Coast Corridor 

Final Program EIS/EIR 4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

4-1 

4.0 FINAL PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 

4(F)/6(F) EVALUATION 

4.1 INTRODUCTION 

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

review process. As discussed in the ROD, FRA is selecting the Preferred Alternative 

for further evaluation and consideration in future project-level environmental 

reviews to be prepared subsequent to this Program EIS/EIR.1 

Section 4(f) properties are publicly owned parks, recreation areas, or wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges or properties of a historical site of national, state, or local 

significance as determined by the federal, state, regional, or local officials having 

jurisdiction over the resource. Under Section 4(f), an operating administration of 

the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) may not approve a project that uses 

protected properties unless there are no prudent of feasible alternatives and the 

project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to such properties. 

Section 6(f) properties are recreation resources funded by the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund Act of 1965 (LWCFA). Land purchased with these funds cannot 

be converted to a non-recreation use without coordination with the National Park 

Service (NPS) and mitigation that includes replacement of the quality and quantity 

of land used. 

This chapter describes the existing Section 4(f) and 6(f) resources within the study 

area, and identifies the potential uses of and potential impacts on these resources 

for Preferred Alternative. 

Chapter 5.0, Comments and Coordination, includes all comments on the Draft 

Program EIS/EIR and provides responses to each comment. The City of King 

provided several comments about the Build Alternative components discussed in 

this Programmatic Section 4(f)/6(f) Evaluation (see comments A-3.80 and A-3.81). 

 

1

 This section was included in the Public Draft Program EIS/EIR, but has been updated and tailored for 

the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, the section is not presented in a strikethrough/underline format. 
Coast Corridor 

4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Final Program EIS/EIR 

4-2 

Since the Build Alternative was not modified between the Draft and this Final 

Program EIS/EIR, none of the City of King’s comments result in the need for text 

revisions. However, this Final Section 4(f) Evaluation includes an assessment of the 

Preferred Alternative identified in the ROD; the Preferred Alternative incorporates 

features noted by the City of King in its above-referenced comments.

4.1.1 STUDY AREA 

The study area as defined below identifies the Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) 

properties considered in this evaluation. To identify potential Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

resources in the study areas, a review of the California Protected Areas Database 

from the GreenInfo Network (calands.org) was completed.2

 Potential resources 

were further identified through review of aerial maps and adopted local plans, 

including city and county general plans and coordination with responsible federal 

and local agencies. Potential historic resources that might qualify as Section 4(f) 

properties were identified using the same methods described in Section 3.10.2 to 

identify resources that are listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP). Potential Section 4(f) resources include those that are listed 

or eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

Historic Sites 

FRA and SLOCOG initiated consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer 

(SHPO) under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) in June 

2013 and requested SHPO confirm an appropriate study area, or Area of Potential 

Effect (APE), for identification of cultural resources. SHPO concurred with the APE 

used in this Program EIS/EIR. 

The APE for historic resources reflects the potential for direct and constructive use 

as set forth by Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) implementing legislation. Study areas 

were developed around each of the physical components of the Preferred 

Alternative that would adequately capture the potential for direct use, as well as 

noise, vibration, or visual effects, that could result in a constructive use. Screening 

distances for potential direct use were defined as follows: 

 New Sidings and Siding Extensions: entire projected length and width. 

 

2

The California Protected Areas Database (CPAD) contains data about lands that are owned outright 

(“in fee”) and protected for open space purposes by over 900 public agencies or non-profit 

organizations. CPAD lands range from the smallest urban parks all the way to the largest wilderness 

areas – all told, CPAD inventories just over 49 million acres in 13,500 “parks.”
Coast Corridor 

Final Program EIS/EIR 4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

4-3 

 Second mainline: entire projected ROW. 

 Curve realignments: entire projected length and 100 feet wide. 

 Powered switches, track and signal upgrades: assumed to be within existing rail 

alignment. 

 New Stations: footprints of sites as noted in previously adopted local 

documents. 

Screening distances for potential constructive use were defined as follows: 

 Siding extensions: entire projected length and width plus 50 feet on either side 

of existing ROW. 

 Second mainline: entire projected length and width plus 100 feet on either side 

of existing ROW. 

 Curve realignments: entire projected length and 200 feet on either side of the 

existing ROW, for a total of 500 feet. 

 Powered switches, track and signal upgrades: assumed to be within existing rail 

ROW, so no constructive use anticipated. 

 New Stations: Footprints for proposed sites and public parks within one mile. 

Public Park and Recreation Lands; Wildlife and Waterfowl Refuges 

The study area for public park and recreation lands and wildlife and waterfowl 

refuges includes lands within 400 feet of the existing rail corridor and the outer 

edges of the buffer area for each physical component. This area was intended to 

capture potential indirect impacts to park and recreation areas from the Preferred 

Alternative components. 

Clean Air Act Class I Areas 

In addition, in accordance with the Clean Air Act, all designated Class I Areas located 

with 100 kilometers of the existing rail corridor were identified and assessed for 

potential visibility impacts from air pollutant emissions. 

4.1.2 LAWS, REGULATIONS, AND ORDERS 

This section includes the federal laws and regulations that pertain to Section 4(f) 

and 6(f) properties in the study area. 
Coast Corridor 

4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Final Program EIS/EIR 

4-4 

U.S. Department of Transportation Act 49 U.S.C. 303(c) [Section 

4(f)] 

Section 4(f) prohibits DOT, or any of its operating administrations, to 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) unless: 

1. There is no prudent or feasible avoidance alternative to the use of the land from 

the Section 4(f) property; and, 

2. The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the 

Section 4(f) property resulting from the use. 

Even where there is a use of a protected resource, FRA may also determine that the 

impacts are de minimis. See Section 4.1.1.3 for a discussion of the requirements of 

a de minimis impact determination. 

Certain historic or archaeological sites or properties are also protected by Section 

4(f). For historic properties, Section 106 of the NHPA is used to identify properties 

potentially protected under Section 4(f) and to identify the potential impacts to 

such properties. FRA uses Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations 23 

CFR 771.774 as guidance in applying Section 4(f), as described below. 

This is a Programmatic 4(f)/6(f) Evaluation and is based on the information and 

analysis available at Tier 1. It is anticipated that final 4(f)/6(f) evaluations and, if 

necessary, accompanying 4(f) approvals will occur as part of future Tier 2 

environmental analysis and documentation. 

Section 4(f) and Section 106 

Section 4(f) is applicable to programs and projects undertaken by DOT that may 

entail the use of publicly-owned parks, recreation areas, and wildlife refuges, or to 

historic sites. 

Section 106, in contrast, applies to any federal agency and is meant to address both 

direct and indirect effects of an undertaking on historic properties, including 

archaeological resources. 

