elements of the environment to determine if there would 

be adverse effects resulting in disproportionate effects on minority or low-income populations and 

review the mitigation and potential community benefits and enhancements associated with the 

Program. 

4.7 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies

Based on the conceptual-level analysis conducted for this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, 

disproportionately high and adverse effects on low-income or minority populations from the 

implementation of the Build Alternative Options are not anticipated in the Western Section. 

Therefore, no mitigation is anticipated at this time. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-25

Implementation of the Build Alternative Options would likely result in impacts on EJ communities 

within the Eastern Section of the Program Corridor; however, there is insufficient detail at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR to conclude whether the Build Alternative Options would result in 

disproportionately high and adverse effects on EJ populations. 

In a Tier 2/Project-level analysis, site-specific detail (e.g., location and footprint of stations) will be 

known. Mitigation measures to avoid impacts on EJ populations will be developed and considered to 

the extent feasible. Impacts that cannot be avoided will be addressed through mitigation measures 

developed in the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. A Tier 2/Project-level analysis may also identify 

additional populations, impacts, and considerations that are relevant to the consideration of effects in 

the Western and Eastern Sections of the Build Alternative Options. 

Avoiding or minimizing the community-related effects would involve working closely with local 

governments and planning agencies in the refinement and development of specific projects during 

the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. Since EO 12898 requires federal agencies to ensure effective 

public participation and access to information, a more detailed and comprehensive outreach effort to 

potentially affected minority and/or low-income populations would need to be completed and 

documented at the Tier 2/Project-level. This detailed and comprehensive outreach effort to 

potentially affected minority or low-income populations would help identify issues of importance that 

may not otherwise be apparent. 

Specific EJ outreach efforts that could take place as part of the Tier 2/Project-level environmental 

review process include provision of meeting notices to EJ interest groups, targeted noticing and 

translation services in communities with high levels of limited English proficiency, and targeted 

noticing at community facilities or through community organizations that serve low-income and 

minority populations. This outreach effort would identify potentially disproportionate effects on 

minority and low-income populations and develop ways to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the effects at 

a Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

The Tier 2/Project-level analysis will also consider beneficial impacts on EJ populations, building on 

the benefits identified in this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. These include the creation of direct, indirect, 

and induced jobs; permanent increases in sales tax revenues within the counties and cities where 

the Build Alternative Options would operate; and improved regional mobility and connectivity for all 

populations, including EJ populations.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

4 Environmental Justice

May 2021 | 4-26

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-1 

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

5.1 Introduction 

This chapter discusses potential uses of Section 4(f) properties, and potential impacts on Section 

6(f) properties. Section 4(f) refers to Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966, as amended (49 USC 

Section 303), and Section 6(f) applies to parkland and recreation facilities that have used funds 

authorized under Section 6(f) of the LWCF Act. This section summarizes Section 4(f) and Section 

6(f) considerations at a conceptual level appropriate for this Tier 1/Program analysis. 

A Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR does not have the level of detail available that is necessary to make final 

approvals on uses of protected Section 4(f) or 6(f) resources. No preliminary Section 4(f) 

determination is being made at this time. Instead, any necessary Section 4(f) evaluations and 

approvals would be completed during the Tier 2/Project-level analysis. Although a Section 4(f) 

approval is not required for this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, potential impacts on Section 4(f) and 

Section 6(f) properties have been identified and assessed to inform the decisions made at the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR level and to identify Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) resources that would be subject 

to further discussion in subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

5.2 Regulatory Framework 

In accordance with NEPA (42 USC Section 4321 et seq.), CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR Parts 1501-1508); FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 

28545, May 26, 1999); and CEQA, FRA identified potential Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) resources 

within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area and analyzed the potential impacts on those 

resources as a result of implementing the Build Alternative Options at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

level. 

5.2.1 Federal

Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act of 1966 

Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 (49 USC Section 303) is intended to protect public parks, 

recreation areas, wildlife/waterfowl refuges, and historic sites of national, state, or local significance 

from being used for transportation projects. Protected properties must be of national, state, or local 

significance, as determined by the federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the

resource. A use occurs when land is permanently incorporated into a transportation facility; when 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-2 

temporary occupancy (e.g., during construction) compromises the land in terms of the statute's 

preservation purpose; or when the proximity impacts of the project are so severe that they 

substantially impair the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify the property for Section 

4(f) protection. 

Specifically, Section 4(f) states that the Secretary of Transportation may approve the use of publicly 

owned land or a publicly owned park, recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge of national, state, 

or local significance, or land of a historic site of national, state, or local significance, only if a 

determination is made that:

a. There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use of the land from the property; 

b. The action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the property resulting from 

such use; or, 

c. The use of Section 4(f) property would have a de minimis impact on the property.

A de minimis impact for historic sites means that, as determined in accordance with 36 CFR Part 

800, no historic property is affected by the project or the project would have no adverse effect on the 

historic property in question. For parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, a de 

minimis impact is one that would not adversely affect the features, attributes, or activities qualifying 

the property for protection under Section 4(f).

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965 

Section 6(f) lands are defined as parkland or recreation land that was acquired or developed with 

funding authorized under Section 6(f) of the LWCF Act of 1965 (Public Law 88-578). The purpose of 

the LWCF is to assist with preserving, developing, and providing accessibility to outdoor recreation 

resources and strengthen the health and vitality of the citizens of the U.S. by funding, planning, 

acquiring, and developing facilities. Recreational facilities awarded such funds are subject to the 

provisions of the act. The LWCF’s most important tool for supporting long-term stewardship is its 

conversion protection requirement. Section 6(f)(3) strongly discourages conversions of state and 

local park and recreation facilities to other uses. 

Section 6(f)(3) of the LWCF Act states that no property acquired or developed with LWCF assistance 

would be converted to uses other than public outdoor recreation uses without the approval of the 

Secretary of the Interior, and only if the secretary finds it to be in accord with the statewide 

comprehensive outdoor recreation plan, and only upon such conditions as the secretary deems 

necessary to ensure the substitution of other recreation properties of at least equal fair market value 

and of reasonably equivalent usefulness and location (36 CFR Part 59).
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-3 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966

Section 106 of the NHPA is an independent statute from Section 4(f); however, historic properties 

identified through the Section 106 consultation may be eligible for protection under Section 4(f). The 

Section 106 process is the method by which a historic property’s significance is determined through 

consultation with the SHPO and other consulting parties. Section 106 also requires consideration of 

a project’s effects on historic properties. 

5.3 Methodology 

This conceptual-level discussion was prepared using a desktop review of the data sources. The Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area was combined with GIS overlays to identify Section 4(f)/6(f) 

properties that could be affected by the Program. These potential resources were identified on a 

broad scale, using available mapping information. A detailed description of the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Study Area is provided in Section 3.1, Introduction to Environmental Analysis, of this Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. 

5.3.1 Data Sources

This Section 4(f) and 6(f) resource assessment is based on information from the California Protected 

Areas Database (2017), a California Historical Resources Information System search, and ESRI GIS 

data. Given that no construction would occur within the Western Section, historic site data was not 

obtained for the Western Section. Site boundaries for historic architectural/built environment 

resources in the Eastern Section that are eligible for listing on the NRHP or local designation are not 

available in GIS; acreage for those site types would be calculated during the Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis. Listed, eligible, or potentially eligible NRHP historic properties for the Program Corridor are

based on a preliminary survey of existing cultural documentation, as described in Section 3.13, 

Cultural Resources, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. During future Tier 2/Project-level analysis, 

additional properties may be identified and considered in a subsequent Section 106 consultation and 

Section 4(f) evaluation. Information from the following related sources, identified in Table 5-1, was 

also used. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-4 

Table 5-1. Related Resource Inputs for Section 4(f)/6(f) Resource Assessment

Resource Input for Section 4(f) Resource Assessment

Land Use and Planning

(Section 3.2)

Land uses for areas where a conversion may occur were reviewed.

Noise and Vibration

(Section 3.6)

Areas where noise and vibration thresholds may be exceeded that could cause a 

potential constructive Section 4(f) use were reviewed. 

Cultural Resources

(Section 3.13)

Cultural resources assessment for NRHP-eligible historic properties that could be 

Section 4(f) resources were reviewed.

a

Parklands and Community 

Services 

(Section 3.14)

Parklands that could be Section 4(f)/6(f) resources were reviewed.

Notes:

a This discussion does not include a Section 4(f) analysis of archaeological resources; however, an evaluation of 

archeological resources would be conducted at the Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

NRHP=National Register of Historic Places

5.4 Affected Environment 

5.4.1 Section 4(f)/6(f) Properties 

Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966 protects parks, recreation areas, and refuges that meet the

criteria summarized in Table 5-2. 

Table 5-2. Section 4(f) Criteria

Criteria Criteria Summary

Publicly owned Public ownership, in relation to protected parks, recreation areas, and refuges, refers to 

ownership by a local, state, or federal government agency. There are three types of public 

ownership:

• Fee simple ownership: The land is solely owned by a government entity for park, 

recreation, or refuge purposes.

• Permanent easement for Section 4(f) purposes: The land is not necessarily 

owned by a government agency; however, the agency possesses an easement for 

Section 4(f) activities. 

• Lease agreement for Section 4(f) purposes: Similar to a public easement but with 

a lease agreement typically intended to be long term. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-5 

Criteria Criteria Summary

Open to the public A property that is open to the public is one where access is permitted to the entire public 

during normal hours of operation. A property would not be considered open to the public if 

access was permitted only to select groups. Wildlife and waterfowl refuges are an exception 

to this rule, as they may restrict public access either to sensitive areas or during certain 

times of the year for the protection of refuge habitat and/or species. Therefore, a publicly 

owned refuge would not have to provide unrestricted access to the public to be considered 

a Section 4(f) property.

Purposed primarily 

for park, recreation, 

or refuge activities

The major purpose is related to the property’s primary function and how it is intended to be 

managed. Parks and recreation areas typically offer a wide range of activities, such as 

walking, hiking, or camping, as well as organized sports like soccer, softball, or tennis. 

Parks can also be fairly passive in nature and may be designated open space without a 

specified recreational purpose. Refuges refer to properties that are formally part of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System or other publicly owned land (including waters), where the 

major purpose of such land is the conservation, restoration, or management of endangered 

species, their habitat, and other wildlife and waterfowl resources and their habitat.

Parks, recreation 

areas, and refuges 

must be significant

The term “significant” means that in comparing the availability and function of the park, 

recreation area, or refuge with the park, recreation, or refuge objectives of the agency, 

community, or authority, the property in question plays an important role in meeting those 

objectives at the national, state, or local level, except for certain multiple-use land holdings. 

Significance determinations are applicable to the entire property, not just to the portion of 

the property proposed for use by a project. A determination of significance is made in 

coordination with the official with jurisdiction, which is most commonly the agency that owns 

the property. Properties would be presumed significant in the absence of a determination by 

the official with jurisdiction. All determinations of significance are ultimately made by the 

federal lead agency. 

Potential Section 4(f) properties within the Program Corridor (including parks, recreation areas, 

wildlife or waterfowl refuges, and historic sites) and Section 6(f) parks funded through LWCF grants 

are listed in Table 5-3 and depicted on Figure 5-1. 

Table 5-3. Potential Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) Properties within the Program Corridor

Resource Type Western Section Eastern Section

State or regional park • Yorba Regional Parkb

• Featherly Regional Park

• Chino Hills State Park

• None
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-6 

Resource Type Western Section Eastern Section

Local park or traila • Los Angeles River

• San Gabriel River and Bike Trail

• John Zimmerman Park 

• Neff Parkb

• Pacific Drive Park

• Adlena Parkb

• Pooch Park

• Independence Park

• Amerige Park

• Plaza Park

• Lemon Park

• Truslow Park

• Chapman Park

• Santa Fe Park

• Parque de Los Ninosb

• Woodgate Park

• Santa Ana River Trail

• East Side Community Parkb

• Vista Lampara Park

• Las Brisas Park

• Brush Canyon Park

• Fresno Canyon

• Butterfield Park

• Contreras Park

• City Park

• Don Derr Park

• Villegas Parka

• Shamel Park

• Colony Park

• Elmer Digneo Park

• Baseball Field Park

• Lillian V. Miller Memorial Trail

• Bryn Mawr Veterans Memorial 

Park 

• Leonard Bailey Park

• San Timoteo Canyon Park

• Pacific Crest Trail

• Shadow Hill Community Park 

• Rangel Park

• Veterans Park

• Carpenter Hamilton Park

• Freedom Park

• Yucca Park

• Miles Avenue Park

• Doug York Plaza

• South Jackson Park and Davis 

Sports Complex

• Veterans Park

• Dateland Park
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-7 

Resource Type Western Section Eastern Section

• Lincoln Park

• North Park

• Hunter Park

• North Street Mini Park West

• North Street Mini Park East

School recreation facilities • Pioneer High School

• Los Nietos Middle School

• None

National monument • El Pueblo de Los Angeles 

Historic Monument

• Santa Rosa San Jacinto 

Mountains National Monument

Wildlife refuge • None • Whitewater Floodplain Reserve

• Coachella Valley National 

Wildlife Refuge

Historic sitesc • 6 NRHP-listed propertiesd • 1 NRHP-listed property

• 36–41 potentially NRHP-eligible 

properties 

Notes:

a This does not include planned parks. 

b This park was developed with LWCF assistance. 

c Listed, eligible, or potentially eligible NRHP historic properties for the Program Corridor are based on a preliminary 

survey of existing cultural documentation for the Eastern Section. During future Tier 2/Project-level analysis, 

additional properties may be identified and considered in a subsequent Section 106 consultation and Section 4(f) 

evaluation.

d Historic site data was not obtained for the Western Section per discussion in Section 5.3. 

LWCF=Land and Water Conservation Fund; NRHP=National Register of Historic Places

Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

The total number of acres of potential Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) properties within Build Alternative 

Option 1 is presented by resource type in Table 5-4. Please refer to Section 3.13, Cultural 

Resources, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for additional information on cultural resources present 

within the Program Corridor and Section 3.14, Parklands and Community Services, of this Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR for additional information on parks present within the Program Corridor. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-8 

Table 5-4. Section 4(f)/6(f) Properties by Type (Build Alternative Option 1)

Property Type

Western 

Section 

(acres)

Western 

Section 

(Total number 

of properties)

Eastern 

Section 

(acres)

Eastern 

Section 

(Total number 

of properties)

State or regional park 449.4 3 — —

Local park or trail 205.3 33 285.7 19

School recreation facilitiesa 21.9 2 — 0

National monument 1.4 1 442.7 1

Wildlife refuge — — 232.7 2

Historic sitesb Undetermined 6 NRHP listed 

properties

Undetermined 1 NRHP listed 

property; 41 

potentially 

eligible NRHP 

properties

LWCF grantsc 116.7 6 52.4 6

Notes:

a This includes public schools with recreation facilities evident through aerial imagery.

b Historic site data was not obtained for the Western Section, per discussion in Section 5.3. 

c Acreage for recreation areas funded through LWCF grants is also included under state or regional park, as well as 

local park or trail. 

LWCF=Land and Water Conservation Fund; NRHP=National Register of Historic Places
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-9 

Figure 5-1. Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 1 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-10

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-11

Figure 5-1. Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 2 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-12

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-13

Figure 5-1 Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 3 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-14

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-15

Figure 5-1. Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 4 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-16

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-17

Figure 5-1. Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 5 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-18

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-19

Figure 5-1. Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area

(Page 6 of 6) 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-20

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-21

Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

The total number of acres of potential Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) properties within Build Alternative 

Option 2 is presented by resource type in Table 5-5. Please refer to Section 3.13, Cultural 

Resources, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for additional information on cultural resources present 

within the Program Corridor and Section 3.14, Parklands and Community Services, of this Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR for additional information on parks present within the Program Corridor. 

Table 5-5. Section 4(f)/6(f) Properties by Type (Build Alternative Options 2 and 3) 

Property Type

Western 

Section 

(acres)

Western 

Section 

(Total number 

of properties)

Eastern 

Section 

(acres)

Eastern 

Section 

(Total number 

of properties)

State or regional park 449.4 3 — —

Local park or trail 205.3 33 280.2 18

School recreation facilitiesa 21.9 2 — 0

National monument 1.4 1 442.7 1

Wildlife refuge — — 232.7 2

Historic sitesb Undetermined 6 NRHP listed 

properties

Undetermined 1 NRHP listed 

property; 41 

potentially 

eligible NRHP 

properties

LWCF grantsc 116.7 6 50.9 5

Notes:

a This includes public schools with recreation facilities evident through aerial imagery.

b Historic site data was not obtained for the Western Section per discussion in Section 5.3. 

c Acreage for recreation areas funded through LWCF grants is also included under state or regional park, as well as 

local park or trail. 