In general, archaeological sites on or eligible for inclusion on the NRHP are covered 

under Section 4(f). The NHPA provides specific criteria to assist in making this 

determination. An archaeological resource that is eligible only under NHPA 

“Criterion D” is considered valuable only in terms of the data that can be recovered 

from it. For these resources (such as pottery scatters and refuse deposits), it is 

generally assumed that there is minimal value attributed to preserving the 
Coast Corridor 

Final Program EIS/EIR 4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

4-5 

resources in place. Where a resource is only eligible under Criterion D, it is generally 

not protected by Section 4(f). 

Section 106 evaluates “effects” on cultural resources sites, whereas Section 4(f) 

evaluates whether the project or program results in a “use” of the site. Under these 

regulations, an “adverse effect” under Section 106 may not constitute a Section 4(f) 

use (permanent, temporary occupancy, or constructive). While the statutory 

requirements of Section 106 and Section 4(f) are similar, even if an undertaking 

results in an adverse effect under Section 106, there will not automatically be a 

Section 4(f) use absent a separate analysis and determination by FRA. 

Section 6(f) 

The LWCFA provides grants to state and local governments for the acquisition or 

improvement of parks and recreation areas.3 LWFCA Section 6(f) restricts any 

federal, state, or local agency from converting land acquired or developed under 

these grants to a non-recreational purpose without prior approval from the 

Department of the Interior (DOI). Under Section 6(f), replacement lands of equal 

value (monetary), location, and usefulness must typically be provided to obtain DOI 

approval of a conversion of Section 6(f) lands for transportation projects. 

4.1.3 SECTION 4(F) USE DEFINITION 

A use of a Section 4(f) resource occurs in the following circumstances: 

Permanent Use 

A permanent use of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when property is permanently 

incorporated into a proposed transportation facility. This might occur as a result of 

partial or full acquisition, permanent easements, or temporary easements that 

exceed limits for temporary occupancy, as noted below. 

Temporary Use 

A temporary use of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when there is a temporary 

occupancy of property that is considered adverse in terms of the preservationist 

purposes of the Section 4(f) statute. A temporary occupancy of property does not 

constitute a use of a Section 4(f) resource when the following conditions are 

satisfied: 

 

3

 16 U.S.C. §§ 460-4 through 460-11, September 3, 1964, as amended 1965, 1968, 1970, 1972–1974, 

1976–1981, 1983, 1986, 1987, 1990, 1991, 1993–1996
Coast Corridor 

4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Final Program EIS/EIR 

4-6 

 The occupancy must be of temporary duration (e.g., shorter than the period of 

construction) and must not involve a change in ownership of the property, 

 The scope of work must be minor, with only minimal changes to the protected 

resource, 

 There must be no permanent adverse physical impacts on the protected 

resource or temporary or permanent interference with activities or purpose of 

the resource, 

 The property being used must be fully restored to a condition that is at least as 

good as existed prior to the proposed project, and 

 There must be documented agreement of the appropriate officials having 

jurisdiction over the resource regarding the foregoing requirements. 

Constructive Use 

A constructive use of a Section 4(f) resource occurs when a transportation project 

does not permanently incorporate land from the resource, but the proximity of the 

project results in impacts (e.g., noise, vibration, visual, access, ecological) that are so 

severe that the protected activities, features, or attributes that qualify the resource 

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. FRA makes this determination by considering the 

following: 

 Identifying the current activities, features, or attributes of the resource that may 

be sensitive to proximity impacts. 

 Analyzing the potential proximity impacts on the resource. 

 Consulting with the appropriate officials having jurisdiction over the resource. 

De Minimis Impact 

According to 49 U.S.C. 303(d), the following criteria must be met to reach a de 

minimis impact determination: 

 For parks, recreation areas, and wildlife and waterfowl refuges, a de minimis

impact determination may be made if a transportation project will not adversely 

affect the activities, features, and attributes qualifying the property for 

protection under Section 4(f) after mitigation. In addition, to make a de minimis 

impact determination, there must be: 
Coast Corridor 

Final Program EIS/EIR 4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

4-7 

 Public notice and opportunity for public review and comment. 

 Written concurrence received from the officials with jurisdiction over the 

property. 

For a historic site, a de minimis impact determination may be made only if, in 

accordance with the Section 106 process of the NHPA and written concurrence from 

the SHPO, FRA determines that the transportation program or project will have no 

adverse effect on historic properties or that there are no historic properties 

affected. In addition, FRA will inform these officials of its intent to make a de 

minimis impact determination based on their concurrence in the finding of “no 

adverse effect” or “no historic properties affected.”

Section 4(f) Applicability 

A park qualifies for protection under Section 4(f) if: (1) the property is publicly 

owned, (2) the park is open to the general public, (3) it is being used for outdoor 

recreation, and (4) it is considered significant by the authority with jurisdiction. The 

park must be publicly-owned at the point at which use occurs. 

A historic site on or eligible for the NRHP qualifies for protection under Section 4(f) 

and a use may occur if land from the site is permanently or temporarily 

incorporated into the project. If a project does not physically take (permanently 

incorporate) historic property but causes an adverse effect, FRA must evaluate the 

proximity impacts to determine if the proximity impacts will substantially impair the 

features or attributes that contribute to the NRHP eligibility of the historic site. 

4.2 COORDINATION 

49 U.S.C. 303(b) requires cooperation and consultation with the Secretary of the 

Interior (and the Secretaries of Housing and Urban Development and Agriculture, if 

appropriate) and the states in development of transportation plans. Throughout 

the Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and SLOCOG consulted with the SHPO, the Native 

American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and interested tribes. Section 4(f) 

determinations may be aided by coordination with the SHPO, pursuant to 36 CFR 

Part 800, and agencies of jurisdiction in identifying Section 4(f) properties and 

assessing impacts on the properties. Table 4-1 lists the FRA and SLOCOG 

coordination to date with these agencies. 
Coast Corridor

4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Final Program EIS/EIR

4-8

Table 4-1 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Evaluation Consultation Summary

Date Form Participants General Topics

June 27, 2013 Telephone Project team, SHPO

Background, purpose and need, 

the environmental document, 

and key stakeholders of the 

project, parameters for the 

cultural records search, NAHC 

consultation

July 1, 2013 Letter NAHC to project team

Results of record search, 

coordination with tribal 

governments

September 17, 2013 Letter

FRA to tribal governments and 

individuals

Initial consultation to determine 

potential impacts to cultural 

places

October 3, 2013 Email Project consultants and SHPO

SHPO acknowledged receipt of 

FRA letter initiating Section 106 

consultation

Source: Circlepoint, 2014

The project team performed a Sacred Lands File and Native American Contacts List 

Request through the NAHC. On July 1, 2013, the NAHC responded to the records 

search, noting that the search indicated the possible presence of Native American 

traditional cultural place(s) in the study area. The NAHC recommended that tribal 

governments and individuals be contacted to determine the potential impact of any 

cultural place(s), and follow up within two weeks of initial contact via telephone call. 

The NAHC provided contact information for 25 individuals from several tribal 

organizations traditionally affiliated with lands in the study area.

In response to the NAHC’s request, and pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA (36 

CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) FRA reached out to the identified individuals to advise about the 

project. 

Initial contact was made via letter, sent by certified mail on September 17, 2013. As 

recommended by the NAHC, the project team made follow-up phone calls to the 

tribal government contacts on September 24, 2013. All answered calls indicated 

receipt of FRA’s letter. 

Further coordination will occur during Tier 2 analysis as necessary to complete final 

4(f) evaluations. If necessary, at Tier 2, FRA will consult with the appropriate 

agencies and tribal representatives regarding the effects of the project components 

on the features and attributes of Section 4(f) properties and provide opportunity for 

public comment.
Coast Corridor 

Final Program EIS/EIR 4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

4-9 

4.3 PURPOSE AND NEED 

The project purpose is to increase the frequency, speed, and reliability of passenger 

rail while fostering greater passenger connectivity to the proposed California HighSpeed Rail (CA HSR) System and enhancing safety with minimal disruption to 

existing and proposed freight rail operations. Implementation of the action 

alternatives would help to create an interconnected, multimodal solution allowing 

for better mobility throughout the Coast Corridor region, providing added capacity 

in response to increased travel demand between Los Angeles and San Francisco. 

The Coast Corridor region is faced with transportation challenges associated with 

projected population growth, constrained travel options, aging rail infrastructure, 

safety issues, 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, employment, and tourism activity is expected to 

generate increased travel demand. 

4.4 ALTERNATIVES 

The Draft Program EIS/EIR, including its Section 4(f) evaluation, considered two 

alternatives: a Build Alternative and a No Build Alternative. This Final EIS/EIR 

identifies FRA’s Preferred Alternative, which modifies certain components of the 

Build Alternative in response to public comments FRA received on the Draft 

Program EIS/EIR. As discussed in Section 4.1 above and stated in the ROD, FRA is 

selecting the Preferred Alternative for further evaluation and consideration in 

project-level environmental reviews to be prepared in the future. The following 

subsections describe the No Build and Build Alternatives. However, the Preferred 

Alternative is the subject of the evaluation contained herein. 

The Build and Preferred Alternatives each include lists of physical components to 

the railway and the addition of the Coast Daylight passenger rail service. Some, all, 

or none of these components may eventually be constructed in order to facilitate 

the addition of up to 2 round trip Coast Daylight trains per day (4 train trips in all) 

between San Francisco and Los Angeles. 

4.4.1 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE 

The No Build Alternative represents the continuation of existing rail operations and 

physical components, and assumes the perpetuation of existing freight and 

passenger service between Salinas and San Luis Obispo. The only physical 

component expected under the No Build Alternative would be the installation of 

positive train control (PTC) along the Corridor, which would provide increased safety 
Coast Corridor 

4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Final Program EIS/EIR 

4-10

for freight and passenger trains. For the purposes of this Program EIS/EIR whose 

purpose and need is limited to potential physical rail system improvements and 

expansion of passenger rail service, the No Build Alternative includes other planned 

and programmed rail improvement projects for the Coast Corridor in the vicinity of 

the Salinas to San Luis Obispo region. 

4.4.2 BUILD ALTERNATIVE 

The Build Alternative includes the restoration of “Coast Daylight” passenger service, 

which would initially consist of 2 trains per day traveling between Salinas and San 

Luis Obispo, increasing to 4 trains per day by the year 2040. The Build Alternative 

also includes a list of physical components between Salinas and San Luis Obispo, 

some number of which may be necessary to accommodate Coast Daylight service. 

The extent of needed physical components has not been determined at this time 

and will likely occur through negotiations with the affected parties including Amtrak, 

Caltrans DOR, and UPRR. The Build Alternative looks broadly at each physical 

component to provide decision-makers with an understanding of the potential 

impacts of the improvements to help identify which, if any, conceptual physical 

improvements should be carried forward. 

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

performance are proposed along the entire rail alignment between Salinas and 

San Luis Obispo. Proposed corridor-wide track upgrades include replacement of 

existing rail with continuous welded rail (CWR), track structure realignment, 

track resurfacing, tie replacement, replacing or upgrading ballasting, 

rehabilitation of existing sidings, and replacement of existing turnouts. CWR 

reduces the number of joints and would enable trains to move more quickly and 

with less friction and noise. 

 Signal System Upgrades: Introduction of centralized traffic control (CTC) in two 

locations: 1) from Salinas to Soledad, via the extension of an existing CTC 

system to the north and 2) an “island” CTC over 27 miles of the railroad 

between San Lucas and Bradley (both unincorporated communities in southern 

Monterey County). 

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

railroad track that guide trains from one track to another - such as a siding, or a 

second mainline. Switching mechanisms include sensors placed on rails/ties and 

control boxes placed immediately alongside the railroad within the railroad 
Coast Corridor 

Final Program EIS/EIR 4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

4-11

ROW. Powered switches are generally considered an upgrade over manually 

thrown switches insofar as they facilitate the speed of transition from one track 

to another. 

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

main track used for passing and dwelling purposes in single track systems. At 

present, the sidings in the Salinas to San Luis Obispo portion of the Corridor are 

generally one mile in length or shorter. Freight trains often exceed one mile in 

length and sometimes cannot be accommodated in the existing sidings. The 

proposed siding extensions are generally located within the railroad ROW and 

would lengthen existing sidings so that each would be at least 10,000 feet in 

length. Figure 2-5 shows a diagram of a typical siding extension. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

speeds through this portion of the Corridor are some of the slowest for the 

entire alignment - ranging between 25 and 35 mph. Slow speeds here are the 

result of track curvature and deficient train control systems. A second mainline 

at this location would significantly expand mobility. 

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

includes some sharp curves that require trains to slow down to reduce the risk 

of derailment. The Build Alternative contemplates several curve realignments 

intended to reduce track curvature. If constructed, curve realignments would 

allow for increased speeds, enhance safety, and reduce trip times. 

Realignments typically result in less wear and tear to tracks, reducing the 

frequency of repair or maintenance. 

 New passenger stations: There are currently three passenger train stations 

between Salinas and San Luis Obispo: 1) Salinas, 2) Paso Robles, and 3) San Luis 

Obispo. The Build Alternative contemplates two new passenger stations in 

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

downtowns of each city. The proposed Coast Daylight train service may include 

stops in one or both of these cities. 

 Grade Crossing and Mobility Improvements: A curve realignment at MP 172 

has the potential to create a single new at-grade crossing of an existing public, 
Coast Corridor 

4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Final Program EIS/EIR 

4-12

paved road at Cattlemen Road, approximately 10 miles south of King City. The 

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

related improvements at as-yet unspecified existing at-grade crossings. 