LWCF=Land and Water Conservation Fund; NRHP=National Register of Historic Places

Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track)

Existing information for Section 4(f)/6(f) properties within Build Alternative Option 3 are the same as 

Build Alternative Option 2. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-22

5.5 Potential Impacts on Section 4(f)/6(f) Resources 

5.5.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative, as described in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, of this Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR, is used as the baseline for comparison. The No Build Alternative would not implement the 

Program associated with this service-level evaluation and would not meet the Purpose and Need of 

the Program. Several existing and committed transportation improvement projects would still occur 

in the Program Corridor under the No Build Alternative. However, because no physical changes 

associated with the Program would occur within the Program Corridor, no use of Section 4(f) or 6(f) 

properties are anticipated under the No Build Alternative. 

5.5.2 Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 

The use of a protected Section 4(f) property, as defined in 23 CFR Part 774.17, occurs when any of 

the conditions, discussed in Table 5-6, are met. 

Table 5-6. Use of Section 4(f) Resource Summary 

Use Type Use Summary

Permanent/ direct use A permanent use of a Section 4(f) property occurs when the property is permanently 

incorporated into a proposed transportation facility. This use may occur as a result of 

partial or full acquisition or a permanent easement allowing permanent access onto the

property for maintenance or other transportation-related purposes.

Constructive use A constructive use of a Section 4(f) property occurs when a transportation project does 

not permanently incorporate land from the resource; however, the project’s proximity

results in impacts so severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that 

qualify the property for protection under Section 4(f) are substantially impaired. 

Substantial impairment occurs only if the protected activities, features, or attributes of 

the resource are substantially diminished.

Temporary occupancy A temporary use of a Section 4(f) property results when the Section 4(f) property is 

required for project construction-related activities, the property is not permanently 

incorporated into a transportation facility, and the activity is considered adverse by the 

agency with jurisdiction in terms of the preservation purpose of Section 4(f).

A conversion of a Section 6(f)-protected property occurs when the property is converted to anything 

other than outdoor recreation. A conversion of use must be in accordance with an existing statewide 

outdoor recreation plan and must be approved by the U.S. Department of the Interior. If a conversion 

occurs, the land must be replaced with a property of equivalent value and usefulness. The only type 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-23

of use recognized by Section 6(f) is a permanent incorporation. Constructive use or adverse impacts 

are not considered under Section 6(f), and temporary occupancy during construction is not 

considered a conversion if the property is restored to its original condition after construction. 

Typically, an incorporation of Section 6(f) property for project purposes would be considered a 

conversion or change in use; however, if the incorporation is necessary as part of a project that 

would directly enhance the recreational use of the Section 6(f) property, such as improving access 

for visitors or emergency personnel, then the incorporation of land may not require a conversion 

because the incorporation would not change or diminish the recreational use of the Section 6(f) 

property.

Construction

Western Section. The Build Alternative Options would not require construction of additional rail or 

station infrastructure in the Western Section because the existing railroad infrastructure and stations 

from LAUS to Colton would be used. Therefore, no potential use of Section 4(f)/6(f) properties is 

anticipated. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects related to Section 4(f) property 

use and Section 6(f) conversion would be negligible because no additional construction activities are 

planned within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3. 

Eastern Section. As summarized in Table 5-4, there are at least 64 Section 4(f) properties within the 

Eastern Section of Build Alternative Option 1, including 19 parks or recreational properties and 

42 historic resources. Of these 64 Section 4(f) properties within Build Alternative Option 1, 

6 properties are also considered Section 6(f) properties. As summarized in Table 5-5, there are at 

least 62 Section 4(f) properties within Build Alternative Option 2 and Build Alternative Option 

3, including 17 parks or recreational properties and 42 historic resources. Of these 62 Section 4(f) 

properties within Build Alternative Option 2 and Build Alternative Option 3, 5 properties are also 

considered Section 6(f) properties.

Use of Section 4(f) properties and conversion of Section 6(f) properties would vary depending on the 

future rail infrastructure improvements or station locations within the Eastern Section of the selected 

Build Alternative Option. Construction activities that have the potential to affect parks, recreation 

areas, wildlife or waterfowl refuges, and historic sites includes the construction of rail infrastructure 

improvements and station facilities within the Eastern Section under Build Alternative Options 

1, 2, and 3. Potential ROW acquisitions for rail infrastructure improvements (such as sidings, 

additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, and grade-separation structures) and station 

facilities to accommodate the enhanced passenger rail service may be required. This would result in 

the incorporation of land into a transportation use. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

5 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Discussion

May 2021 | 5-24

Locations where new station facilities would be constructed would avoid the use of Section 4(f) 

properties or conversion of Section 6(f) properties, to the extent feasible. However, if Section 4(f)/6(f)

properties cannot be avoided, impacts on Section 4(f)/6(f) properties would be minimized and 

mitigated through measures developed during Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 

Operation

Western Section. During operation, passenger train frequencies proposed within the Western 

Section of the Program Corridor would consist of the addition of two daily, round-trip intercity 

diesel-powered passenger trains. Operational activities are anticipated to be limited to maintenance 

of culverts, bridges, embankments, and station areas. Therefore, no potential use of Section 4(f) 

properties or conversion of Section 6(f) properties is anticipated. When compared with the No Build 

Alternative, effects related to Section 4(f) property use and Section 6(f) conversion would be 

negligible because the type of operational activities are anticipated to remain as existing conditions 

within the Western Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Eastern Section. Operational activities within the Eastern Section could result in permanent access 

restrictions, visual effects, or noise and vibration effects on Section 4(f)/6(f) properties that are in the 

proximity of the Build Alternative Options. Potential site-specific mitigation measures would be 

identified during Tier 2/Project-level analysis and would be implemented when avoidance and 

minimization of impacts are not prudent or feasible. 

5.6 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies 

If a Section 4(f) evaluation is required to approve the implementation of the Build Alternative 

Options, alternatives that completely avoid Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) resources would be 

developed and evaluated prior to approval. To the extent that resources cannot be avoided, 

measures to minimize and mitigate impacts would be considered and implemented based on 

site-specific information available in a Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

6 Other Statutory Considerations

May 2021 | 6-1 

6 Other Statutory Considerations

This chapter provides discussion of other statutory requirements under NEPA, CEQA, and FRA’s 

Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. These topics include a discussion of 

growth-inducing impacts, a summary comparison of the Build Alternative Options, and significant 

and unavoidable effects. Per the requirements of NEPA, this chapter includes a discussion of the 

relationship between short-term use of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of 

long-term productivity. As required by CEQA, this chapter also includes a discussion of potentially 

growth-inducing impacts, significant unavoidable environmental changes, and impacts that are 

expected to be less than significant.

6.1 Growth-Inducing Impacts

In accordance with Section 15126.2(d) of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR must: 

Discuss the ways in which the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the 

construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment. 

Included in this are projects which would remove obstacles to population growth... Increases in 

the population may tax existing community service facilities, requiring construction of new facilities 

that could cause significant environmental effects. Also discuss the characteristics of some 

projects which may encourage and facilitate other activities that could significantly affect the 

environment, either individually or cumulatively. It must not be assumed that growth in any area is 

necessarily beneficial, detrimental, or of little significance to the environment.

Additionally, CEQ regulations, which establish the steps necessary to comply with NEPA, require 

evaluation of the potential environmental consequences of all proposed federal activities and 

programs. This provision includes a requirement to examine indirect consequences, which may 

occur in areas beyond the immediate influence of a proposed action and at some time in the future. 

CEQ regulations, 40 CFR Part 1508.8, refer to these consequences as secondary impacts. 

Secondary impacts may include changes in land use, economic vitality, and population density, 

which are all elements of growth.

Substantial growth impacts could be manifested through the provision of infrastructure or service 

capacity to accommodate growth beyond the levels currently permitted by local or regional plans and 

policies. In general, growth induced by a project is considered a significant impact if it directly or 

indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services or if it can be 

demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in some other way.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

6 Other Statutory Considerations

May 2021 | 6-2 

The four-county region of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties (which the 

Program Corridor crosses) grew by more than 7.4 million people between 1970 and 2010. In 

2010, the region was home to approximately 46 percent of the population in the State of California. 

Los Angeles County has the largest population in the four-county region, followed by Orange 

County. Growth patterns between 1970 and 2010 showed that Riverside County and San 

Bernardino County grew at an average annual rate of 4.0 percent and 2.8 percent, respectively, 

while Los Angeles County and Orange County grew annually by 0.8 percent and 1.9 percent, 

respectively. 

Population projections prepared by the California Department of Finance forecast that the population 

within the four-county region will continue to grow between 2018 and 2050; however, the annual 

growth rate is anticipated to slow to 0.5 percent annually for the region as a whole. There are higher 

annual growth rates forecast for San Bernardino County (1.0 percent) and Riverside County 

(1.1 percent) compared with Los Angeles County (0.3 percent) and Orange County (0.4 percent)

(California Department of Finance 2018). 

Despite a forecast slowdown in growth rates, the four-county region is still projected to grow 

approximately 17 percent overall between 2018 and 2050, for a total population of approximately 

21.3 million people in 2050. By then, the four-county region will account for approximately 43 percent 

of the state population. These growth forecasts suggest that the Program Corridor between Los 

Angeles and San Bernardino Counties would support a substantial portion of the state’s population 

in 2050. 

6.1.1 Western Section

Growth in the Western Section of the Program Corridor is expected with or without the Build 

Alternative Options. Two additional round-trip daily trains would serve existing stations at LAUS, 

Fullerton, and Riverside in the Western Section. No new stations or improvements to existing 

stations would be required to accommodate the proposed service. The Build Alternative Options are

not expected to induce additional growth in the Western Section.

6.1.2 Eastern Section

San Bernardino and Riverside Counties have experienced population, housing, and employment 

growth over the past several decades. As discussed in Section 3.2, Land Use and Planning, of this 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, there is a planned 18 percent increase in residential uses in the Eastern 

Section of the Program Corridor. Between 2010 and 2035, population and housing in Riverside 

County are each anticipated to increase by approximately 63 percent; however, employment is 

expected to grow faster than housing (County of Riverside 2003). Similarly, San Bernardino County 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

6 Other Statutory Considerations

May 2021 | 6-3 

is expecting an increase in population of 630,000 people, an increase of more than 230,000 homes, 

and 316,000 additional jobs by 2040 (County of San Bernardino 2014). 

Because Riverside County and San Bernardino County supply a portion of the labor pool for the Los 

Angeles-Orange County metropolitan area, daily round-trip service and new station areas may 

induce additional housing growth in the new station catchment areas. Build Alternative Option 

1 proposes up to five new potential stations within Loma Linda/Redlands, the Pass Area, the 

Mid-Valley area, and the Cities of Indio and Coachella. Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 propose up 

to four new potential stations within the Loma Linda/Redlands Area, the Pass Area, the Mid-Valley, 

and the City of Indio. New stations could also introduce employment opportunities in station areas 

and catalyze investment in transit-oriented development, including additional housing and business. 

6.2 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of 

Resources 

CEQA requires that irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources be addressed for certain 

categories of projects, including “[t]he adoption, amendment, or enactment of a plan, policy, or 

ordinance of a public agency” and any project also subject to NEPA (CEQA Guidelines CCR 

Sections 15127[a] and 15127[c]). NEPA requires that an environmental analysis include 

identification of “...any irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources which would be 

involved in the proposed action should it be implemented” (Section 102 [42 USC Section 4332(c)]). 

Irreversible and irretrievable resource commitments are related to the use of non-renewable 

resources and the effects that this use could have on future generations. Commitments of resources 

could be current, as well as future, with the latter potentially associated with the secondary effect of 

growth-inducing impacts. Irreversible effects result primarily from the use or destruction of a specific 

resource (e.g., energy and minerals) that cannot be replaced within a reasonable time frame. 

Irretrievable resource commitments involve the loss in value of an affected resource that cannot be 

restored as a result of the action (e.g., extinction of a threatened or endangered species or the 

disturbance of a cultural resource). 

Resources such as timber used for the construction of the potential stations and tracks are generally 

considered renewable and would ultimately be replenished. Human resources are also considered a 

renewable resource. Non-renewable resources such as petrochemical construction materials, steel, 

copper, lead and other metals, gravel, concrete, and other materials are typically considered finite 

and would not be replenished over the lifetime of the Program. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

6 Other Statutory Considerations

May 2021 | 6-4 

The construction and implementation of the Build Alternative Options would entail the irreversible 

and irretrievable commitment of some land and energy and human resources. These resources 

include the following:

• Commitment of land for transportation purposes

• Commitment of natural resources during construction activities associated with the Program, 

including the use of construction materials (e.g., steel, concrete, etc.)

• Consumption of non-renewable energy resources, mainly diesel and electricity, as a result of 

construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed infrastructure improvements 

• Labor expenditure required for the planning, design, construction, and operation of the Build 

Alternative Options

Land used for new stations and parking areas would likely require property acquisitions, and these 

properties would be committed to transportation purposes. To the extent that this commitment would 

be for long-range use, it would be an irreversible commitment. In the event, however, that a greater 

need would arise for the land in the future or the Program Corridor was no longer needed, the land 

could conceivably be converted to some other use. Currently, there is no reason to expect that such 

a need for conversion would ever be necessary or desirable. 

In terms of the Build Alternative Options’ commitment of resources, there are several resources, 

both natural and built, that would be expended during the construction and operation of 

improvements. The Build Alternative Options would result in a short-term increase in the use of 

energy to manufacture, deliver, and construct the proposed infrastructure improvements. The 

manufacturing of materials used to construct the Build Alternative Options and energy in the form of 

natural gas, petroleum products, and electricity consumed during construction and operation would 

contribute to the incremental depletion of renewable and non-renewable resources. Steel, concrete, 

and other materials would be recycled, to the extent feasible. However, the loss of these resources 

is considered irreversible because their reuse for some other purpose than the Build Alternative

Options would be highly unlikely or impossible. Based on these considerations, the Program

constitutes an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of natural resources. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

6 Other Statutory Considerations

May 2021 | 6-5 

The Build Alternative Options’ use of non-renewable energy sources such as diesel fuel is 

considered an irreversible, irretrievable commitment of these petroleum resources. However, the 

commitment of resources to construct and operate the Build Alternative Options is based on the 

belief that residents, businesses, and visitors would benefit from a safe, reliable, and convenient 

intercity passenger rail service in the Program Corridor with the capability to meet the future mobility 

needs. These benefits are anticipated to substantially outweigh any irreversible or irretrievable 

commitments of resources. 

6.3 Relationship between Short-Term Use of the 

Environment and the Maintenance and Enhancement 

of Long-Term Productivity

NEPA and CEQA require a review of the balance between short-term uses and long-term 

productivity of resources within a project area. Potential impacts that narrow the range of beneficial 

uses to the environment include selecting a development option that reduces the ability to pursue 

other possibilities or committing a piece of land or other resources to a particular use that limits 

additional uses being performed on the same site. 

Effects on resources are often characterized as being short term or long term in duration. Impacts 

that occur only during construction are considered temporary. Impacts that occur within a period of 

3 years or less would be considered a short-term use and in excess to 3 years would be considered 

long term. Construction can create temporary water quality effects and increases in noise, 

emissions, traffic, and human population that can disturb resources in an area but subside when the 

work is complete. Long-term effects are related to the maintenance and enhancement of long-term 

productivity, in particular, the consistency of the Program with long-term economic, social, regional, 

and local planning objectives. These impacts may lead to permanent loss or degradation of 

resources. As required by PRC Section 21001(g), the short- and long-term effects of the Program

under consideration are summarized below. 

The Program Corridor faces transportation challenges associated with anticipated population growth, 

constrained travel options, rail service frequency, and a need for increased travel capacity without 

impacting air quality and natural resources. These challenges are likely to continue in the future, as 

continued growth in population and employment is expected to generate increased travel demand. In 

the short term, construction activities would likely increase employment opportunities, as well as 

locally purchased materials and services. In the long term, proposed improvements would likely 

increase the frequency and reliability of intercity rail service.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

6 Other Statutory Considerations

May 2021 | 6-6 

Implementation of the Build Alternative Options may result in property acquisitions, land use 

reclassification, and potential disruption of biological and wetland resources during construction and 

operation. Future Tier 2/Project-level environmental review would consider these factors in more 

detail, as specific rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities are carried forward. While 

some of the proposed improvements may disrupt the existing conditions of the area, short- and 

long-term benefits would also result and should be considered accordingly.

Implementation of the Build Alternative Options would increase travel options and improve mobility 

throughout the region, as well as provide additional capacity to meet growing travel demand 

between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley. 