 Coast Daylight Service and new rolling stock: The SDP contemplates the 

reinstitution of Coast Daylight passenger rail service, which was discontinued in 

1971. The SDP proposes initial service of one daily southbound and one daily 

northbound train between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Preliminary 

proposed schedules have trains leaving San Francisco and Los Angeles in the 

early morning (approximately 7 a.m.), and arriving at their respective 

destinations between 6:30 p.m. and 7 p.m. Future expanded service would see 

include one additional daily southbound and northbound departure. This 

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

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

morning. 

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

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

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

locomotives and passenger railcars. 

4.4.3 PREFERRED PROGRAM ALTERNATIVE – MODIFIED 

BUILD ALTERNATIVE 

Based upon the analysis in this Program EIS/EIR and public comments on the Draft 

Program EIS/EIR, FRA, SLOCOG, and Caltrans DOR have identified the Build 

Alternative (with modifications) as the Preferred Alternative for potential future 

implementation on the Coast Corridor between Salinas and San Luis Obispo. The 

Preferred Alternative would result in safety and transportation capacity 

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

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

also provide environmental benefits in the form of improved travel conditions, 

including mobility, safety, reliability, travel times, and connectivity and accessibility; 

and reduced air pollutant emissions along the existing rail corridor. 

The Preferred Alternative modifies the Build Alternative as follows: 

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

 Exclusion of four curve realignments in San Luis Obispo County 

 Inclusion of “island” CTC between McKay and Santa Margarita
Coast Corridor 

Final Program EIS/EIR 4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

4-13

4.4.3.1 Modifications Requested by City of King 

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

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

and passenger station. These updates were not known to FRA, SLOCOG, Caltrans, or 

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

Siding Extension

Precise plans for new sidings or siding extensions were not available prior to 

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

Program EIS/EIR made reasonable assumptions regarding the extension of the 

existing sidings. It was assumed that the sidings extensions would result in sidings 

of about 10,000 feet in length (generally, enough to accommodate a typical freight 

train) and that this length could potentially be achieved by adding all additional 

track to either the northern or southern end of each siding. As a result, the Draft 

Program EIS/EIR examined a larger total area for the sidings than would have been 

necessary to achieve the desired 10,000 foot length. 

The existing City of King siding extends from MP 159.19 to MP 160.64 and is about 

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

extensions (between MP 158.5 and 159.19 to the north and MP 160.64 and 161.19 

to the south). Either the northern or southern extension would have been sufficient 

to provide a 10,000 foot long siding. 

Since publication of the Draft Program EIS/EIR and as noted in the City’s comments, 

the City of King engaged a railroad engineer (RailPros) to consider modifications to 

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

of King in its comment letter) proposed that the siding extension be greater than 

10,000 feet in length and that the extension would most feasibly be achieved by 

extending the siding on the north side exclusively. The RailPros study considered 

extending the siding from MP 156.38 to 159.19, resulting in a siding 2.81 miles or 

about 14,800 feet in length. According to the Railpros study, the updated siding 

extension design is intended to allow passenger rail and freight rail trains to pass 

each other along the King City siding without limiting or disrupting the service 

operations for either party. The larger proposed siding length outside of the 

downtown area is anticipated to better accommodate freight trains. 

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

revision to the siding extension would avoid or reduce the intensity of several 

potential environmental effects of the previously identified siding extension 

discussed in the Draft Program EIS/EIR. The revised siding extension would avoid 

the need for a new creek crossing and would also avoid including any portion of the 
Coast Corridor 

4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Final Program EIS/EIR 

4-14

siding extension within a 100-year flood plain. The revised siding would also be 

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

community effects compared to the previously identified siding extension. Because 

the City’s proposed modification to the siding extension is reasonable and is likely to 

reduce the impacts of the project, FRA, SLOCOG, and Caltrans DOR agree that it 

should be included and analyzed in the Final Program EIS/EIR. 

Passenger Station 

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

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

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

and bus pullout areas. 

However, as noted in the City’s comments, the RailPros plan shows a slightly smaller 

passenger station in generally the same part of downtown, with similar features, 

plus an area set aside for military personnel transfers. The RailPros plan also calls 

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

one block northwest to Broadway Street.4

 Such plans reflect the most detailed 

layout and design of the station and are included in this Program EIS/EIR as the best 

available data. 

4.4.3.2 Exclusion of Curve Realignments in San Luis Obispo 

County 

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

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

focused on several of curve realignments proposed for various locations in San Luis 

Obispo County. Commenters stated that the curve realignments had the potential 

to result in property acquisitions, split of parcels, and have other adverse 

environmental and socioeconomic effects. 

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

requesting SLOCOG staff drop from further consideration the following curve 

realignments in San Luis Obispo County: 

1. McKay/Wellsona 

2. Wellsona/Paso Robles 

3. Templeton/Henry 

4. Henry/Santa Margarita 

 

4

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

Final Program EIS/EIR 4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

4-15

Excluding these curve realignments would not substantially compromise future ontime performance of passenger and freight trains and would reduce the potential 

impacts identified by the public. As documented in the SDP, an acceptably high rate 

of on-time performance in near and long-term horizon years was shown to be 

achievable with the inclusion of island CTC between McKay and Santa Margarita --

which corresponds roughly to the same area in which the excluded curve 

realignments were contemplated. 

Excluding the curve realignments would also eliminate or substantially reduce 

several potential adverse environmental effects, including: 

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

require fewer property acquisitions than the Build Alternative. 

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

would require substantially less conversion of agricultural lands than the Build 

Alternative. 

 Air Quality: By foregoing the construction of these curve realignments, 

construction-related emissions (fugitive dust, diesel equipment) would be lower 

in the Preferred Alternative than in the Build Alternative. 

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

realignments, the Preferred Alternative would generally retain the existing 

railroad alignment through San Luis Obispo County. In the Build Alternative, the 

curve realignments would have altered the railroad alignment relative to the 

location of sensitive receptors. 

4.4.3.3 Inclusion of “Island” CTC between McKay and Santa 

Margarita 

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

from the SDP. As noted above, the Build Alternative specified the extension of CTC 

from Salinas to Soledad, as well as installation of an “island” of CTC from San Lucas 

to Bradley in southern Monterey County. Analysis in the SDP contemplated an 

additional “island” of CTC between McKay and Santa Margarita (between MP 202.3 

and MP 229.6). The SDP noted that this 27-mile section of the corridor currently 

uses TWC, a non-automated signaling system. The four sidings in this section of the 

corridor using TWC were presumed to contribute substantially to delays that impair 

overall on time performance of both passenger and freight trains. 

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

Build Alternative components. Notwithstanding, SLOCOG and Caltrans DOR have 

clarified that it was each agency’s intent that this island CTC area be included in the 
Coast Corridor 

4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Final Program EIS/EIR 

4-16

Build Alternative. Since the Draft Program EIS/EIR did not specifically include this 

component, this Final Program EIS/EIR incorporates the island CTC as part of the 

Preferred Alternative. 

4.5 SECTION 4(F)/6(F) PROPERTIES (PARKS, 

WILDLIFE REFUGES, AND HISTORIC SITES) 

This section identifies the park, recreation, open space, and wildlife refuge 

properties eligible for protection as Section 4(f) resources. It also identifies where 

project components may impact those properties eligible for protection. Because 

this is a Program EIS/EIR, detailed design and the exact location of project 

components is not available at this stage of project development. Therefore, the 

discussion below identifies potential impacts and a preliminary assessment of the 

potential uses of Section 4(f) properties with the expectation that further design will 

occur to avoid impacts to all Section 4(f) properties during Tier 2 (project-level 

review). 

Section 4(f) is applicable only to actions of DOT and its operating administrations, 

including FRA. In the event that any one or more components move forward but 

would not require any DOT approval or funding no Section 4(f) evaluation would be 

required. Section 4.2.6, Preliminary Section 4(f) Finding, includes a summary of 

this preliminary Section 4(f) program-level analysis and outlines the process for 

future evaluations, as needed. 

4.5.1 PUBLIC PARKS/RECREATION AREAS 

Figure 4-2 shows potential Section 4(f) resources based on the study areas defined 

above. These potential 4(f) resources are described below from north to south. 

City of Salinas 

Bataan Memorial Park is an urban park less than 1 acre in area located on West 

Market Street. The park honors the 105 Salinas and Pajaro Valley military members 

deployed to the Philippines in 1941. The park includes grassy areas, trees, and a 

soldiers’ memorial. The City of Salinas owns and maintains this park, which was 

renovated in 2012.5

 

5

 City of Salinas, 2002c 
Coast Corridor 

Final Program EIS/EIR 4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

4-17

City of Gonzales 

Gonzales Cemetery is not recognized as a park by the City of Gonzales in which it is 

located. However, the cemetery is included in the California Protected Areas 

Database and for the purposes of this analysis is considered a potential Section 4(f) 

resource. The cemetery is managed by a local Cemetery District. 6

City of Soledad

Bill Ramus Park is a 0.5 acre urban park near the proposed Soledad passenger 

station. It is a popular neighborhood picnic spot, equipped with barbeques and 

picnic tables. The City of Soledad owns and maintains this park. 7

Vosti Park is a 6.4 acre urban park owned and maintained by the City of Soledad. It 

is the largest park facility in the city, with several recreational facilities including 

soccer and baseball fields, volleyball courts, a playground and picnic areas. 

Cesar Chavez Park is a 0.1 acre green space in Soledad in between Front Street and 

the existing Coast Corridor railroad. It offers benches and serves as an attractive 

green buffer between downtown Soledad and the train tracks. The City of Soledad 

owns and maintains this park. 

San Miguel (Unincorporated San Luis Obispo County) 

Rios Caledonia Adobe is a unit of the San Luis Obispo County Parks Department that 

includes historic buildings, gardens, and a visitors’ center.8 

City of El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) 

Pioneer Park is a 6.8-acre park owned and maintained by the City of Paso Robles. 

The park includes a skate park, softball and basketball facilities, a playground, and 

picnic area.9

 

Paso Robles City Park is a 4.8-acre park in downtown Paso Robles, owned by the 

City. The park is a popular gathering place for community events. It has a picnic 

area, small playground, gazebo, and horseshoe pits.10

 

6

 City of Gonzales, 2010

7

 City of Soledad, 2014 

8

 Rios-Caledonia Adobe, 2013 

9

 City of Paso Robles, 2013b 

10 City of Paso Robles, 2013a 
Coast Corridor 

4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Final Program EIS/EIR 

4-18

Robbins Field is a 2.4 acre park owned and maintained by the City of Paso Robles 

that includes baseball facilities.11

Lawrence Moore Park is a neighborhood park owned and maintained by the City of 

Paso Robles on the east bank of the Salinas River. It has a small recreation area, 

including barbecue facilities, a playground, and a playing field. The park includes 

sections of the city’s trail network.12

Templeton Area (Unincorporated San Luis Obispo County) 

Evers Sports Park is a park managed by the Templeton Community Services District. 

The park offers baseball and soccer fields. 

Templeton Skate Park is a skateboarding facility managed by the Templeton 

Community Services District. 

City of Atascadero Area 

Heilmann Regional Park is a 15 acre park located within the City of Atascadero, but 

owned and maintained by the County of San Luis Obispo. The park has hiking trails, 

picnic areas, a disc-golf course, and tennis courts. 

Paloma Creek Park is a small park owned and maintained by the City of Atascadero 

with sports fields and a playground.13

Santa Margarita Area 

Santa Margarita Community Park is located in Santa Margarita and owned and 

maintained by the County of San Luis Obispo. The park has a playground and 

several picnic areas.14

City of San Luis Obispo

Ellsford Park is a 1 acre park owned and maintained by the City of San Luis Obispo, 

adjacent to San Luis Obispo High School. The park has two small grassy areas 

separated by a stand of trees.15

 

11 City of Paso Robles, 2013c 

12 City of Paso Robles, 2013d 

13 City of Atascadero, 2013 

14 San Luis Obispo County Parks, 2002 

15 City of San Luis Obispo, 2001, p. 16 
Coast Corridor 

Final Program EIS/EIR 4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

4-19

Santa Rosa Park is an 11-acre park owned and maintained by the City of San Luis 

Obispo. The park offers horseshoe pits, softball/baseball facilities, playgrounds, 

basketball courts, a skate park, and picnic areas. 16

Stenner Springs Open Space is a 363-acre protected area owned and maintained by 

the City of San Luis Obispo. The area is composed of four distinct parcels, three of 

which have typically been used for hiking, biking, outdoor education, and research 

opportunities. There are multiple trails used for hiking and mountain biking in this 

open space, and one popular mountain biking tail in close proximity to a portion of 

the existing railway that is considered Section 4(f) resources.17 

4.5.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Archaeological Sites 

There are a total of 27 known archaeological sites within the study area, as 

described in Section 3.10, Cultural Resources, and summarized in Table 3.10-2. The 

NRHP eligibility status of these resources has not been evaluated or determined. 

Resources potentially affected by various components of the Preferred Alternative 

may require evaluation under the NRHP criteria, and one or more of these may be 

found to qualify for protection under Section 4(f). 

Historic Resources 

As described in Section 3.10, Cultural Resources, the Bradley Road Bridge over the 

Salinas River is the only historic resource within the entire Coast Corridor study area 

that was previously determined eligible for the NRHP. Additionally, over 50 

recorded historic resources potentially affected by various components of the 

Preferred Alternative may require evaluation under the NRHP criteria. One or more 

of these may be found to qualify for protection under Section 4(f). 