6.4 Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Effects

Section 15126.2(c) of the CEQA Guidelines requires EIRs to include a discussion of any significant 

environmental impacts that cannot be avoided if the Program is implemented. Sections 3.2 through 

3.16 of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR provide a Program-level evaluation of potentially significant 

environmental effects related to the Program and identifies potential mitigation strategies, where 

available, that could avoid or reduce these significant impacts. If, after mitigation, a specific effect

cannot be fully reduced to a less than significant level, it is considered a potentially significant and 

unavoidable impact at the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR service-level evaluation. 

As discussed, this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluates the potential for substantial effects from the 

Build Alternative Options and offers mitigation strategies that could potentially avoid or minimize 

impacts on resources through further design or other measures identified at the Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis. Implementation of the Build Alternative Options could result in a significant and 

unavoidable impacts on the following resources: 

• Land Use and Planning. Implementation of the Build Alternative Options has the potential 

to conflict with local land use plans and polices and covert designated farmland to 

transportation use. Mitigation may reduce, avoid, or minimize these potentially significant 

impacts; however, impacts may also remain significant and unavoidable if further analysis 

shows that they cannot be sufficiently mitigated (Section 3.2, Land Use and Planning, of this 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for details). 

• Transportation. Implementation of the Build Alternative Options has the potential to conflict 

with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, 

roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities at a local level. Mitigation may reduce, avoid, or 

minimize these potentially significant impacts; however, impacts may also remain significant 

and unavoidable if further analysis shows that they cannot be sufficiently mitigated (Section
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

6 Other Statutory Considerations

May 2021 | 6-7 

3.3, Transportation, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for details). However, implementation of 

the Build Alternative Options would also improve regional mobility and access through the 

provision of an enhanced passenger rail system.

• Visual Quality and Aesthetics. Implementation of the Build Alternative Options has the 

potential to result in significant and unavoidable impacts on scenic vistas, visual character, 

and visual quality, as well as light and glare. Mitigation may reduce, avoid, or minimize these 

potentially significant impacts; however, impacts may also remain significant and 

unavoidable if further analysis shows that they cannot be sufficiently mitigated 

(Section 3.4, Visual Quality and Aesthetics, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for details).

• Air Quality. The location and number of new stations, infrastructure improvement locations, 

and construction methods have not yet been selected; however, construction of the Build 

Alternative Options has the potential to generate emissions that exceed the SCAQMD daily 

criteria pollutant and localized significance thresholds. However, implementation of the Build 

Alternative Options would also improve regional air quality through the provision of an 

enhanced passenger rail system (Section 3.5, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases, of this 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for details). 

• Noise and Vibration. Implementation of the Build Alternative Options has the potential to

generate noise during construction and operation within the Eastern Section, which could 

result in an exceedance of local noise standards. Mitigation may reduce, avoid, or minimize 

these potentially significant impacts; however, impacts may also remain significant and 

unavoidable if further analysis shows that there is a conflict that cannot be mitigated between 

land uses (Section 3.6, Noise and Vibration, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for details).

• Biological Resources. Implementation of the Build Alternative Options has the potential to

result in significant and unavoidable impacts on sensitive vegetation communities, 

special-status plan and wildlife species, wildlife corridors and habitat linkages, as well as 

significant and unavoidable conflicts with local plans and policies intended to protect natural 

resources. Mitigation may reduce, avoid, or minimize these potentially significant impacts; 

however, impacts may also remain significant and unavoidable if further analysis shows that 

there is a conflict that cannot be mitigated between land uses (Section 3.8, Biological 

Resources, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for details).

• Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water Quality. Implementation of the Build Alternative 

Options has the potential to result in impacts on surface and groundwater resources. 

Mitigation may reduce, avoid, or minimize these potentially significant impacts; however, 

impacts may also remain significant and unavoidable if further analysis shows that that 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

6 Other Statutory Considerations

May 2021 | 6-8 

impacts cannot be sufficiently mitigated (Section 3.9, Floodplains, Hydrology, and Water 

Quality) of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for details).

• Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources. Implementation of the Build 

Alternative Options within the Eastern Section has the potential to result in significant and 

unavoidable impacts on paleontological and mineral resources, as construction of the Build 

Alternatives (specifically, construction of the proposed stations) would require grading and 

excavation in areas that are paleontologically sensitive or within MRZs. Mitigation may

reduce, avoid, or minimize these potentially significant impacts; however, impacts may also 

remain significant and unavoidable if further analysis shows that land use conflicts cannot be 

mitigated or if accidental destruction to previously undiscovered paleontological resources 

were to occur (Section 3.10, Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Paleontological Resources, of 

this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for details).

• Public Utilities and Energy. Implementation of the Build Alternative Options has the 

potential to result in significant and unavoidable impacts on public utilities. Specifically, 

implementation of the Build Alternative Options could require potable water supplies at new 

rail stations, which are not currently identified. Mitigation may reduce, avoid, or minimize 

these potentially significant impacts; however, impacts may remain significant and 

unavoidable if further analysis determines that the operational activities would result in water 

supply impacts (Section 3.12, Public Utilities and Energy, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for 

details).

• Cultural Resources. Implementation of the Build Alternative Options has the potential to

result in significant and unavoidable impacts on cultural, historic, and TCRs, as construction 

(specifically, construction of the proposed stations) would require grading and excavation in 

areas that may contain known and unknown resources. Mitigation may reduce, avoid, or 

minimize these potentially significant impacts; however, impacts may remain significant and 

unavoidable if mitigation would not sufficiently reduce land use conflicts or if accidental 

destruction to previously undiscovered cultural resources were to occur (Section 3.13, 

Cultural Resources, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for details). 

• Parklands and Community Services. Implementation of the Build Alternative Options has 

the potential to result in impacts on parklands and community services due to the potential 

need of parkland acquisitions. Mitigation may reduce, avoid, or minimize these potentially 

significant impacts; however, impacts may remain significant and unavoidable if mitigation 

would not sufficiently reduce land use conflicts with existing parkland resources (Section

3.14, Parklands and Community Services, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for details). 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

7 Evaluation of Alternatives

May 2021 | 7-1

7 Evaluation of Alternatives

In accordance with NEPA (42 USC Section 4321 et seq.), CEQ regulations implementing NEPA 

(40 CFR Parts 1501–1508), FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 

28545, May 26, 1999) and CEQA, a reasonable range of alternatives were evaluated in this Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. 

The alternatives include the No Build Alternative, which is used as a baseline for comparison 

purposes and describes the impacts if the Program is not implemented. In addition, the Build 

Alternative is described with three implementation options, which are described in 

Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The alternatives selection process 

is summarized in Chapter 2, Program Alternatives, of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The 2016 AA 

Report included an evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives for implementation of daily 

intercity passenger rail service in the Program Corridor. 

This chapter describes the preferred alternative and the environmentally superior alternative for the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for purposes of NEPA and CEQA, respectively. This chapter also 

summarizes the potential effects of implementation of the Build Alternative Options based 

on the analysis of the social, economic, and environmental resources documented in 

Chapter 3, Environmental Analysis, Consequences, and Mitigation. The potential effects, and 

differences in effects among Build Alternative Options, are described in each resource section and 

are summarized below. Station locations have not yet been selected, but general considerations 

regarding station effects are discussed.

The potential for effects and comparison of effects among the Build Alternative Options are 

summarized in Table 7-1 and based on an initial survey of resources within the Tier 1/Program

EIS/EIR Study Area for each Build Alternative Option. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

7 Evaluation of Alternatives

May 2021 | 7-2

This page is intentionally blank. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

7 Evaluation of Alternatives

May 2021 | 7-3

Table 7-1.Summary of Resource Effects by the No Build Alternative and Build Alternative Options

Environmental Topic No Build Alternative Build Alternative Option 1 Build Alternative Option 2 Build Alternative Option 3

Land Use and Planning Land Use Compatibility

Under the No Build Alternative, passenger rail service 

between Coachella and Los Angeles would not be 

established, and land would not be allocated for rail 

infrastructure or station facilities. Although this may 

prevent potential displacements of existing and planned 

land uses, it would increase the likelihood for displacing 

land uses adjacent to existing highways, such as I-10, 

SR 60, and SR 111, which would likely need to be 

widened to accommodate the projected demands for 

capacity as population in the region increases. In 

addition, the No Build Alternative would be inconsistent 

with federal, state, and regional plans and policies that 

promote expansion of existing transportation options, as 

well as multimodal connectivity throughout the region.

Agricultural Resources

No effects on agricultural resources are anticipated 

under the No Build Alternative. 

Land Use Compatibility

Construction: Negligible effects within Western Section 

as no construction activities required. Potentially 

moderate effects could occur within the Eastern Section 

due to temporary construction effects and permanent 

ROW acquisitions beyond the extent of the existing 

railroad ROW.

Operation: Negligible effects within Western Section as 

no additional stations or rail infrastructure are required or 

land use changes anticipated. Potentially moderate 

effects could occur within the Eastern Section due to the 

land use changes associated with the addition of new 

stations and track infrastructure. 

Agricultural Resources

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial effects could 

occur within the Eastern Section associated with 

conversion of designated agricultural land to 

non-agricultural use.

• Prime farmland: 560.40 acres

• Unique farmland: 96.70 acres

• Farmland of statewide importance: 22.60 acres

• Farmland of local importance: 2,623.90 acres

• Grazing land: 1,923.20 acres

• Agricultural preserve: 760.82 acres

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section and 

Eastern Section once construction activities are 

completed. 

Land Use Compatibility

Construction: Negligible effects within Western Section 

as no construction activities required. Potentially 

moderate effects could occur within the Eastern Section 

due to temporary construction effects and permanent 

ROW acquisitions beyond the extent of the existing 

railroad ROW. 

Operation: Negligible effects within Western Section as 

no additional stations or rail infrastructure are required or 

land use changes anticipated. Potentially moderate 

effects could occur within the Eastern Section due to the 

land use changes associated with the addition of new 

stations and track infrastructure. 

Agricultural Resources

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial effects could 

occur within the Eastern Section associated with 

conversion of designated agricultural land to 

non-agricultural use. 

• Prime farmland: 362.50 acres

• Unique farmland: 96.70 acres

• Farmland of statewide importance: 22.60 acres

• Farmland of local importance: 2,549.90 acres

• Grazing land: 1,923.20 acres

• Agricultural preserve: 760.82 acres

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section and 

Eastern Section once construction activities are 

completed.

Land Use Compatibility

Construction: Negligible effects within Western Section 

as no construction activities required. Potentially 

moderate effects could occur within the Eastern Section 

due to temporary construction effects and permanent 

ROW acquisitions beyond the extent of the existing 

railroad ROW. 

Operation: Negligible effects within Western Section as 

no additional stations or rail infrastructure are required or 

land use changes anticipated. Potentially moderate 

effects could occur within the Eastern Section due to the 

land use changes associated with the addition of new 

stations and track infrastructure. 

Agricultural Resources

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as 

no construction activities required. Substantial effects 

could occur within the Eastern Section associated with 

conversion of designated agricultural land to 

non-agricultural use. 

• Prime farmland: 362.50 acres

• Unique farmland: 96.70 acres

• Farmland of statewide importance: 22.60 acres

• Farmland of local importance: 2,549.90 acres

• Grazing land: 1,923.20 acres

• Agricultural preserve: 760.82 acres

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section and 

Eastern Section once construction activities are 

completed.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

7 Evaluation of Alternatives

May 2021 | 7-4

Environmental Topic No Build Alternative Build Alternative Option 1 Build Alternative Option 2 Build Alternative Option 3

Transportation Under the No Build Alternative, longer travel times and 

increased VMT would be anticipated as regional growth 

within the Program Corridor continues and roadway 

congestion increases. Therefore, the No Build 

Alternative could result in air quality effects and potential 

additional noise effects on the surrounding land uses, 

which could affect sensitive receptors adjacent to 

existing transportation corridors.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Moderate to substantial 

effects in Eastern Section associated with rail 

operations, railroad/roadway crossings, and traffic due to 

potential temporary closure of lanes, sidewalks, bicycle 

lanes and routes, driveways, streets, and freeway lanes.

Operation: Build Alternative Option 1 is anticipated to 

shift auto trips to intercity rail passenger trips, thereby 

reducing vehicle trips and VMT on the regional 

highways.

Annual Auto Trips and VMT Reduction by Horizon Year:

Opening Year (2024) auto trip reduction: 107,344 trips

Opening Year (2024) VMT reduction: 10,498,246 miles

Future Year (2044) auto trip reduction: 178,045 trips

Future Year (2044) VMT reduction: 17,412,809 miles

Ridership: Expected to increase by 66 percent from 

204,107 one-way trips in Opening Year (2024) to 

338,540 one-way trips in Future Year (2044).

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Moderate to substantial 

effects in Eastern Section associated with rail 

operations, railroad/roadway crossings, and traffic due to 

potential temporary closure of lanes, sidewalks, bicycle 

lanes and routes, driveways, streets, and freeway lanes.

Operation: Build Alternative Option 2 is anticipated to 

shift auto trips to intercity rail passenger trips, thereby 

reducing vehicle trips and VMT on the regional 

highways. 

Annual Auto Trips and VMT Reduction by Horizon Year:

Opening Year (2024) auto trip reduction: 99,026 trips

Opening Year (2024) VMT reduction: 9,682,718 miles

Future Year (2044) auto trip reduction: 164,248 trips

Future Year (2044) VMT reduction: 16,060,152 miles

Ridership: Expected to increase by 66 percent from 

188,290 one-way trips in Opening Year (2024) to 

312,306 one-way trips in Future Year (2044).

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as 

no construction activities required. Moderate to

substantial effects in Eastern Section associated with rail 

operations, railroad/roadway crossings, and traffic due to 

potential temporary closure of lanes, sidewalks, bicycle 

lanes and routes, driveways, streets, and freeway lanes.

Operation: Build Alternative Option 3 is anticipated to 

shift auto trips to intercity rail passenger trips, thereby 

reducing vehicle trips and VMT on the regional 

highways.

Annual Auto Trips and VMT Reduction by Horizon Year:

Opening Year (2024) auto trip reduction: 99,026 trips 

Opening Year (2024) VMT reduction: 9,682,718 miles

Future Year (2044) auto trip reduction: 164,248 trips

Future Year (2044) VMT reduction: 16,060,152 miles

Ridership: Expected to increase by 66 percent from 

188,290 one-way trips in Opening Year (2024) to 

312,306 one-way trips in Future Year (2044).

Visual Quality and 

Aesthetics

Because no physical changes would occur, no effects on 

views of visual resources, visual character or quality, or 

light and glare conditions are anticipated under the No 

Build Alternative.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Negligible effects on 

visual quality and aesthetics within the Eastern Section 

as construction activities would not permanently obstruct 

views of the landscape, change the visual character, 

result in degradation of visual quality, or add significant 

new sources of light or glare.

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section as 

trains would operate within existing ROW and the 

addition of two daily roundtrips would not result in 

notable changes to visual quality and aesthetics. 

Potentially moderate effects could occur in the Eastern 

Section if the improvements would remove structures, 

remove landscaping, or introduce visual elements that 

are out of scale or otherwise visually incompatible with 

the existing visual character, and/or add increased light 

levels or spillover lighting into adjacent areas. 

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Negligible effects on 

visual quality and aesthetics within the Eastern Section 

as construction activities would not permanently obstruct 

views of the landscape, change the visual character, 

result in degradation of visual quality, or add significant 

new sources of light or glare. 

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section as 

trains would operate within existing ROW and the 

addition of two daily roundtrips would not result in 

notable changes to visual quality and aesthetics. 

Potentially moderate effects could occur in the Eastern 

Section if the improvements would remove structures, 

remove landscaping, or introduce visual elements that 

are out of scale or otherwise visually incompatible with 

the existing visual character, and/or add increased light 

levels or spillover lighting into adjacent areas. 

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as 

no construction activities required. Negligible effects on 

visual quality and aesthetics within the Eastern Section 

as construction activities would not permanently obstruct 

views of the landscape, change the visual character, 

result in degradation of visual quality, or add significant 

new sources of light or glare. 

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section as 

trains would operate within existing ROW and the 

addition of two daily roundtrips would not result in 

notable changes to visual quality and aesthetics. 

Potentially moderate effects could occur in the Eastern 

Section if the improvements would remove structures, 

remove landscaping, or introduce visual elements that 

are out of scale or otherwise visually incompatible with 

the existing visual character, and/or add increased light 

levels or spillover lighting into adjacent areas. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

7 Evaluation of Alternatives

May 2021 | 7-5

Environmental Topic No Build Alternative Build Alternative Option 1 Build Alternative Option 2 Build Alternative Option 3

Visual Resources:

Park/trail: 27

Designated scenic highway: 0

NRHP site: 7

NRHP district: 1

Visual Resources:

Park/trail: 25

Designated scenic highway: 0

NRHP site: 7

NRHP district: 1

Visual Resources:

Park/trail: 25

Designated scenic highway: 0

NRHP site: 7

NRHP district: 1

Air Quality and Greenhouse 

Gases

Projected future growth in the Program Corridor would 

result in a corresponding increase in traffic and VMT as 

more cars would be on the roadways. Therefore, traffic 

congestion is likely to worsen with the No Build 

Alternative, resulting in air quality effects. Similarly, with

the continued trend in increases of VMT within the 

Program Corridor, fossil fuel consumption and 

associated GHG emissions would likely increase under 

the No Build Alternative. Similarly, while no 

Program-related construction or increase in service 

would occur, freight and intercity rails trips from other 

planned and future projects would result in air quality 

effects within the Program Corridor under the No Build 

Alternative.

Construction: Negligible air quality and GHG effects in 

the Western Section as no construction activities are 

proposed. Substantial air quality effects in the Eastern 

Section could occur due to construction air quality 

emissions exceeding localized air quality standards. 

Operation: Localized air quality effects could be 

substantial; however, operation of the Program would 

generally result in long-term net benefits to air quality 

through reduction of criteria pollutants through a 

decrease in regional VMT. Substantial GHG benefits are 

anticipated as operation would reduce regional vehicle 

trips and VMT, resulting in a reduction of GHG 

emissions. 

Construction: Negligible air quality and GHG effects in 

the Western Section as no construction activities are 

proposed. Substantial air quality effects in the Eastern 

Section could occur due to construction air quality 

emissions exceeding localized air quality standards. 

Operation: Localized air quality effects could be 

substantial; however, operation of the Program would 

generally result in long-term net benefits to air quality 

through reduction of criteria pollutants through a 

decrease in regional VMT. Substantial GHG benefits are 

anticipated as operation would reduce regional vehicle 

trips and VMT, resulting in a reduction of GHG 

emissions. 

Construction: Negligible air quality and GHG effects in 

the Western Section as no construction activities are 

proposed. Substantial air quality effects in the Eastern 

Section could occur due to construction air quality 

emissions exceeding localized air quality standards. 

Operation: Localized air quality effects could be 

substantial; however, operation of the Program would 

generally result in long-term net benefits to air quality 

through reduction of criteria pollutants through a 

decrease in regional VMT. Substantial GHG benefits are 

anticipated as operation would reduce regional vehicle 

trips and VMT, resulting in a reduction of GHG 

emissions. 

Noise and Vibration No Program-related construction or increase in service 

would occur; however, freight and intercity train trips 

would increase in frequency due to regional growth and 

demand from other projects. Under the No Build 

Alternative, ambient noise and vibration levels from 

existing train operations and local traffic would continue. 

While no Program-related construction or increase in 

service would occur, rail noise is anticipated to increase 

within the Program Corridor.

Construction: Negligible noise and vibration effects in the 

Western Section as no construction activities are 

proposed. Substantial noise effects and moderate 

vibration effects in the Eastern Section due to 

construction noise and vibration levels exceeding FTA or 

local standards at sensitive receptors. 

Operation: Negligible noise and vibration effects 

associated with continued operation of trains and 

stations within Western Section. Moderate noise effects 

within the Eastern Section due to addition of new station 

locations and new rail infrastructure, which could have 

an effect on adjacent noise sensitive uses. Negligible 

vibration effects within the Eastern Section. 

Construction: Negligible noise and vibration effects in the 

Western Section as no construction activities are 

proposed. Substantial noise effects and moderate 

vibration effects in the Eastern Section due to 

construction noise and vibration levels exceeding FTA or 

local standards at sensitive receptors. 

Operation: Negligible noise and vibration effects 

associated with continued operation of trains and 

stations within Western Section. Moderate noise effects 

within the Eastern Section due to addition of new station 

locations and new rail infrastructure, which could have 

an effect on adjacent noise sensitive uses. Negligible 

vibration effects within the Eastern Section. 

Construction: Negligible noise and vibration effects in 

the Western Section as no construction activities are 

proposed. Substantial noise effects and moderate 

vibration effects in the Eastern Section due to 

construction noise and vibration levels exceeding FTA or 

local standards at sensitive receptors. 

Operation: Negligible noise and vibration effects 

associated with continued operation of trains and 

stations within Western Section. Moderate noise effects 

within the Eastern Section due to addition of new station 

locations and new rail infrastructure, which could have 

an effect on adjacent noise sensitive uses. Negligible 

vibration effects within the Eastern Section. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

7 Evaluation of Alternatives

May 2021 | 7-6

Environmental Topic No Build Alternative Build Alternative Option 1 Build Alternative Option 2 Build Alternative Option 3

Jurisdictional Waters and 

Wetland Resources

No effects on jurisdictional waters and wetland resources 

are anticipated under the No Build Alternative.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to temporary 

construction activities in proximity to jurisdictional waters 

and wetlands.

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section 

associated with continued operation of trains and 

stations within existing ROW. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section associated with 

maintenance of culverts, bridges, embankments, and 

station areas.

Waterbodies: 38 waterbodies

Wetlands: 355 wetlands (731 acres)

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to temporary 

construction activities in proximity to jurisdictional waters 

and wetlands. 

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section 

associated with continued operation of trains and 

stations within existing ROW. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section associated with 

maintenance of culverts, bridges, embankments, and 

station areas. 

Waterbodies: 38 waterbodies

Wetlands: 353 wetlands (729.78 acres)

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as 

no construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to temporary 

construction activities in proximity to jurisdictional waters 

and wetlands. 

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section

associated with continued operation of trains and 

stations within existing ROW. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section associated with 

maintenance of culverts, bridges, embankments, and 

station areas. 

Waterbodies: 38 waterbodies

Wetlands: 353 wetlands (729.78 acres)

Biological Resources No effects on biological resources are anticipated under 

the No Build Alternative.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial construction 

effects within the Eastern Section due to the numerous 

biological resources within the Program’s potential 

construction footprint.

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section 

associated with continued operation of trains and 

stations within existing ROW. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section associated with 

maintenance activities (e.g., application of pesticides and 

herbicides, addition of light sources that could disrupt 

wildlife habitat/movement and increased human activity).

Sensitive Vegetation Communities: 5 sensitive 

communities with potential to occur

Special-Status Plant Species: 22 species with potential 

to occur

Special-Status Wildlife Species: 66 species with potential 

to occur

Wildlife Movement Corridors: 1 (San Bernardino-San 

Jacinto Connection)

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial construction 

effects within the Eastern Section due to the numerous 

biological resources within the Program’s potential 

construction footprint. 

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section 

associated with continued operation of trains and 

stations within existing ROW. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section associated with 

maintenance activities (e.g., application of pesticides and 

herbicides, addition of light sources that could disrupt 

wildlife habitat/movement and increased human activity). 

Sensitive Natural Communities: 5 sensitive communities 

with potential to occur

Special-Status Plant Species: 22 species with potential 

to occur

Special-Status Wildlife Species: 66 species with potential 

to occur

Wildlife Movement Corridors: 1 (San Bernardino-San 

Jacinto Connection)

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as 

no construction activities required. Substantial 

construction effects within the Eastern Section due to 

the numerous biological resources within the Program’s 

potential construction footprint. 

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section 

associated with continued operation of trains and 

stations within existing ROW. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section associated with 

maintenance activities (e.g., application of pesticides 

and herbicides, addition of light sources that could 

disrupt wildlife habitat/movement and increased human 

activity). 

Sensitive Natural Communities: 5 sensitive communities 

with potential to occur

Special-Status Plant Species: 22 species with potential 

to occur

Special-Status Wildlife Species: 66 species with 

potential to occur

Wildlife Movement Corridors: 1 (San Bernardino-San 

Jacinto Connection)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

7 Evaluation of Alternatives

May 2021 | 7-7

Environmental Topic No Build Alternative Build Alternative Option 1 Build Alternative Option 2 Build Alternative Option 3

Floodplains, Hydrology, 

and Water Quality

No effects on floodplains, hydrology, or water quality are 

anticipated under the No Build Alternative.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects within the Eastern Section on floodplains, 

hydrology, and water quality would occur as a result of 

construction activities in proximity to these water 

resources.

Operation: Negligible effects in both the Western and 

Eastern Sections due to compliance with legislation 

governing impacts on water resources.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects within the Eastern Section on floodplains, 

hydrology, and water quality would occur as a result of 

construction activities in proximity to these water 

resources. 

Operation: Negligible effects in both the Western and 

Eastern Sections due to compliance with legislation 

governing impacts on water resources.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as 

no construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects within the Eastern Section on floodplains, 

hydrology, and water quality would occur as a result of 

construction activities in proximity to these water 

resources. 

Operation: Negligible effects in both the Western and 

Eastern Sections due to compliance with legislation 

governing impacts on water resources.

Geology, Soils, Seismicity, 

and Paleontological 

Resources

Because no physical changes associated with the 

Program would occur, no effects on geology, soils, 

seismicity, and paleontological and mineral resources 

are anticipated under the No Build Alternative. However, 

due to the seismic nature of Southern California, 

geologic hazards such as seismically induced fault 

rupture, ground shaking, landslides, and liquefaction 

may still occur under the No Build Alternative.

Seismic and Geologic Hazards

Construction. Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to construction in 

areas within seismic zones and areas geologically 

ill-suited (e.g., prone to landslides, underlain by 

expansive soils, etc.,) to railroad infrastructure.

Operation. Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

additional infrastructure proposed. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to the proposed route 

alternative traversing a seismically active region.

Paleontological Resources

Construction. Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial effects in the 

Eastern Section due to excavation within 

paleontologically sensitive areas.

Operation. Negligible effects as operation in the Western 

and Eastern Sections would not involve sub-surface 

excavations.

Mineral Resources

Construction. Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial effects in the 

Eastern Section as land designated for mineral resource 

extraction could be converted to transportation use.

Operation. Negligible effects in the Western and Eastern 

Sections as operation would not involve sub-surface 

excavations.

Seismic and Geologic Hazards

Construction. Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to construction in 

areas within seismic zones and areas geologically 

ill-suited (e.g., prone to landslides, underlain by 

expansive soils, etc.,) to railroad infrastructure. 

Operation. Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

additional infrastructure proposed. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to the proposed route 

alternative traversing a seismically active region. 

Paleontological Resources

Construction. Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial effects in the 

Eastern Section due to excavation within 

paleontologically sensitive areas. 

Operation. Negligible effects as operation in the Western 

and Eastern Sections would not involve sub-surface 

excavations.

Mineral Resources

Construction. Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial effects in the 

Eastern Section as land designated for mineral resource 

extraction could be converted to transportation use. 

Operation. Negligible effects in the Western and Eastern 

Sections as operation would not involve sub-surface 

excavations.

Seismic and Geologic Hazards

Construction. Negligible effects in Western Section as 

no construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to construction in 

areas within seismic zones and areas geologically 

ill-suited (e.g., prone to landslides, underlain by 

expansive soils, etc.,) to railroad infrastructure. 

Operation. Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

additional infrastructure proposed. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to the proposed route 

alternative traversing a seismically active region.

Paleontological Resources

Construction. Negligible effects in Western Section as 

no construction activities required. Substantial effects in 

the Eastern Section due to excavation within 

paleontologically sensitive areas. 

Operation. Negligible effects as operation in the Western 

and Eastern Sections would not involve sub-surface 

excavations.

Mineral Resources

Construction. Negligible effects in Western Section as 

no construction activities required. Substantial effects in 

the Eastern Section as land designated for mineral 

resource extraction could be converted to transportation 

use. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

7 Evaluation of Alternatives

May 2021 | 7-8

Environmental Topic No Build Alternative Build Alternative Option 1 Build Alternative Option 2 Build Alternative Option 3

Operation. Negligible effects in the Western and Eastern 

Sections as operation would not involve sub-surface 

excavations.

Hazards and Hazardous 

Materials

Because no physical changes would occur, no effects on 

hazards or hazardous materials are anticipated under 

the No Build Alternative.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to construction in 

areas located in proximity to hazardous materials sites, 

fire hazard severity zones, and airport influence areas.

Operation: Negligible effects in both the Western and 

Eastern Sections as any operational use/transport of 

hazardous materials would be in compliance with state 

and federal law.

Number of Hazardous Materials Regulatory Database 

Listings: 2,282

Fire Hazard Severity Zones: 4,048.7 acres

Airports/Airport Influence Areas: 8 

Schools within 0.25 mile: 26

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to construction in 

areas located in proximity to hazardous materials sites, 

fire hazard severity zones, and airport influence areas. 

Operation: Negligible effects in both the Western and 

Eastern Sections as any operational use/transport of 

hazardous materials would be in compliance with state 

and federal law.

Number of Hazardous Materials Regulatory Database 

Listings: 2,203

Fire Hazard Severity Zones: 4,048.7 acres

Airports/Airport Influence Areas: 7 

Schools within 0.25 mile: 23

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as 

no construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to construction in 

areas located in proximity to hazardous materials sites, 

fire hazard severity zones, and airport influence areas. 

Operation: Negligible effects in both the Western and 

Eastern Sections as any operational use/transport of 

hazardous materials would be in compliance with state 

and federal law.

Number of Hazardous Materials Regulatory Database 

Listings: 2,203

Fire Hazard Severity Zones: 4,048.7 acres

Airports/Airport Influence Areas: 7 

Schools within 0.25 mile: 23

Public Utilities and Energy Because no physical changes would occur, no effects on 

public utilities or solid waste facilities are anticipated 

under the No Build Alternative.

However, projected future growth in the Program 

Corridor would result in a corresponding increase in 

traffic and VMT as more cars would be on the roadways. 

Therefore, traffic congestion is likely to worsen with the 

No Build Alternative, resulting in air quality effects. 

Similarly, with the continued trend in increases of VMT 

within the Program Corridor, energy consumption would 

likely increase under the No Build Alternative.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to conflicts with 

existing utility infrastructure during construction. 

Potentially moderate effects pertaining to water and 

energy use during construction in the Eastern Section as 

construction of the Program would require consumption 

of available resources; however, existing supplies would 

be sufficient.

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section as 

existing tracks would be utilized and maintenance 

conducted within the existing ROW. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to increased demand 

for water, energy, wastewater treatment, and solid waste 

disposal. 

Electric transmission lines: 180

Natural gas pipelines: 6 

Oil/petroleum product pipelines: 7

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to conflicts with 

existing utility infrastructure during construction. 

Potentially moderate effects pertaining to water and 

energy use during construction in the Eastern Section as 

construction of the Program would require consumption 

of available resources; however, existing supplies would 

be sufficient. 

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section as 

existing tracks would be utilized and maintenance 

conducted within the existing ROW. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to increased demand 

for water, energy, wastewater treatment, and solid waste 

disposal. 

Electric transmission lines: 174

Natural gas pipelines: 6 

Oil/petroleum product pipelines: 7

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as 

no construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section due to conflicts with 

existing utility infrastructure during construction. 

Potentially moderate effects pertaining to water and 

energy use during construction in the Eastern Section as 

construction of the Program would require consumption 

of available resources; however, existing supplies would 

be sufficient. 

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section as 

existing tracks would be utilized and maintenance 

conducted within the existing ROW. Potentially 

moderate effects in the Eastern Section due to 

increased demand for water, energy, wastewater 

treatment, and solid waste disposal. 

Electric transmission lines: 174

Natural gas pipelines: 6 

Oil/petroleum product pipelines: 7
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

7 Evaluation of Alternatives

May 2021 | 7-9

Environmental Topic No Build Alternative Build Alternative Option 1 Build Alternative Option 2 Build Alternative Option 3

Canals/aqueducts: 1

Landfills in proximity: 27

Canals/aqueducts: 1

Landfills in proximity: 27

Canals/aqueducts: 1

Landfills in proximity: 27

Cultural Resources Because no physical changes would occur, no effects on 

cultural resources are anticipated under the No Build 

Alternative. 

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial effects in the 

Eastern Section as construction activities could result in 

damage and disturbance of cultural resources, including 

previously unknown buried cultural resources and/or 

human remains.

Operation: Negligible effects in both the Western and 

Eastern Sections as operational activities would be 

predominantly located in the railroad ROW with low 

probability of damaging cultural resources and/or human 

remains.

Number of Known Cultural Resources: 384 

(117 archaeological sites and 267 built environment 

resources). Of these 384 known cultural resources, 1 

resource is a listed NRHP property, 41 resources are 

potentially eligible for NRHP or CRHR listing, and 188 

resources have not been evaluated for NRHP or CRHR 

eligibility.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Substantial effects in the 

Eastern Section as construction activities could result in 

damage and disturbance of cultural resources, including 

previously unknown buried cultural resources and/or 

human remains. 

Operation: Negligible effects in both the Western and 

Eastern Sections as operational activities would be 

predominantly located in the railroad ROW with low 

probability of damaging cultural resources and/or human 

remains.