4.5.3 CLASS 1 AREAS 

As shown in Figure 4-1, within 100 kilometers of the Coast Corridor study area, 

there are three Class 1 Areas: Pinnacles National Park, and two wilderness areas of 

the Los Padres National Forest – the Ventana Wilderness and the San Rafael 

Wilderness. 

 

16 City of San Luis Obispo, 2001, p. 20 

17 City of San Luis Obispo, 2009, pp. 5-6 
Coast Corridor 

4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Final Program EIS/EIR 

4-20

4.5.4 WILDLIFE AND WATERFOWL REFUGES 

Big Sandy Wildlife Area is composed of two parcels, together comprising 850 acres 

of grasslands, streams, and riparian habitats. The California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife administers the wildlife area, which is adjacent to the Camp Roberts 

Military Reservation.18

4.5.5 SECTION 6(F) RESOURCES

No Section 6(f) resources were identified in the study areas. A full review of the 

California State Parks Land and Water Conservation Fund grants list for Monterey 

and San Luis Obispo counties did not find that any of the parks affected by the 

proposed improvements had been improved using funds from the Land and Water 

Conservation Fund. 

4.6 PRELIMINARY 4(F) USE ASSESSMENT 

The estimated acreages in Table 4-2 represent potential impacts to Section 4(f) 

resources based on a review of aerial mapping of project features, study areas, and 

known Section 4(f) resources for the Preferred Alternative. These potential 

acreages are considered in the text evaluations below. 

Public Parks/Recreation Areas

The existing alignment extends through a portion of the Los Padres National Forest 

and another portion of the alignment is located in close proximity to federallyowned land under of control of BLM. However, neither the affected portion of the 

Los Padres National Forest nor the BLM lands are used for recreational purposes. 

Therefore, neither the affected Los Padres National Forest lands nor the BLM land 

are considered Section 4(f) resources. 

Bataan Park: The only physical components contemplated in close proximity to this 

park are upgrades to the existing alignment, which would occur within the existing 

railroad ROW. Thus, no permanent or temporary uses of this park would occur. 

Furthermore, track upgrades in this area included in the Preferred Alternative would 

have minimal potential to significantly increase the noise beyond current levels, as it 

is located in an urban area less than 500 feet from the existing rail alignment and is 

exposed to existing traffic noise. If this component moves forward for construction, 

 

18 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2014 
Coast Corridor 

Final Program EIS/EIR 4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

4-21

a project-level constructive use analysis will be conducted but a use is unlikely as the 

majority of impacts would be temporary and occur during the construction period 

and because the proximity the components would be installed within the existing 

railroad ROW.

City of Soledad Parks (Vosti, Cesar Chavez, Bill Ramus): Because the Preferred 

Alternative components proposed for the existing alignment in Soledad would occur 

within the existing railroad ROW, they would not result in any permanent or 

temporary impacts to any of the parks in the City of Soledad. However, due to the 

proximity of the components to the park resources, before any construction 

activities, a project-level constructive use analysis would be conducted but a use is 

unlikely. Both passenger and freight trains currently travel through Soledad in 

proximity to these parks on the existing rail alignment. The Preferred Alternative 

would bring additional train activity through Soledad, but passenger trains would 

likely be moving at lower speeds because they would be approaching/departing the 

new proposed Soledad station. Therefore, a constructive use of any existing 

Soledad park is unlikely. 

Gonzales Cemetery: No temporary or permanent uses would result as the proposed 

upgrades in this area would occur within the existing railroad ROW. Due to the 

proximity of the components to this resource, before any construction activities, a 

project-level constructive use analysis would be conducted but a use is unlikely. 

Since the Preferred Alternative would add new passenger service on the railway, 

there is the possibility that noise would increase slightly above existing levels. 

However, the cemetery is exposed to substantial existing noise due to its location 

between US 101 and Old US 101 and less than 500 feet from the existing rail 

alignment. Because of the high levels of existing noise, the addition of 2 more 

trains by 2020 and 4 trains total by 2040 makes it highly unlikely that a constructive 

use would occur. 

Big Sandy Wildlife Area: The existing railroad ROW passes directly through this 

resource, which appears to have been designated a wildlife refuge well after 

construction of the railroad. As described in the Draft EIS/EIR, under the Build 

Alternative, a portion of the McKay/Wellsona curve realignment would have 

potentially required the acquisition and conversion of portions of the Big Sandy 

Wildlife Area for a transportation use. However, because the Preferred Alternative 

excludes the McKay/Wellsona curve realignment this potential Section 4(f) use of 

the Big Sandy Wildlife Area would not occur. 

Track upgrade work would be completed entirely within the existing railroad ROW 

and would not result in any new permanent intrusion within Big Sandy. There is 

potential for the track upgrade work to result in some temporary use of Big Sandy if 
Coast Corridor 

4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Final Program EIS/EIR 

4-22

property is needed for construction staging, but most construction work associated 

with the track upgrade can be completed within the footprint of the existing 

railroad ROW. Even if there is a need to use a small amount of property for 

construction purposes, it is likely that the temporary occupancy requirements would 

be met so as to avoid any temporary use under Section 4(f). Track upgrade work 

and increased passenger rail service through this area would have some potential to 

increase the noise above current levels. Since this area is not urban or developed, 

the noise increase could potentially result in a constructive use. If this component 

moves forward for construction, a project-level constructive use analysis would be 

conducted. Therefore, project components would be unlikely to result in any 

Section 4(f) use - permanent, temporary, or constructive. 

Rios Caledonia Adobe: The existing railroad ROW is located directly adjacent to Rios 

Caledonia Adobe. No temporary or permanent impacts to Rios Caledonia Adobe 

would result from implementation of the Preferred Alternative as the track and 

signal upgrades would occur entirely within the existing railroad ROW. However, 

due to the proximity of components to the park resources, before this component 

moves forward for construction, a project-level constructive use analysis would be 

conducted at that time. The Preferred Alternative would add new passenger service 

on the railway, adding up to four new train passings per day, which could increase 

noise above existing levels. Given the high noise levels to which this resource is 

already exposed as a result of the proximity to US 101 and the existing railroad 

ROW, additional trains are unlikely to result in a new constructive use of this 

resource. 

Parks in Paso Robles: All involved Paso Robles parks are within 500 feet of the 

existing railroad ROW. However, the existing railroad ROW does not directly 

traverse any Paso Robles parks and the existing tracks are not located immediately 

adjacent to any Paso Robles parks. 