Number of Known Cultural Resources: 361 

(112 archaeological sites and 249 built environment 

resources). Of these 361 known cultural resources, 1 

resource is a listed NRHP property, 36 resources are 

potentially eligible for NRHP or CRHR listing, and 171 

resources have not been evaluated for NRHP or CRHR 

eligibility.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as 

no construction activities required. Substantial effects in 

the Eastern Section as construction activities could 

result in damage and disturbance of cultural resources, 

including previously unknown buried cultural resources 

and/or human remains. 

Operation: Negligible effects in both the Western and 

Eastern Sections as operational activities would be 

predominantly located in the railroad ROW with low 

probability of damaging cultural resources and/or human 

remains.

Number of Known Cultural Resources: 361 

(112 archaeological sites and 249 built environment 

resources). Of these 361 known cultural resources, 1 

resource is a listed NRHP property, 36 resources are 

potentially eligible for NRHP or CRHR listing, and 171 

resources have not been evaluated for NRHP or CRHR 

eligibility.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

7 Evaluation of Alternatives

May 2021 | 7-10

Environmental Topic No Build Alternative Build Alternative Option 1 Build Alternative Option 2 Build Alternative Option 3

Parklands and Community 

Services 

Because no physical changes would occur, no effects on 

parklands or community services are anticipated under 

the No Build Alternative. 

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Moderate effects in 

Eastern Section could result on existing parklands and 

community facilities if the resources are near where an 

infrastructure improvement or station is being 

constructed and/or if parklands would be acquired and 

demolished to construct the proposed improvements.

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section as

operation would occur within an existing railroad ROW. 

Potentially moderate effects in the Eastern Section as 

new station areas could encourage transit-oriented 

development and associated increases in population 

and, in turn, increases in the use of existing parks and 

community facilities; however, operation of the new 

railroad infrastructure and stations would not be 

anticipated to require new or physically altered parklands 

and community facilities.

Park/trail: 27

Place of worship: 90

Educational facility: 27

Healthcare facility: 8 

Fire protection facility: 9 

Law enforcement facility: 6

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Moderate effects in 

Eastern Section could result on existing parklands and 

community facilities if the resources are near where an 

infrastructure improvement or station is being 

constructed and/or if parklands would be acquired and 

demolished to construct the proposed improvements. 

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section as

operation would occur within an existing railroad ROW.

Potentially moderate effects in the Eastern Section as 

new station areas could encourage transit-oriented 

development and associated increases in population 

and, in turn, increases in the use of existing parks and 

community facilities; however, operation of the new 

railroad infrastructure and stations would not be 

anticipated to require new or physically altered parklands 

and community facilities.

Park/trail: 25

Place of worship: 85

Educational facility: 23

Healthcare facility: 6

Fire protection facility: 9 

Law enforcement facility: 6

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as 

no construction activities required. Moderate effects in 

Eastern Section could result on existing parklands and 

community facilities if the resources are near where an 

infrastructure improvement or station is being 

constructed and/or if parklands would be acquired and 

demolished to construct the proposed improvements. 

Operation: Negligible effects in Western Section as

operation would occur within an existing railroad ROW.

Potentially moderate effects in the Eastern Section as 

new station areas could encourage transit-oriented 

development and associated increases in population 

and, in turn, increases in the use of existing parks and 

community facilities; however, operation of the new 

railroad infrastructure and stations would not be 

anticipated to require new or physically altered 

parklands and community facilities.

Park/trail: 25

Place of worship: 85

Educational facility: 23

Healthcare facility: 6

Fire protection facility: 9 

Law enforcement facility: 6
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

7 Evaluation of Alternatives

May 2021 | 7-11

Environmental Topic No Build Alternative Build Alternative Option 1 Build Alternative Option 2 Build Alternative Option 3

Safety and Security Because no physical changes would occur, no effects on 

safety and security are anticipated under the No Build 

Alternative. 

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate in 

the Eastern Section effects associated with construction 

as temporary closure of lanes, sidewalks, bicycle lanes 

and routes, driveways, streets, and freeway lanes could 

result in safety hazards during construction.

Operation: Negligible effects in the Western Section as 

the addition of two daily round trips would not change the 

existing safety and security protocols for passengers, 

transit employees, and the public in or near the existing 

passenger rail system or station facilities. Potentially 

moderate effects in the Eastern Section due to 

implementation of new infrastructure requiring new rail 

safety equipment and protocols.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as no 

construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section associated with 

construction as temporary closure of lanes, sidewalks, 

bicycle lanes and routes, driveways, streets, and 

freeway lanes could result in safety hazards during 

construction. 

Operation: Negligible effects in the Western Section as 

the addition of two daily round trips would not change the 

existing safety and security protocols for passengers, 

transit employees, and the public in or near the existing 

passenger rail system or station facilities. Potentially 

moderate effects in the Eastern Section due to 

implementation of new infrastructure requiring new rail 

safety equipment and protocols.

Construction: Negligible effects in Western Section as 

no construction activities required. Potentially moderate 

effects in the Eastern Section associated with 

construction as temporary closure of lanes, sidewalks, 

bicycle lanes and routes, driveways, streets, and 

freeway lanes could result in safety hazards during 

construction. 

Operation: Negligible effects in the Western Section as 

the addition of two daily round trips would not change 

the existing safety and security protocols for 

passengers, transit employees, and the public in or near 

the existing passenger rail system or station facilities.

Potentially moderate effects in the Eastern Section due 

to implementation of new infrastructure requiring new rail 

safety equipment and protocols.

Notes:

CRHR=California Register of Historical Resources; FTA=Federal Transit Administration; GHG=greenhouse gas; I=Interstate; NRHP=National Register of Historic Places; ROW=right-of-way; SR=State Route; VMT=vehicle miles traveled
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

7 Evaluation of Alternatives

May 2021 | 7-12

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

7 Evaluation of Alternatives

May 2021 | 7-13

7.1 Preferred Alternative

During the Tier 1/Program scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC conducted an interactive 

process to develop the Program Purpose and Need, as well as high-level goals and objectives 

(Chapter 2, Program Alternatives). The Program goals and objectives were then used to develop an 

evaluation framework, which served as the basis for the analysis of Program Corridor concepts and 

preliminary alternatives, as well as the identification of the preferred alternative. The key 

differentiating factors for this recommendation are summarized in Table 7-1. Chapter 3, Sections 

3.2 through 3.17, describes the potential environmental consequences of the No Build Alternative 

and the Build Alternative Options. 

As summarized in Table 7-1, the No Build Alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need. 

Specifically, the No Build Alternative would not divert highway trips within the Program Corridor, 

reduce congestion, increase access to employment and activity centers, or provide reliable travel 

times and a level of safety comparable to that offered by passenger rail travel. The No Build 

Alternative would not connect the urban, suburban, and rural areas between Los Angeles and 

Coachella with a high-capacity travel option, facilitate continued development of a multimodal 

transportation network, or provide mobility choices for existing and future needs.

In summary, considering the projected ridership, agency and public input, and potential 

environmental impacts associated with improving passenger rail within the Program Corridor, a 

passenger rail system from LAUS to Coachella (Build Alternative Option 1) is considered to be more 

cost efficient and better performing than a passenger rail system from LAUS to Indio (Build 

Alternative Option 2) or with limited third track infrastructure (Build Alternative Option 3), with similar 

potential impacts on the environment. FRA and Caltrans recommend Build Alternative Option 1 as 

the preferred alternative in the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for purposes of NEPA.

7.2 Environmentally Superior Alternative

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) requires the selection of an environmentally superior 

alternative. Based on the evaluation presented in Table 7-1, the No Build Alternative would be the 

environmentally superior alternative because it would not result in any new construction-related 

effects or require new land acquisition that may be required for rail infrastructure. However, as 

further described below, the No Build Alternative does not offer potential long-term air quality, 

transportation, or economic benefits outlined in the Program’s Purpose and Need. 

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)(2) also states that where the No Project (No Build) Alternative 

is considered the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall identify another environmentally 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

7 Evaluation of Alternatives

May 2021 | 7-14

superior alternative. Accordingly, this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR also considered the Build Alternative, 

which consists of three Build Alternative Options. While the Build Alternative Options would 

potentially affect environmental resources in the Program Corridor, various components of the Build 

Alternative Options would (individually and collectively) enhance safety and enable greater reliability 

for both passenger and freight rail traffic. Additionally, the Build Alternative Options would meet the 

following goals:

1. Provides travelers between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley with a public 

transportation service that offers more convenient and competitive trip times, better station 

access, and more frequency than currently available public transportation services

2. Provides travelers between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley with an 

alternative to driving that offers reliable travel schedules

3. Provides travelers between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley with an 

affordable transportation service

4. Serves a range of trip purposes traveling between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella 

Valley, particularly including business, social, medical, leisure, and recreational trips

5. Improves regional travel opportunities between the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella 

Valley for transit-dependent people

6. Serves the expected population growth in the Los Angeles Basin and the Coachella Valley

7. Does not preclude, by choice of alignment or technology, a possible future corridor 

expansion between the Coachella Valley and Phoenix

In addition, the Build Alternative Options are anticipated to contribute to improvements in regional air 

quality, as increased rail ridership would lead to fewer automotive VMT in the Program Corridor. 

While Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 could have less environmental impacts (due to a shorter rail 

route and fewer station facilities), Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 are anticipated to result in fewer 

reductions of VMT and GHG emissions than Build Alternative Option 1. In addition, at this Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR service-level evaluation, site-specific environmental impacts are not known and 

could be the same for all Build Alternative Options, depending on the location of the rail 

infrastructure improvements and station facilities. For purposes of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, Build 

Alternative Option 1 has been identified as the environmentally superior alternative and 

recommended preferred alternative. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

8 Public and Agency Outreach

May 2021 | 8-1 

8 Public and Agency Outreach

This chapter documents the public and agency outreach conducted during preparation of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation for the Program in accordance with NEPA; CEQ regulations

implementing NEPA; FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts; 23 USC Section

139; and CEQA. RCTC began the public engagement process early in 2014 to ensure stakeholder 

feedback was incorporated into the scope of the environmental document, as well as analysis 

required to identify potential effects and determine appropriate mitigation strategies. 

During the outreach process, the lead agencies, which include FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC, engaged 

the public (i.e., citizens, elected officials, and key stakeholders), as well as local, state, tribal, and

federal agencies during the early stages of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation. 

This chapter provides a summary of the outreach efforts, which included a variety of formal and 

informal outreach methods, such as public meetings, key stakeholder and community group 

briefings, project development team and agency coordination meetings, advertisements, email 

blasts, mailings, pamphlet distribution, website updates, and social media engagement. This chapter 

provides additional detail on the overall public involvement process and the aforementioned 

outreach activities beginning with the formal scoping period and additional outreach conducted 

throughout preparation of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR environmental process. 

8.1 Environmental Justice Outreach

In the development and implementation of the public involvement efforts for the Program, EJ issues 

and affected communities were identified. According to California Government Code Section 

65040.12(e), EJ is described as “the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with 

respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, 

regulations, and policies." EO 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations, requires consideration of whether a proposed action 

would disproportionately affect minority or low-income groups (59 FR 7629 [1994]). Additionally, 

EO 12898 requires federal agencies to ensure public participation from communities with substantial 

minority or low-income populations. Each federal agency has developed a strategy to address EJ 

with CEQ responsible for oversight and coordination. The EJ evaluation for the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR follows the appropriate guidance and methodologies to examine the potential effects on

minority and low-income groups (e.g., CEQ’s EJ Guidelines under NEPA [December 1997], and the 

USDOT’s Final Order 5610.2(a) on EJ [April 1997 and updated May 2012]).
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

8 Public and Agency Outreach

May 2021 | 8-2 

An EJ evaluation was prepared for the Program to identify and address potential disproportionate 

effects on EJ populations and to ensure that EJ populations were included in public outreach efforts 

throughout the life of the Program (during and after the NEPA process). 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC were also responsible for complying with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964, which states that “no person in the United States shall on the ground of race, color, or national 

origin be excluded from participation in, denied benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any 

program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” Recipients of federal aid must certify 

non-discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. 

The EJ evaluation in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR identified low-income and minority populations in 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area. These EJ communities identified within the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Study Area were included in the public outreach process to ensure that they can participate 

meaningfully in review of the Program. As a general rule, the following principles were adopted to 

support involvement of EJ communities in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area: 

• Documents, notices, and meetings were made concise, understandable, and readily 

accessible to the public

• Informational materials were made available through a variety of outlets

• All public events were scheduled at convenient and accessible locations and times

• Various community leaders and groups were contacted to increase public participation of 

constituent communities

8.1.1 Limited English Proficiency Outreach

Individuals who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a limited ability to 

read, speak, write, or understand English are considered limited English proficient. Limited English 

proficient populations are protected by federal laws concerning language access rights, including 

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and EO 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with 

Limited English Proficiency (signed on August 11, 2000). EO 13166 states that limited English 

proficient people should have meaningful access to federally conducted and funded programs and 

activities. EO 13166 requires federal agencies to examine the services they provide, identify any 

need for services to those with limited English proficiency, and develop and implement a system to 

provide those services so limited English proficient persons can have meaningful access to them. 

Steps were taken by FRA, RCTC, and Caltrans to provide meaningful access to those limited 

English proficient individuals expected to be most regularly encountered by providing, as necessary, 

translation services at public meetings and meeting notifications and materials advertised in English 

and Spanish. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

8 Public and Agency Outreach

May 2021 | 8-3 

8.1.2 Americans with Disabilities Act Compliance

Public meetings were held in locations that comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act to assure 

that disabled or elderly stakeholders had convenient access to meetings. Sign language interpreters 

were available upon request at formal public meetings and other meetings, as advertised in meeting 

notification materials. Public notices announcing public meetings provided additional instructions for 

requesting other special accommodations. Additionally, this document complies with Section 508

requirements (29 USC Section 794 (d)), which requires federal electronic and information technology 

to be accessible to people with disabilities, including employees and members of the public. 

8.2 Section 106 Consultation

FRA determined its federal action to provide financial assistance for the development of this Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR is an “undertaking,” as defined in Section 106 of the NHPA, and its implementing 

regulations (36 CFR Part 800); however, this planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. In making this determination, FRA has no further obligations under Section 

106 with respect to this undertaking (i.e., Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). The approach followed for 

Section 106 consultation is discussed below and in Section 3.13, Cultural Resources. 

8.2.1 National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered NEPA process (e.g., Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to 

complete the environmental review of the Program, pursuant to 40 CFR Part 1508.28 (titled 

“Tiering”) and CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled 

“Joint EIS/EIR”). Tiering is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR and the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the first steps 

in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the proposed broader 

Program scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known.

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR and SDP would be followed by 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements and station facilities. This 

would be considered the second tier of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that outlined the broad Program scope. This future Tier 2/Project-level analysis

would closely align with the future preliminary engineering process and analyze site-specific direct 

and indirect Project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals 

needed for construction. If any Tier 2/Project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it 

would be subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 

2/Project-level environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

8 Public and Agency Outreach

May 2021 | 8-4 

Construction of the proposed rail infrastructure or station facility would not commence until after 

environmental clearance is completed at the Tier 2/Project level.

Similarly, the Section 106 implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with NEPA, per 36 CFR Part 800.8(c)(1)(ii). Section 106 of 

the NHPA (36 CFR Part 800) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties that are listed or meet the eligibility criteria for listing in the 

NRHP. The Section 106 process has a specific public involvement component. In particular, Section 

106 regulations require that the lead federal agency (FRA), in consultation with the SHPO, identify 

appropriate points for seeking public input and notification of the proposed actions associated with 

the Program. The regulations require that the federal agency seek and consider the views of the 

SHPO and the public in a manner that reflects the nature and complexity of the Program and its 

effects on historic properties. 

At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the 

planning effort does not have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this 

planning effort and facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2/Project-level analysis, 

FRA initiated consultation under 36 CFR Part 800.3 and conducted a preliminary identification of 

historic properties that included background research/data obtained from records search and other 

sources, such as historical maps; it does not include data collected through archaeological or built 

environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. The study completed in support of 

the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR incorporates pertinent information received through consultation on 

historic properties, including information regarding federal, state, and local agencies and tribes 

consulted and their responses, if any. The following agencies/jurisdictions requested to be consulting 

parties, pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA (Section 3.13, Cultural Resources, of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR): 

• SHPO

• City of Desert Springs 

• City of Indio
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

8 Public and Agency Outreach

May 2021 | 8-5 

8.2.2 Tribal Consultation

Federal Government-to-Government Section 106 Tribal Consultation 

As part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR scoping process, FRA identified potential consulting parties 

for Section 106, which included federal agencies, state agencies, local agencies, and federally and 

state-recognized Native American tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation within or near the 

Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area. 

On October 15, 2019, FRA sent invitation letters to consult with federally recognized tribes regarding 

the Program. On November 5, 2019, an email follow-up was sent by HDR (on behalf of FRA) to 

those mailing recipients whose letters were returned undeliverable. On November 22 and 

26, 2019, additional email follow-ups were sent to all federally recognized tribes who had not yet 

responded to the invitation to consult. On December 20, 2019, a final follow-up email was sent to all 

federally recognized tribes who had not yet responded, using the original October 15, 2019, letter as 

an attachment. For any Native American tribe where an email was either unavailable or 

undeliverable, a follow-up phone call was made and voice mail messages were left regarding the 

Program. The following responses have been received: 

• The Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation

requested government-to-government consultation, contact of their office to schedule a 

meeting, area of potential effects shape files (via email), and copies of cultural resource 

documentation generated.

• The La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Reservation did not request 

to be a consulting party but provided a recommendation (via email) that if there is ground 

disturbance, a native monitor should be on site because “the native people traveled along 

that way so there may [be] artifacts in the area.” 

• The Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians Tribal Heritage Preservation Officer has 

verbally discussed participating in Section 106 consultation with FRA.

• The Pala Band of Mission Indians responded that the Program is not within the boundaries of 

the recognized Pala Indian Reservation and beyond the boundaries of the territory that the 

Pala Band of Mission Indians considers its Traditional Use Area.

• The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians responded that they do not elect to be a consulting 

party on this Tier 1/Program and will wait for Tier 2/Project-level notifications. 

• The Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians requested government-to-government consultation, 

scheduling conference calls, scheduling in-person consultation meetings, the presence of a 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

8 Public and Agency Outreach

May 2021 | 8-6 

Soboba Native American Monitor during all ground-disturbing activities (including 

archaeological surveys and testing), that procedures regarding repatriation of cultural items

are followed, the appropriate treatment and disposition of human remains, coordination with 

County Coroner’s Office, and non-disclosure of reburial locations. The Soboba Band of 

Luiseno Indians Tribal Heritage Preservation Officer also submitted a letter notifying FRA of 

a potentially eligible Traditional Cultural Property for the NRHP and CRHR. 

A webinar for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation

was held on February 13, 2020. A webinar for the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians was held on 

February 11, 2020. All Section 106 correspondence received to date is located in Appendix H of this 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 

Section 106 Consultation with State-Recognized Tribes 

In response to FRA’s invitations to consult, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

replied on January 16, 2020, with a requested to consult under Section 106. The tribe requested a 

meeting with FRA. On January 23, 2020, HDR reached out to Chairman Andrew Salas on behalf of 

FRA to discuss setting up a meeting. After their discussion, Chairman Salas noted that there was no 

need to meet at this time to further discuss the Program; however, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission 

Indians – Kizh Nation requested to be involved and informed of related Tier 2/Project-level

notifications moving forward.

8.2.3 Assembly Bill 52 Tribal Consultation

In 2014, California governor Jerry Brown signed AB 52, establishing an additional requirement under 

CEQA for consultation with Native American tribes regarding TCRs. AB 52 requires that the CEQA 

lead agency notify any interested Native American tribes of a proposed project only if those tribes 

have requested to be notified regarding the CEQA lead agency’s projects. The CEQA lead agency 

must consult in good faith with participating California Native American tribes prior to the release of 

the EIR. If a project has the potential to affect a TCR, the CEQA document must discuss whether 

there is a significant impact on a TCR and whether there are feasible alternatives or mitigation to 

avoid or substantially lessen impacts on the TCR. Consultation is finished when one of the following 

applies: the parties agree to avoid or mitigate significant impacts on TCRs or the CEQA lead agency, 

acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual agreement cannot be 

reached. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

8 Public and Agency Outreach

May 2021 | 8-7 

RCTC notified two Native American tribes regarding the Program. RCTC’s consultation efforts under 

AB 52 are described as follows: 

• Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians Kizh Nation: On October 19, 2016, during the 

scoping phase of the Program, RCTC submitted an invitation to consult under AB 52 to the 

Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation. On October 30, 2016, the Gabrielino 

Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation replied that they have concerns for cultural 

resources within ancestral territory that fall within the Program, and they would like to consult 

with RCTC. On August 29, 2019, RCTC sent further information to the tribe, including an 

updated Program description and background research conducted regarding known 

archaeological resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area. Since the 

Western Section of the Program, located largely within the Gabrieleño Band of Mission 

Indians - Kizh Nation ancestral territory, did not propose any ground-disturbing activities, 

RCTC asked that the Native American tribe reconfirm their request to consult under AB 

52 for the Program. On September 30, 2019, RCTC followed up with the Gabrieleño Band of 

Mission Indians - Kizh Nation via email, asking that the Native American tribe confirm their 

intentions to consult on the Program prior to October 4, 2019. No response has been 

received from the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation for AB 52 consultation. 

• San Manuel Band of Mission Indians: On August 29, 2019, RCTC submitted an invitation 

to consult under AB 52 to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. The San Manuel Band of 

Mission Indians replied on September 11, 2019, that while the majority of the Program exists 

outside of Serrano ancestral territory, the tribe did have concerns regarding the portion of the 

Program from Colton to Beaumont and Banning within the Eastern Section of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians noted that 

there are at least two Sacred Lands Files within or adjacent to the Eastern Section of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area in the Loma Linda/Redlands/Colton area that are of 

concern to the Native American tribe; the tribe requested further information to assess their 

level of involvement with the Program. On September 30, 2019, the tribe was sent a copy of 

the Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum (Appendix H of this Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR) prepared for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR service-level evaluation for 

review. With the additional information, the Native American tribe noted that they did not 

have concerns with the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, and the Native American tribe will wait until 

Tier 2/Project-level notifications to discuss specific activities that may impact resources of 

concern to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.

RCTC has completed AB 52 Tribal consultation for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation. 

Additional AB 52 Tribal consultation will be conducted as part of Tier 2/Project-level analysis. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

8 Public and Agency Outreach

May 2021 | 8-8 

8.3 Outreach Prior to Scoping

RCTC began public outreach for the Program in 2014, prior to the formal initiation of the 

NEPA/CEQA process. The early outreach included multiple Technical Advisory Committee meetings, 

public outreach meetings, and individual meetings with elected officials within the Coachella Valley. 

These early outreach activities are summarized in Table 8-1. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

8 Public and Agency Outreach

May 2021 | 8-9 

Table 8-1. Summary of Pre-NEPA/CEQA Public Outreach

Meeting Date Location

Number of 

Attendees Meeting Topic

Technical Advisory Committee Meetings

November 19, 2014 In-person and via webcast at SCAG offices in Riverside, 

Los Angeles and Orange Counties; Coachella Valley 

Association of Governments offices; conference call 

option also provided

31 Project introduction and overview, study vision, 

understanding of partners, FRA process, public 

outreach plan, travel market

February 25, 2015 In-person and via webcast at SCAG offices in Riverside, 

Los Angeles and Orange Counties; Coachella Valley 

Association of Governments offices; conference call 

option also provided

37 Study status update, Draft Purpose and Need, 

concept alternatives, public meeting update

November 4, 2015 In-person and via webcast at SCAG offices in Riverside, 

Los Angeles and Orange Counties; Coachella Valley 

Association of Governments offices; conference call 

option also provided

28 Route alternatives studied, evaluation process, 

coarse level and fine level screening criteria and 

results, discussion of preferred alternative and No 

Build Alternative

May 4, 2021 Virtually via Zoom meeting 43 SDP and Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR overview and 

status.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

8 Public and Agency Outreach

May 2021 | 8-10

Meeting Date Location

Number of 

Attendees Meeting Topic

Public Outreach Meetings

February 23, 2015 Banning City Hall 22 Project overview; sought feedback about rail-service 

expansion and Draft Purpose and Need

February 26, 2015 Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Palm 

Desert

75 in-person 

attendees

56 webcast 

attendees98 

additional 

webcast 

views after 

the meeting

Project overview; sought feedback about rail-service 

expansion and Draft Purpose and Need 

Online Survey (Southern California Region)

March–July 2015 Online survey 262

responses

Travel patterns, public transit usage, travel barriers, 

and traffic congestion

Elected Officials Briefings (Riverside County)

February–March 2015 One-on-one briefings with Riverside County Elected 

Officials

20

participants

Project overview; sought feedback about rail-service 

expansion and Draft Purpose and Need

Notes:

EIR=environmental impact report; EIS=environmental impact statement; FRA=Federal Railroad Administration; SCAG=Southern California Association of 

Governments; SDP=Service Development Plan
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

8 Public and Agency Outreach

May 2021 | 8-11

8.4 Public and Agency Scoping

The scoping process undertaken for the Program was performed in accordance with NEPA; CEQ

regulations implementing NEPA; FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts; 23 USC

Section 139; and CEQA. 

During the scoping process, the lead agencies engaged the public (i.e., citizens, elected officials, 

and key stakeholders), as well as local, state, and federal agencies during the early stages of the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The NEPA/CEQA scoping process provides government agencies, public 

and private organizations, and the general public the opportunity to identify environmental issues 

and alternatives for consideration in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The scoping process and results

are an initial step in the NEPA/CEQA process.

Information developed by the lead agencies, as well as comments received from the public and 

other stakeholders during the scoping process were used to: 

• Refine the Purpose and Need for the Program; 

• Provide input on alignments or alternatives that should be considered in the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR; and

• Identify potential environmental effects of the Program to be addressed in the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR. 

8.4.1 Notice of Intent, Notice of Preparation, and Public Information 

Materials

FRA published an NOI to prepare an EIS for the Program in the FR on October 11, 2016 (FR 81 

(196), 70257-70260). The NOI serves as the official legal notice that a federal agency is 

commencing preparation of an EIS. As described in the NOI, the formal scoping period ended on 

November 10, 2016.

As required by CEQA Guidelines Section 15082 (14 CCR 15000 et seq.), RCTC issued an NOP on 

October 6, 2016 (State Clearinghouse Number 2016101017). The NOP summarized the Program, 

provided information on RCTC’s intention to prepare a joint Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, and requested

comments from interested parties. The formal scoping period for the NOP ended on November 

10, 2016, instead of November 5, 2016 (as indicated in the scoping meeting notices and scoping 

meeting materials), to coincide with the dates in the NOI published in the FR. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

8 Public and Agency Outreach

May 2021 | 8-12

The NOI and NOP provided background information on the Program, presented draft Program

purpose and objectives, addressed the alternatives development process, and provided an initial list 

of environmental resources to be analyzed. The NOI and NOP also announced the public scoping 

meetings (Section 8.4.3) and invited local, state, and federal agencies; the public; and other 

interested parties to submit scoping comments.

8.4.2 Agency and Public Outreach

A number of agencies were contacted on release of the NOI and NOP. Table 8-2 identifies the 

agencies that responded to the NOI and NOP. 

Table 8-2. Agency Points of Contact

Agency Point of Contact Title

California Department of Transportation

(Caltrans), District 8

Mark Roberts Office Chief, Intergovernmental Review, 

Community, and Regional Planning

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

(CDFW) 

Leslie MacNair Regional Manager

City of Coachella Steven Hernandez Mayor

City of Indio Mariano Aguirre Director of Housing and Development

City of Palm Desert Ryan Stendell Director of Community Development 

Los Angeles County Metropolitan 

Transportation Authority (Metro) 

Elizabeth Carvajal Senior Manager, Transportation Planning

National Park Service Jill Jensen Cultural Resource Specialist

Southern California Association of 

Governments (SCAG) 

Ping Chang Acting Manager, Compliance and 

Performance Monitoring

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District (SCAQMD) 

Jillian Wong Planning and Rules Manager

Southern California Regional Rail 

Authority (SCRRA/Metrolink) 

Ron Mathieu Senior Public Project Specialist

United Stated Environmental Protection 

Agency (U.S. EPA), Region IX

Clifton Meek Environmental Review Section
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

8 Public and Agency Outreach

May 2021 | 8-13

Agency Point of Contact Title

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) 

Kennon Corey Assistant Field Supervisor

Along with the agencies, members of the public, including citizens, elected officials, and other key 

stakeholders (i.e., community associations, local institutions, and Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR-adjacent 

property owners), participated in the NEPA and CEQA scoping process. Consultation with these 

parties continued throughout the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR environmental process at various 

milestones. In addition to the publication of the NOI and NOP, a range of outreach methods and 

activities outlined below were implemented to engage the members of the public. 

Website

The NOI/NOP, press release, and information related to public scoping meeting locations and times 

were made available to the public on RCTC’s website for the Program: 

https://www.rctc.org/projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-corridor-service-project/. 

Social Media

On October 7, October 10, and October 11, 2016, RCTC’s Twitter and Facebook accounts included 

posts with information for the public scoping meeting dates and times and a link to the Program

website (Appendix A of this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR). RCTC has approximately 900 Twitter followers 

and 8,000 Facebook followers. Posts were made to inform the public on how to submit comments. A 

link to the Program fact sheet was made available via RCTC’s Facebook account. RCTC’s 

Facebook and Twitter accounts can be found at www.facebook.com/cvrailproject and @therctc, 

respectively. RCTC also established a separate Program-specific Facebook account that has 

approximately 694 followers. RCTC posted public scoping meeting dates and times, as well as 

boosted the posts to reach a wider audience in areas surrounding the public scoping meeting 

locations. The Coachella Valley Rail Program Facebook account can be found at 

www.facebook.com/cvrailproject. 

Mailing List

In addition to the release of the NOP and NOI, notifications were sent via email and postal mail to 

approximately 570 persons on the public outreach distribution list. As identified in the Agency and 

Public Coordination Plan, the distribution list was developed by taking into account early outreach 

efforts, such as the Technical Advisory Committee meetings, public outreach meetings, and 

stakeholders within the Coachella Valley area and along the Program Corridor. The distribution list 

included elected officials, stakeholders, community groups, and members of the public with an 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

8 Public and Agency Outreach

May 2021 | 8-14

interest in the Program. The distribution list was updated and expanded as needed throughout the 

duration of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, with updated versions provided to the team at periodic 

intervals. An additional 23 certified mailings containing the NOP were sent to federal, state, and local 

agencies and organizations with an interest in the Program. Notifications also included a description 

of the Program, the NEPA/CEQA process, and instructions for submitting public comments or 

requesting special accommodations.

Newspaper Advertisements and Press Releases

RCTC advertised the public scoping meetings and comment period in the following newspapers: 

• The Press-Enterprise published on October 6, 2016 – circulation in Riverside and San 

Bernardino Counties

• Los Angeles Times published on October 6, 2016 – circulation in Southern California

• The Desert Sun published on October 6, 2016 – circulation in Coachella Valley

• La Opinion (Spanish) published on October 6, 2016 – circulation in Southern California

• El Informador del Valle (Spanish) published on October 6, 2016 – circulation in Coachella 

Valley

• La Prensa (Spanish) published on October 7, 2016 – circulation in Riverside, San Bernardino 

and East Los Angeles Counties

• Excelsior (Spanish) published on October 7, 2016 – circulation in Orange County

• La Prensa Hispana (Spanish) published on October 7, 2016 – circulation in Coachella Valley, 

eastern portion of Riverside County, eastern portion of San Bernardino County, and Imperial 

County

The advertisements invited the public to attend the public scoping meetings, provided information 

regarding the meeting times and places, the meeting format, the 30-day public scoping period, the 

publication of the NOI and NOP, Program website address, and instructions for submitting public 

comments or requesting special accommodations. 

Additionally, RCTC issued an electronic press release on October 11, 2016 inviting the public to 

attend the public scoping meeting, providing meeting times and places, information regarding the 

public scoping period, and instructions for submitting public comments or requesting special 

accommodations. SCAG and the City of Indio also posted the press release on their respective 

websites. The NOP and an associated press release were also made available to the public on 

RCTC’s website for the Program: www.rctc.org/coachella. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

8 Public and Agency Outreach

May 2021 | 8-15

8.4.3 Public Scoping Meetings

During the NOI/NOP comment period, FRA and RCTC conducted three public scoping meetings as 

summarized in Table 8-3. 

Table 8-3. Public Scoping Meetings

Meeting Date Location Time

Number of 

Attendees

October 12, 2016 Springbrook Clubhouse at Reid Park

1101 North Orange Street

Riverside, California 92501

5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. 8

October 13, 2016 Indio Senior Center 

45700 Aladdin Street

Indio, California 92201

5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. 17

October 17, 2016 Metro Headquarters 

1 Gateway Plaza

Los Angeles California 90012

5:00 p.m. – 7:00 p.m. 14

The public scoping meetings helped to notify stakeholders about the public comment period for

the CEQA NOP (October 6, 2016 through November 10, 2016) and the NEPA NOI (October 11, 

2016 through November 10, 2016). The primary goals for the public scoping meetings were to: 

• Educate the public on the need for the Program; 

• Share the history of the Program and how the Program has evolved; 

• Outline the Program benefits; 

• Highlight the Program elements; 

• Present the Program timeline; 

• Explain next steps; and

• Gather public comments per the requirements of CEQA and NEPA. 