Through Paso Robles, the Preferred Alternative contemplates track upgrades that 

would not be expected to result in a permanent use because the upgrades would 

take place entirely within the existing railroad ROW. The Preferred Alternative 

would also increase passenger rail service throughout the entire corridor with up to 

four new train passings per day, which could increase noise at Paso Robles parks 

above existing levels. Given the high noise levels to which this resource is already 

exposed as a result of the proximity to US 101 and existing rail use (both freight and 

passenger trains travel through Paso Robles), the additional passenger rail service is 

unlikely to result in a new constructive use of Section 4(f) resources in Paso Robles. 
Coast Corridor 

Final Program EIS/EIR 4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

4-23

Templeton Parks, Heilmann Park and Paloma Park, Atascadero; and Santa 

Margarita Community Park: The existing rail alignment is directly adjacent to two 

parks each in Templeton and Atascadero, and one park in Santa Margarita. 

As shown in Table 4-2, desktop analysis had indicated potential permanent use of 

0.5 acres of the Evers Sports Park in Templeton from the Templeton Siding. 

However, a review of aerial photography shows that the sports fields within Evers 

Park are separated from the existing railroad (double-tracked in this vicinity) by 

extensive fencing and trees. Notably, the existing siding runs along the mainline 

track for the length of the park. The potential siding extension would be located 

approximately 600 feet to the north and/or about 3,000 feet to the south. 

Therefore, the Templeton siding has no potential to result in a permanent use of 

Evers Sports Park. Given the distance between Evers Sports Park and the existing 

northern and southern ends of the siding (at which any extension would be located), 

the potential for temporary or constructive use of Evers Sports Park would be 

negligible. 

Proposed components for all other Templeton, Atascadero, and Santa Margarita 

parks would include track upgrades within the existing railroad ROW and the 

addition of passenger service. These proposed components would not require 

relocating or expanding the railroad ROW. Moreover, track improvements would be 

unlikely to require temporary use of adjacent lands, as most of the work can be 

completed entirely within the existing footprint of the tracks. Therefore, corridorwide track and signal upgrades would have virtually no potential for permanent or 

temporary use of parks in Templeton, Atascadero, and Santa Margarita. 

City of San Luis Obispo Parks: Trains currently travel through San Luis Obispo on the 

existing rail alignment, passing within a quarter-mile or less of two City-owned parks 

protected by Section 4(f). No temporary or permanent impacts would result as the 

proposed track upgrades would occur entirely within existing railroad ROW. Within 

an urbanized area, these parks are exposed to existing traffic noise. Track upgrades 

and increased passenger rail service through this area would have some potential to 

increase the noise above current levels, but given the current urban environment, 

the noise increase would be unlikely to result in a constructive use. 

Stenner Springs Natural Reserve: The existing alignment skirts the southern edge of 

the Stenner Springs Natural Reserve. Track upgrade work proposed to occur near 

Stenner Springs would occur within the existing alignment and would not result in 

any temporary or permanent Section 4(f) use. Increased passenger rail service 

would potentially result in somewhat higher noise levels here, but given the existing 

presence of the railroad and proximity to urbanized areas, the noise increase would 

be unlikely to result in a constructive use. 
Coast Corridor 

4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Final Program EIS/EIR 

4-24

Table 4-2 Summary of Potential Impacts to Section 4(f) Resources –

Preferred Alternative 

Proposed Components

Preferred Alternative

Type of Use (acres)

Permanent Temporary

Resources Requiring 

Additional Constructive 

Use Analysis at Tier 2

Salinas Powered Switch 0 0 0

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #1 0 0 Bataan Memorial Park

Spence Siding Extension 0 0 0

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #2 0 0

Bill Ramus Park

Cesar Chavez Park

Gonzales Cemetery

Vosti Park

Gonzales Powered Switch 0 0 0

Soledad Powered Switch 0 0 0

Soledad New Passenger Station 0 0 Cesar Chavez Park

Harlem/Metz Curve Realignments 0 0 0

Chalone Creek New Siding 0 0 0

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #3 0 0 0

Coburn Curve Realignments 0 0 0

King City Siding Extension 0 0 0

King City New Passenger Station 0 0 0

King City Powered Switch 0 0 0

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #4 0 0 0

MP 165 Curve Realignment 0 0 0

San Lucas New Siding 0 0 0

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #5 0 0 0
Coast Corridor 

Final Program EIS/EIR 4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

4-25

Proposed Components

Preferred Alternative

Type of Use (acres)

Permanent Temporary

Resources Requiring 

Additional Constructive 

Use Analysis at Tier 2

MP 172 Track Realignment 0 0 0

San Ardo Powered Switch 0 0 0

Getty/Bradley Curve Realignments 0 0 0

Bradley Siding Extension 0 0 0

Bradley Powered Switch 0 0 0

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #6 0

Big Sandy Wildlife 

Area: 2.30

Big Sandy Wildlife Area

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #7 0

Big Sandy Wildlife 

Area: 0.30

Big Sandy Wildlife Area

Rios Caledonia Adobe

McKay/Wellsona Curve Realignments 0 0 0

McKay Powered Switches 0 0 0

Wellsona New Siding 0 0 0

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #8 0 0

Lawrence Moore Park

Paso Robles City Park

Pioneer Park

Robbins Field

Wellsona/Paso Robles Curve Realignments 0 0 0

Templeton Siding 0 0

Evers Sports Park

Templeton Skate Park

Templeton/Henry Curve Realignments 0 0 0

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #9 a

0 0

Heilmann Park

Paloma Creek Park Open Space

Santa Margarita Community 

Park

Henry/Santa Margarita Curve Realignment b

0 0 0

Santa Margarita Powered Switch 0 0 0

Cuesta Second Main Trackc

0 0 0
Coast Corridor 

4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Final Program EIS/EIR 

4-26

Proposed Components

Preferred Alternative

Type of Use (acres)

Permanent Temporary

Resources Requiring 

Additional Constructive 

Use Analysis at Tier 2

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #10 0 0

Elsford Park

Los Padres National Forest

Santa Rosa Park

Stenner Springs Open Space

Source: ICF 2013, Circlepoint 2015. 

Notes: a):

 In a review of aerial maps, BLM land was identified for potential constructive use impacts at Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment Section #9. Since there are no recreation facilities on this land, the lands are likely not 

protected by Section 4(f), so no constructive use under Section 4(f) could occur. (Personal Communication 

between Lily Gilbert and Harrison Friedman, August 14, 2014). 

b) In a review of aerial maps, BLM land was identified for potential permanent use by a portion of the Henry/Santa 

Margarita Curve Realignment. There are no recreation facilities in this property owned by BLM, so the lands are 

likely not protected by Section 4(f). (Personal Communication between Lily Gilbert and Harrison Friedman, August 

14, 2014). 

c) In a review of aerial maps, the proposed second mainline was identified as traversing a portion of the Los Padres 

National Forest (LPNF) near Cuesta Grade. The affected portion of the LPNF is used for utilities and transportation 

purposes (including the existing railroad ROW and US 101) and is not identified or used for recreational purposes. 