The public scoping meetings provided the public and government agencies the opportunity to 

receive information on the NEPA/CEQA process, the Program, and how to provide comments. 

Approximately 39 persons total attended the public scoping meetings in Los Angeles, Indio, and 

Riverside, including representatives from local and state agencies, organizations, and private 

citizens. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

8 Public and Agency Outreach

May 2021 | 8-16

Copies of the NOI and NOP were available at the sign-in tables. To ensure that the multilingual 

needs of the community were met, the Program fact sheet was available in Spanish. In addition, 

team staff members were available to interpret the presentation in Spanish. Program fact sheets and 

comment cards were provided as handouts at the public scoping meetings. 

Prior to and after the presentation, attendees were encouraged to visit the various stations, view the 

display boards, meet with the team, ask questions, and provide comments. Robert Yates, 

Multimodal Services Director for RCTC, gave the presentation with assistance from J.D. Douglas, 

project manager for HDR. Lyle Leitelt was also in attendance to represent FRA and answered 

questions from stakeholders. 

Attendees were also encouraged to submit comments by mail: electronically to the Program email 

address or as written comments submitted at the meeting. Several attendees submitted written 

comments at the public scoping meeting using forms made available.

8.4.4 Agency and Public Scoping Comments

Federal, state, and local agencies; private and public organizations; and the general public provided 

written comments during the public scoping period. The comment period for the NOP and

NOI ended November 10, 2016. In total, 36 submissions were received: 13 from federal, state, and 

local agencies; 23 from individuals of the public and other organizations, and 1 from a railroad 

stakeholder. Eight comments offered general support for the Program, of which five comments 

requested that the Program be expedited to allow for alternative modes of transportation in the 

Coachella Valley. One comment was supportive of the Program because it could reduce carbon 

emissions and bring safety benefits to the Coachella Valley during festival season. These comments

are incorporated into the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The total number of scoping comment 

submissions are summarized in Table 8-4. 

Table 8-4. Total Number of Public Scoping Comment Submissions

Number Received Source

13 Agency Submissions

1 Public comment cards from agencies

12 Letters and emails from agencies

23 Public Submissions

17 Emails submitted via CoachellaValleyRail@ArellanoAssociates.com

3 Letters mailed to FRA and RCTC
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

8 Public and Agency Outreach

May 2021 | 8-17

Number Received Source

3 Coachella Valley Rail Project comment forms

1 Railroad Stakeholder Submissions

1 Letters from railroad stakeholders

Notes:

FRA=Federal Railroad Administration; RCTC=Riverside County Transportation Commission

Comments submitted during the public scoping process were taken into consideration by 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC throughout the development of the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, 

including the public and agency involvement process, Purpose and Need statement, alternatives 

development, and environmental resources evaluation. Comments generally focused on the 

following topics:

• Program termini

• Station locations and station area development

• Service frequency

• Program alignments and alternatives

• Transit network connectivity

• Public engagement opportunities

• Property acquisition/ROW

• Mitigation of environmental impacts

• Freight interference
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

8 Public and Agency Outreach

May 2021 | 8-18

8.5 Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR

8.5.1 Outreach, Involvement, and Communications 

Public outreach during the development of the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR includes the following 

methods:

• Website – The Program website includes an overview, Public Involvement Information, and 

when available, related studies and resources, including an electronic version of the Draft 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The website was updated with information on the Program 

alternatives, environmental review, and current and previous Program documentation and 

provided a link to allow people to sign up for the mailing list and submit comments 

electronically. 

• Mailing List – RCTC developed an electronic and traditional mailing list of elected officials, 

public agency contacts, property owners adjacent to the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Study Area, 

stakeholders, and community groups, and members of the public with an interest in the

Program. The mailing list was used to distribute meeting announcements and information 

about the Program. Where email addresses were available, announcements including 

Program information and public involvement opportunities were distributed electronically. 

• Local Government and Stakeholder Briefings – Upon request or at key milestones, the 

lead agencies briefed local government entities and stakeholders to provide information, 

answer questions, and receive feedback.

• Social Media Messaging – RCTC’s Twitter and Facebook accounts will include posts with 

information for the public meeting dates and times and a link to the Program website 

approaching the release of the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR for public review. Posts will also 

be made to inform the public on how to submit comments on the Draft Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR. 

8.5.2 Agency Meetings and Consultation

A Technical Advisory Committee was convened consisting of technical staff representatives from the 

lead and participating agencies and other stakeholders. There have been seven Technical Advisory 

Committee meetings conducted since 2015, focused on specific technical topics, such as rail 

operations, conceptual alternatives development, NEPA/CEQA requirements, historic properties and 

Section 106, water resources, potential mitigation strategies, and advance permitting requirements. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

8 Public and Agency Outreach

May 2021 | 8-19

8.6 Publication and Review of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR

8.6.1 Notification and Circulation of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR

The NOA of the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR will be published in the FR on May 21, 2021. The 

Notice of Completion (NOC) for the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR will be filed with the Los Angeles

County Clerk’s Office, Orange County Clerk’s Office, San Bernardino County Clerk’s Office, 

Riverside County Clerk’s Office, State Clearinghouse, and sent to the mailing list. The NOC will also 

be distributed via an email blast, RCTC’s Home Page, and the following newspapers:

• The Desert Sun

• The Press-Enterprise

• Los Angeles Times

• Excelsior (Spanish)

• El Informador del Valle (Spanish)

Copies of the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, including the NOC, will be mailed to each of the NEPA 

participating agencies (which also included responsible agencies as defined by CEQA). The public 

review period for the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR extends for 45 days from May 21, 2021 to

July 6, 2021. 

Repository Locations

Requests for hard copies of the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR with technical appendices may be 

sent to: 

Riverside County Transportation Commission

Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager

P.O. Box 12008

Riverside, California 92502-2208

or via email to cvrail@rctc.org

Hard copies of the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Executive Summary and CD copies of the entire 

Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR with accompanying technical appendices will also be available for 

public view at the following locations (subject to library location hours and COVID-19 procedures):
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

8 Public and Agency Outreach

May 2021 | 8-20

Los Angeles Union Station/Metro 

Library and Archive

One Gateway Plaza

15th Floor

Los Angeles, California 90012 

(Hard copy of the Draft EIS/EIR 

and appendices available in 

English and hard copy of Executive 

Summary available in English and 

Spanish)

Fullerton Public Library

353 W Commonwealth Avenue

Fullerton, California 92832

(Hard copy of Executive Summary 

available in English and Spanish)

Arlington Library

9556 Magnolia Avenue

Riverside, California 92503

(Hard copy of Executive Summary 

available in English and Spanish)

Riverside County Transportation 

Commission

4080 Lemon Street

Riverside, California 92501 

(Hard copy of the Draft EIS/EIR 

and appendices available in 

English and hard copy of Executive 

Summary available in English and 

Spanish)

Colton Public Library

656 N 9th Street

Colton, California 92324

(Hard copy of Executive Summary 

available in English and Spanish)

Loma Linda Branch Library

25581 Barton Road

Loma Linda, California 92354

(Hard copy of Executive Summary 

available in English and Spanish)

A.K. Smiley Public Library

125 W. Vine Street

Redlands, California 92373

(Hard copy of Executive Summary 

available in English and Spanish)

Beaumont Library

125 E. Eighth Street

Beaumont, California 92223

(Hard copy of Executive Summary 

available in English and Spanish)

Banning Public Library

21 W. Nicolet Street

Banning, California 92220

(Hard copy of Executive Summary 

available in English and Spanish)

Palm Springs Public Library 

300 S. Sunrise Way

Palm Springs, California 92262

(Hard copy of Executive Summary 

available in English and Spanish)

Riverside County 

Indio Branch Library

200 Civic Center Mall

Indio, California 92201

(Hard copy of Executive Summary 

available in English and Spanish)

Riverside County 

Coachella Branch Library

1500 6th Street

Coachella, California 92236

(Hard copy of Executive Summary 

available in English and Spanish)

In addition, the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR will be available for review on RCTC’s website 

(http://rctc.org/projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-corridor-service-project/) and 

FRA’s website

(https://railroads.dot.gov/environment/environmental-reviews/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-cor

ridor-investment-plan), beginning May 21, 2021.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

8 Public and Agency Outreach

May 2021 | 8-21

8.6.2 Providing Comments on the Tier 1/Program Draft EIS/EIR

Written comments on the content of the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR should be submitted no later 

than July 6, 2021. The document can be viewed at the websites noted above and 

https://www.regulations.gov/docket/FRA-2021-0048. Comments can be shared directly with FRA by 

visiting the regulations.gov link (above) or by searching regulations.gov for Docket Number 

(FRA-2021-0048). All electronic comments should be submitted via regulations.gov. 

Written comments should be sent via U.S. mail to:

Federal Railroad Administration

Amanda Ciampolillo, Environmental Protection Specialist

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20590

Comments should include “Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service 

Program – Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Comments” in the subject line and the name of a contact 

person in your organization, if applicable.

8.6.3 Public Information Meetings and Hearings 

The purpose of the public hearings is to explain the Program and the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

evaluation. FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC have scheduled two public hearings as an important 

component of the NEPA and CEQA process. The virtual public hearings for the Program are 

scheduled as follows: 

June 22, 2021, 06:00 p.m.

June 26, 2021, 09:00 a.m. 

The format of the public hearing will consist of a Program overview. Following presentation of the 

Program, meeting attendees will be able to virtually participate and are encouraged to provide 

questions and comments on the Program. Comments on the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR from the 

public during the public hearing may be submitted virtually via court reporter. Spanish language 

translators will be present during the public hearings. People requesting Americans with Disabilities 

Act accommodations or additional translator services are encouraged to contact RCTC at 

(909) 627-2974 at least 72 hours in advance of the meetings.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

8 Public and Agency Outreach

May 2021 | 8-22

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

9 References

May 2021 | 9-1 

9 References

Amtrak. 2018. Amtrak System Timetable 2018. 

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/timetables/A

mtrak-System-Timetable-060118.pdf. 

Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe Railway Company and RCTC. 1992. Shared use agreement. 

Banning Patch. 2014. Fiery Crash Leads to I-10 Shutdown in Cabazon Area. 

https://patch.com/california/banning-beaumont/fiery-crash-leads-i-10-shutdown-cabazonarea-0. 

California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2018. Area Designations Maps / State and National. 

Accessed July 19, 2018. https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. 

——— 2020. Current California GHG Emission Inventory Data. Accessed January 15, 2021. 

https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/ghg-inventory-data. 

California Department of Conservation. 2020. California Important Farmland Finder. Accessed 

November 15, 2020. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/. 

California Department of Finance. 2018. Tables P-1: & P-2, State and County Projections Dataset: 

Total Estimated and Projected Population for California and Counties: July 1, 2010 to July 1, 

2060 in 1-year Increments. 

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2018. California Natural Diversity Data Base 

(CNDDB) RareFind 5 Report. 

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2012. California Fire Hazard Severity Zone 

Map Update Project.

http://www.fire.ca.gov/fire_prevention/fire_prevention_wildland_zones_maps. Accessed April 

2019. 

California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery. 2020a. California Green Building 

Standards Code – Frequently Asked Questions. Accessed November 11, 2020. 

https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lgcentral/library/canddmodel/instruction/faq#Update. 

——— 2020b. SWIS Facility/Site Activity Search Database. Accessed November 12, 2020. 

https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Activity. 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2004. Transportation- and Construction-Induced 

Vibration Guidance Manual. Noise, Vibration, and Hazardous Waste Management Office. 

June. Sacramento, CA. J&S 02-039. Prepared by Jones & Stokes, Sacramento, CA. 

——— 2012. Traffic Volumes on the California Highway System. SCAG Model. 

——— 2014. Performance Measurement System (PeMS) Data Source. Accessed December 15, 

2014. 

——— 2018. California State Rail Plan. http://www.dot.ca.gov/californiarail/docs/CSRP_Final.pdf. 

——— 2020. California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, 2014 Edition, Revision 5 (March 

27, 2020). 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

9 References

May 2021 | 9-2 

California Energy Commission (CEC). 2018a. California Operational Power Plant Geospatial Data 

Layer. Accessed July 30, 2018. 

http://caenergy.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=ad8323410d9b47c1b1a

9f751d62fe495. 

——— 2018b. Natural Gas Pipeline Geospatial Data Layer. Accessed July 30, 2018. https://cecgiscaenergy.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/california-natural-gas-pipeline. 

——— 2019a. Review of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power’s 2017 Power Integrated 

Resource Plan. Accessed November 12, 2020. 

https://www.energy.ca.gov/filebrowser/download/1901. 

——— 2019b. Southern California Edison 2018 Power Content Label. Accessed November 12, 

2020. https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-

01/2018_PCL_Southern_California_Edison.pdf. 

——— 2019c. Imperial Irrigation District 2018 Power Content Label. Accessed November 12, 2020. 

https://www.energy.ca.gov/sites/default/files/2020-

01/2018_PCL_Imperial_Irrigation_District.pdf. 

——— 2020. 2019 Integrated Energy Policy Report. Accessed November 11, 2020. 

https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/reports/integrated-energy-policy-report/2019-

integrated-energy-policy-report. 

California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2018. Regulated Site Portal. Accessed July 

2018. https://siteportal.calepa.ca.gov/nsite. 

California Native Plant Society. 2018. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (Eighth 

Edition). Online Edition. Accessed July 2018. 

http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgibin/inv/inventory.cgi. 

California Protected Areas Database. 2017. Version 2017a. http://www.calands.org/data. 

California State Data Center. 2016a. 2012-2016 American Community Survey (5-year estimates), 

Data Extract for Income, Poverty, and Employment Status. 

——— 2016b. 2012-2016 American Community Survey (5-year estimates), Data Extract for Social 

Characteristics – Household Type, Grandparents, Veterans, Disability, Nativity, Language.

City of Indio. 2018. City of Indio. Accessed July 11, 2018. http://indio.org/about/history.htm. 

City of Vernon. 2018. City of Vernon. Accessed July 10, 2018. http://cityofvernon.org/. 

Colorado River Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2017. Colorado River Basin Plan. 

August 2017. 

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/coloradoriver/water_issues/programs/basin_planning/. 

Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997a. Considering Cumulative Effects under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. January. Accessed April 2019.

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQConsidCumulEffects.pdf. 

——— 1997b. Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA). December. Accessed April 2019. 

https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/nepapub/nepa_documents/RedDont/G-CEQEJGuidance.pdf/. 

County of Los Angeles. 2015. Los Angeles County 2035 General Plan. Adopted October 6, 2015. 

Accessed June 27, 2018.

http://planning.lacounty.gov/assets/upl/project/gp_final-general-plan.pdf. , 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

9 References

May 2021 | 9-3 

County of Riverside. 2003 County of Riverside General Plan. Accessed June 27, 2018. 

http://planning.rctlma.org/ZoningInformation/GeneralPlan.aspx. 

——— 2015. County of Riverside General Plan Noise Element. Accessed, April 16, 2021. 

https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/general_Plan_2017/elements/OCT17/Ch07_N

oise_120815.pdf?ver=2017-10-11-102104-080. 

——— 2019. Western Coachella Valley Area Plan, County of Riverside General Plan, December 

2019. Accessed November 2020. 

https://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/14/genplan/2019/ap/WCVAP_121019.pdf. 

County of San Bernardino. 2014. County of San Bernardino General Plan. Accessed June 27, 2018.

http://www.sbcounty.gov/Uploads/lus/GeneralPlan/FINALGP.pdf. 

Davis, Stacy C., Susan W. Diegel, and Robert G. Boundy. 2018. Transportation Energy Data Book: 

Edition 36.1. U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Page 2-19. Table 

2.14. (Edition 36.1 of ORNL-5198). Accessed July 2018. 

https://cta.ornl.gov/data/tedbfiles/Edition36_Chapter02.pdf. 

Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2019. CalWater 2.2.1 Watershed Boundaries. Accessed 

April 2019. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/data/frapgisdata-sw-calwater_download. 

Desert Sun. 2016. Tour bus crash in California kills 13, closes I-10. 

https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/2016/10/23/least-three-dead-after-interstate-10-buscrash/92641620/. 

eBird. 2017. An online database of bird distribution and abundance (web application). eBird, Cornell 

Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York. Accessed July 2018. http://ebird.org/ebird/map/. 

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Technical Report 

Y 87 1, U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2020. Flood Map Service Center. Accessed 

December 2020. https://msc.fema.gov/portal/advanceSearch. 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2015. Guidelines for the Visual Impact Assessment of 

Highway Projects. 

https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/env_topics/other_topics/VIA_Guidelines_for_Highway

_Projects.pdf. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 1999. Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. 

Section 14(n)(16). Accessed July 24, 2018.

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/FRAEnvProcedures_FED_REG_Notic

e.pdf. 

——— 2007. Collision Hazard Analysis Guide: Commuter and Intercity Passenger Rail Service.

Office of Safety. Washington, DC. October 2007. https://www.hsdl.org/?abstract&did=15767. 

——— 2012. High-Speed Ground Transportation Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. 

(DOT/FRA/ORD-12/15.) Washington, DC: Office of Railroad Policy and Development. 

——— 2014. Railroad Safety Data Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ). Page 3. 

https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/Documents/Railroad%20Safety%20Data%20Fre

quently%20Asked%20Questions.pdf. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) Office of Safety Analysis. 2018a. Table 1.12 Ten Year 

Accident/Incident Overview. Last updated July 25, 2018. 

http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

9 References

May 2021 | 9-4 

——— 2018b. Table 1.13 Freight/Passenger Operations Ten Year Overview. Last updated July 25, 

2018. http://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/. 

——— 2018c. Table 8.01 Query By Location. 

https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/Default.aspx. 

——— 2019. Table 1.11 Grade Crossing Inventory and General Trespassing Statistics. Last 

updated March 31, 2019. Accessed June 2019. 

https://safetydata.fra.dot.gov/OfficeofSafety/publicsite/Query/AccidentByRegionStateCounty.

aspx. 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 

(FTA Report No. 0123.) Washington, DC: Office of Planning and Environment. 

Greater Palm Springs Convention and Visitors Bureau (GPSCVB). 2017. 2017 Report on the 

Economic Impact of Tourism. 

https://assets.simpleviewinc.com/simpleview/image/upload/v1/clients/palmsprings/GPS_Eco

nomicImpactStudy_2017_0530_FINAL_8b3dc756-6aba-4089-8a37-bf0f8bfc3f5c.pdf. 

Inland Empire Center for Economics and Public Policy. 2016. Palm Springs Economic Report. 

http://www.palmspringsca.gov/home/showdocument?id=49803. 

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). 2017. Board Report, Planning 

and Programming Committee. January 18, 2017. 

https://metro.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2938165&GUID=1E63700A-AE7A4F6E-8ABE5F7095AE400E&Options=ID%7cText%7c&Search=Regional+Rail+Update+through+Decem

ber+2016. 

——— 2020. Rosecrans Marquardt Grade Separation Project Website. Accessed November 2020. 

https://www.metro.net/projects/rosecrans-marquardt-grade-separation/. 

Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2014. Water Quality Control Plan for 

the Los Angeles Region. 

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/losangeles/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/ 

Los Angeles Times. 2014. Caltrans slammed after roadwork causes 25-mile backup. Accessed June 

2014. https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/02/caltrans-slammed-after-roadworkcauses-25-mile-backup.html. 

Metrolink. 2018. All Lines Timetable. https://www.metrolinktrains.com/globalassets/schedules/1st-alllines-timetable-final.pdf. 

Orange County. 2005. Orange County General Plan. Accessed June 27, 2018.

https://www.ocgov.com/gov/pw/cd/planning/generalplan2005.asp. 

Penrod, K., C. Cabariero, P. Beier, C. Luke, W. Spencer, and E. Rubin. 2005. South Coast

Missing Linkages Project: A Linkage Design for the San Gabriel-Castaic Connection.

South Coast Wildlands, Idyllwild, California. www.scwildlands.org. 

Riverside County Planning Department. 2015. Environmental Impact Report No. 521, Public Review 

Draft. Volume 1, Part 1, 04-09 Cultural and Paleontological Resources. February 2015. 

http://planning.rctlma.org/ZoningInformation/GeneralPlan/GeneralPlanAmendmentNo960EIR

No521CAPMarch2014/DraftEnvironmentalImpactReportNo521.aspx. Accessed September 

2018. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

9 References

May 2021 | 9-5 

Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). 2016. Final Alternative Analysis – Coachella 

Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Study. 

San Francisco State University. 2017. Amtrak California Survey Development, Onboard Passenger 

Rail Survey: Longitudinal Comparison of Four Rounds of Data. Prepared for California 

Department of Transportation. 

Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 2016. Santa Ana Region Basin Plan. 

Created 1995 and Updated in February 2016.

www.swrcb.ca.gov/santaana/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/index.shtml. 

Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. E. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation. Second 

Edition. Sacramento, CA: California Native Plant Society. 

SBCTA, UP, and BNSF. 2010. Memorandum of Understanding: Colton Crossing Railroad Grade 

Separation Project. 

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation 

of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Published by the Society of Vertebrate 

Impact Mitigation Guidelines Committee. 

South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). 2016. Final 2016 Air Quality Management 

Plan. Accessed September 2018.

http://www.aqmd.gov/home/air-quality/clean-air-plans/air-quality-mgt-plan/final-2016-aqmp. 

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). 2016. 2016-2040 Regional Transportation 

Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) Forecast by Jurisdiction. Adopted April 

2016. 

http://www.scag.ca.gov/Documents/2016_2040RTPSCS_FinalGrowthForecastbyJurisdiction.

pdf. 

Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA). 2018. “Find the Nearest Station.” Accessed 

July 2018. https://www.metrolinktrains.com/rider-info/general-info/stations/. 

Spencer, W. O., P. Beier, K. Penrod, K. Winters, C. Paulman, H. Rustigian-Romsos, J. Strittholt, M. 

Parisi, and A. Pettier. 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project: A Strategy for 

Conserving a Connected California. Prepared for the California Department of 

Transportation, California Department of Fish and Game, and Federal Highway 

Administration. February. 

State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection. 2018. 2018 Strategic Fire Plan for California. Accessed 

April 2019. http://cdfdata.fire.ca.gov/pub/fireplan/fpupload/fpppdf1614.pdf. 

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2018. Impaired Water Bodies. Final 2014/2016 

California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List/305(b) Report). 

www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2014_2016.shtml. 

Steer. 2018. Overview of the Caltrans Mode Share Model Memo. Caltrans Mode Share Model 

Project. Prepared for California Department of Transportation. 

SunLine Transit Agency. 2017. “Commuter Link 220 FAQ.” Accessed July 2018.

https://www.sunline.org/commuter-link-220-faq. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

9 References

May 2021 | 9-6 

The White House. 1994. Memorandum for the Heads of All Departments and Agencies. Subject: 

Executive Order on Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations. February 11, 1994. Signed by William Clinton. 

Union Station Los Angeles. n.d. Union Station Fact Sheet. 

http://www.unionstationla.com/user/pages/10.press-room/Union-Station-Los-Angeles-FactSheet.pdf. 

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of 

Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. Version 2.0. ERDC/EL TR-08-28. 

Department of the Army Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Waterways Experiment Station, Wetlands Research Program, Vicksburg, MS. September 

2008. 

United States (U.S.) Census Bureau. 2016a. QuickFacts (Population Estimates, July 1, 2016). 

https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216. 

——— 2016b. 2012-2016 American Community Survey, 5-year estimates. Accessed July 2018.

www.census.gov/geo/maps-data/data/tiger-data.html. 

United States Department of Agriculture – Forest Service. Forest Service Geodata Clearinghouse. 

Accessed November 23, 2020. https://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/maps/standardmap.php#overview. 

United States Department of the Interior. 2020a. National Register of Historic Places Interactive 

Mapping, National Park Service. https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9-b808-

4ff8-a2f9-a99909164466. 

——— 2020b. California Map of Federal Lands. Accessed November 2020. 

https://gisgeography.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/California-Map-Federal-Lands.pdf. 

United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Bureau of Transportation Statistics. 2017.

Accident and Incident Reporting. https://railroads.dot.gov/safety-data/accident-and-incidentreporting/112-accidentincident-overview. 

United States Energy Information Administration (U.S. EIA). 2017. Energy Units and Calculators 

Explained. Accessed July 26, 2018. 

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=about_energy_units. 

——— 2018a. U.S. EIA Electric Power Monthly (February 2018), Tables 1.10.B, 1.11.B, 1.14.B, 

1.15.B, 1.16.B, 1.17.B, 1.18.B. Accessed November 12, 2020. 

https://www.eia.gov/beta/states/states/ca/analysis. 

——— 2018b. Total Energy Consumption Estimates by End-Use Sector. Accessed November 12, 

2020. https://www.eia.gov/beta/states/states/ca/data/dashboard/consumption. 

——— 2021. Sample Btu Conversion Factors. Accessed January 2021. 

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/units-and-calculators/british-thermal-units.php. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 1974. Information on Levels of 

Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate 

Margin of Safety. March. Washington, DC: United States Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Noise Abatement and Control. 

——— 2006. Transportation Conformity Guidance for Qualitative Hot Spot Analyses in PM2.5 and 

PM10 Non attainment and Maintenance Areas. Accessed, May 5, 2021. 

https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2/20060301_otaq_hotspots_analysis_transportation_conformity.pdf. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

9 References

May 2021 | 9-7 

——— 2018a. Nonattainment Areas for Criteria Pollutants (Green Book). Accessed July 19, 2018.

https://www.epa.gov/green-book. 

——— 2018b. General Conformity De Minimis Tables. Accessed July 19, 2018.

https://www.epa.gov/general-conformity/de-minimis-tables. 

——— 2018c. Facility Registry Service: Facility Interest Dataset. Accessed July 2018.

https://edg.epa.gov/metadata/catalog/search/resource/details.page?uuid=%7B0A2C3F02-

3D68-4556-8A87-B288C318E0EE%7D. 

——— 2019. Mandatory Class 1 Federal Areas. Accessed January 21, 2021. 

https://hub.arcgis.com/datasets/EPA::mandatory-class-1-federal-areas-labels?geometry=-

117.937%2C33.792%2C-115.324%2C34.190. 

——— 2020. Environmental Justice (webpage). Accessed April 20, 2021. 

https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice. 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2018. National Wetlands Inventory Mapper. 

Accessed July 2018. www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.HTML. 

United States Geological Survey (USGS). 2016. National Hydrography Dataset. Accessed July 

2018. ftp://nhdftp.usgs.gov/DataSets/Staged/States/. 

——— 2017. USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) Best Resolution 20170915 for California 

State or Territory FileGDB 10.1 Model Version 2.2.1 Geospatial Data Presentation Form 

vector digital data. Accessed May 2, 2018. 

ftp://rockyftp.cr.usgs.gov/vdelivery/Datasets/Staged/Hydrography/NHD/State/HighResolution/

GDB/NHD_H_California_GDB.zip.

——— 2020. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database. Accessed July 2018.

https://earthquake.usgs.gov/hazards/qfaults/. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

9 References

May 2021 | 9-8 

This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

10 List of Preparers and Organizations and Persons Consulted

May 2021 | 10-1

10 List of Preparers and Organizations and 

Persons Consulted

10.1 EIS/EIR Preparers

10.1.1 Riverside County Transportation Commission

Anne Mayer, Executive Director

John Standiford, Deputy Executive Director

Sheldon Peterson, Rail Manager

Lorelle Moe-Luna, Multimodal Services Director

Ariel Alcon Tapia, Management Analyst

10.1.2 Federal Railroad Administration

Karla Maffett, Program Delivery Regional Team Lead 

Lyle Leitelt, Project Manager, Community Planner

Amanda Ciampolillo, Environmental Protection Specialist

Faris Mohammed, Attorney-Advisor

10.1.3 California Department of Transportation Division of Rail and Mass 

Transportation

Andrew Cook, Chief, Rail Planning Branch

Phillip Hoebeke, Rail Planning Branch

Ryan Greenway, Senior Regional Rail Coordinator

10.1.4 Best Best and Krieger

Charity Schiller, Environmental/CEQA Attorney 

Andrew Skanchy, Environmental/Land Use Attorney 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

10 List of Preparers and Organizations and Persons Consulted

May 2021 | 10-2

10.1.5 HDR

JD Douglas, PE, Project Manager

Patrick O’Neill, Environmental Planning Lead

Kelly Czechowski, Environmental Services Project Manager

Tim Gnibus, Quality Assurance Lead

Nina Delu, RPA, Environmental Services Project Manager

Sharyn Del Rosario, Environmental Services Project Manager

Gerard Reminiskey, PE, Senior Rail Transit Project Manager

Keith Lay, Senior Air Quality Specialist

Mark Hemphill, PE, Senior Railway Planner 

Matt Van Hattem, Senior Railway Planner

Bruno Penet, Principal Economist

Andrew Cherene, Senior Geologist

Erin Martinelli, Senior Biologist

Shelly Austin, Senior Biologist

Hong Spores, Senior Hydrogeologist

Anders Burvall, GIS Deputy Project Manager

Renee Stueber, Technical Editor Lead

Katherine Turner, Technical Editor

Terrileigh Pellarin, Environmental Planner

Crystal Wang, Transportation Planner

10.1.6 Subconsultants

Arellano Associates

Edgar Gutierrez, Project Manager
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

10 List of Preparers and Organizations and Persons Consulted

May 2021 | 10-3

ICF

Debra Rogers, Environmental Planning Lead

Donna McCormick, Environmental Principal

Jason Volk, Noise and Vibration Principal

Keith Cooper, Air Quality and Climate Change Principal

Johnathan Hecht, Economics Director 

Cory Matsui, Air Quality Manager

Jessica Feldman, Historic Preservation Manager

Tanya Copeland, Senior Manager

Laura Rocha, Senior Water Resources Planner

Kelly Ross, Senior Environmental Planner

Patrick McGuinnis, Senior Archaeologist 

Tanya Jones, Environmental Planner

William Kohn, Wildlife Biologist

Kelsey Dix, Botanist

TranSystems (Consultant to Federal Railroad Administration)

David Fee, Senior Planner

Laina Petrinec, Environmental Planner

10.2 Organizations and Persons Consulted

10.2.1 Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians

Lacy Padilla, Archaeologist/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

10.2.2 Amtrak 

Richard J. Rogers, Principal Officer
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

10 List of Preparers and Organizations and Persons Consulted

May 2021 | 10-4

10.2.3 Bureau of Land Management 

John Dalton, Environmental Planner and Coordinator (Palm Springs/South Coast Field Office)

Chelsea Collins, Realty Specialist (Palm Springs/South Coast Field Office)

10.2.4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife

Leslie MacNair, Regional Manager

10.2.5 California Department of Transportation, District 8

Mark Roberts, Office Chief, Intergovernmental Review, Community and Regional Planning 

Ray Desselle, Deputy District Director of Planning

James Camarillo, Associate Transportation Planner

Sean Yeung, Senior Transportation Engineer

10.2.6 California Office of Historic Preservation

Julianne Polanco, State Historic Preservation Officer

10.2.7 City of Coachella

Steven Hernandez, Mayor

10.2.8 City of Desert Hot Springs

Rebecca Deming, Community Development Director

Emily Pearson, Community Development Administrative Assistant

10.2.9 City of Palm Desert

Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development

10.2.10 City of Indio

Mariano Aquirre, Director of Housing and Development

Kevin Snyder, Director of Community Development
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

10 List of Preparers and Organizations and Persons Consulted

May 2021 | 10-5

10.2.11 Coachella Valley Association of Governments

Allyn Waggle, Deputy Director

Martin Magana, Director of Transportation

Eric Cowle, Transportation Program Manager

10.2.12 Federal Transit Administration, Region IX

Ted Matley, Director of Planning and Program Development

10.2.13 Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation

Andrew Salas, Chairman

10.2.14 La Posta Band of Mission Indians

Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson

10.2.15 Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro)

Elizabeth Carvajal, Senior Manager, Transportation Planning

10.2.16 Morongo Band of Mission Indians

Travis Armstrong, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

10.2.17 National Park Service

Jill Jensen, Cultural Resources Specialist

10.2.18 San Bernardino County Transportation Authority

Justin Fornelli, Chief of Transit and Rail Programs

Carrie Schindler, Director of Transit and Rail

10.2.19 San Manuel Band of Mission Indians

Jessica Mauck, Cultural Resources Analyst 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program – Draft EIS/EIR

10 List of Preparers and Organizations and Persons Consulted

May 2021 | 10-6

10.2.20 Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians

Joseph Ontiveros, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

Jessica Valdez, Cultural Resource Specialist 

10.2.21 South Coast Air Quality Management District

Jillian Wong, Planning and Rules Manager 

10.2.22 Southern California Association of Governments

Steve Fox, Senior Regional Planner

Ping Chang, Acting Manager, Compliance and Performance Monitoring

10.2.23 Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink)

Henning Eichler, Manager of Research and Planning 

10.2.24 United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Kennon Corey, Assistant Field Supervisor

10.2.25 United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX

Clifton Meek, Environmental Review Section