As this portion of the LPNF is not used for recreational purposes, the lands would not be covered by Section 4(f). 

d) The Draft Program EIS/EIR previously noted potential Section 4(f) uses from Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Sections # 6 and 7 as a “permanent” use. As discussed, no permanent Section 4(f) uses would occur in these areas 

because components only constitute track and signaling upgrades within the railroad ROW. The Final Program 

EIS/EIR was modified to show only a potential “temporary” Section 4(f) use. Proposed components under the 

Preferred Alternative and Build Alternative for Upgrades to Existing Alignment Sections #6 and EA 7 are the same, 

thus the temporary Section 4(f) use is carried forward as well. 

e) The City of King has plans to eventually carry the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail near the proposed 

station area. However, the existing trail corridor is located more than a mile away from the station area and does 

not constitute a Section 4(f) resource at this time. Therefore, any prospective Section 4(f) use would be unlikely. 

Both passenger and freight trains currently travel through Soledad in proximity to these parks on the existing rail 

alignment. The Preferred Alternative would bring additional train activity through Soledad, but passenger trains 

would likely be moving at lower speeds because they would be approaching/departing the new proposed Soledad 

station. Therefore, a constructive use of any existing Soledad park is unlikely. 
Coast Corridor 

Final Program EIS/EIR 4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

4-27

Island CTC: The Preferred Alternative would include the installation of a 27-mile 

“island” CTC between McKay and Santa Margarita (between MP 202.3 and MP 

229.6). As described for the Build Alternative, CTC requires the installation of 

railway signaling poles of about 10-12 feet in height at periodic intervals within the 

railroad ROW. Section 4(f) properties in this stretch of the alignment include: the 

Rios Caledonia Adobe, Pioneer Park, Paso Robles City Park, Robbins Field, Lawrence 

Moore Park, Evers Park, Templeton Skate Park, Heilmann Park/Chalk Mountain Golf 

Course, and Paloma Creek Park. Because island CTC would consist of physical 

improvements (signals) limited to the railroad ROW, no Section 4(f) use would occur 

of any of these rail-adjacent properties. Because the improvements would occur 

within an active and existing railroad, the CTC equipment within this area would be 

unlikely to result in any constructive use of the Section 4(f) properties. 

Cultural Resources 

Archaeological Sites 

Archaeologically sensitive areas have been identified within the study area; these 

areas are described in Section 3.10, Cultural Resources. Given the programmatic 

nature of this evaluation, FRA has not conducted intensive archaeological surveys of 

the study area. Consequently, FRA has not identified properties eligible for listing 

on the NRHP or determined potential effects on eligible properties. However, 

previously undocumented archaeological materials may be present on documented 

significant sites and sensitive landforms, and could be inadvertently discovered or 

damaged during ground-disturbing activities. Section 3.10, Cultural Resources, 

describes measures to address unidentified archaeological resources. 

In Monterey County, four archaeological sites were recorded within existing 

alignment section #6, but the eligibility status has not been evaluated or 

determined.19 Preferred Alternative components in this area include upgrades to 

the existing tracks. Improvements to the existing alignment would occur within the 

railroad ROW and would be limited to already disturbed areas. Therefore, the 

Preferred Alternative would be unlikely to affect recorded archaeological sites 

within section #6 of the existing alignment in Monterey County. 

 

19 Resources at these four archaeological sites are considered to be highly disturbed prehistoric lithic 

scatter along the Salinas River floodplain. Lithic scatters in these areas include pieces of eroded 

cryptocrystalline debitage, core tools, chert flakes, and one fragment of burned bone. 
Coast Corridor 

4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Final Program EIS/EIR 

4-28

Three archaeological sites were recorded within the Getty/Bradley curve 

realignment areas.20 Proposed curve realignments would have a larger potential 

impact because the footprint of the required work would require conversion of land 

outside the existing railroad ROW. Therefore, construction of this curve 

realignment would have a high potential to disturb and/or uncover archaeological 

sites. 

In San Luis Obispo County, archaeological sites were recorded in various locations 

within the existing alignment and in physical improvement areas. There are a total 

of 12 archaeological sites located within existing alignments section #7, section #8, 

section #9, and section #10 in San Luis Obispo County.21

 Both of these sites were 

recorded, but eligibility for the NRHP and CRHR was not determined. In section #10 

of the existing alignment, two concrete foundations were recorded and evaluated in 

2006, but deemed not eligible for the NRHP and CRHR. 

Most notably, the Mission San Miguel Arcangel is located within the study area in 

the northern portions of San Luis Obispo County and is considered a California 

Historical Landmark, but eligibility for the NRHP and CRHR was not determined. The 

Rios-Caledonia Adobe is located near the Mission San Miguel Arcangel and is listed 

on the NRHP and is also a California Historical Landmark. No physical components 

outside of the railroad ROW would occur in these areas because the Preferred 

Alternative only entails system-wide components including track tie and ballast 

upgrades. As a result, these historic archaeological resources would not likely be 

affected. However, appropriate measures consistent with Section 106 may be 

required to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse effects to such resources. 

A total of two archaeological sites were recorded within the buffer areas of the new 

Wellsona siding and the Templeton siding extension.22 These sites were recorded 

but their eligibility was not determined. Both of these proposed sidings would occur 

within the existing railroad ROW and would be limited to already disturbed areas. 

Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would not likely affect recorded archaeological 

sites within these sidings’ permanent and temporary impact areas. 

 

20 These recorded sites are also prehistoric lithic scatters and chert flakes along the Salinas River. 

21 The cultural resources found at these sites include mostly lithic scatters and chipped stone debris, 

similar to archaeological sites recorded in Monterey County. An isolated burial site was recorded as 

well as a temporary village (recorded three times between 1971 and 1999). 

22 The Wellsona siding site was recorded as a lithic scatter and the Templeton siding was recorded as 

bedrock mortar.22 
Coast Corridor 

Final Program EIS/EIR 4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

4-29

In the event any one or more components move forward for further design, funding, 

and implementation, appropriate surveys would be conducted to determine NRHP 

eligibility. 

Any final Section 4(f) use determinations that would be included in subsequent, 

project-level NEPA review will be dependent upon the results of NRHP eligibility 

determinations and an analysis of the potential effects of the components to eligible 

resources. FRA will evaluate design modifications to avoid ground disturbance at 

the location of any archaeologically sensitive areas. If the areas cannot be avoided, 

FRA will conduct archaeological data recovery for the purposes of site identification 

and significance evaluation. If they are determined eligible for the NRHP, FRA will 

determine, in consultation with the appropriate parties, whether the component 

will adversely affect an eligible resource. If FRA determines that an adverse effect 

would result from the component, FRA will mitigate impacts as appropriate 

including through archaeological data recovery as described in Section 3.10, 

Cultural Resources. 

If archaeological resources are encountered inadvertently during construction and 

are determined to be eligible for the NRHP and warrant preservation in place, FRA 

will expedite preparation of separate Section 4(f) evaluations for such resources in 

any project-level NEPA review that may be required. 

Historic Resources 

Based on the analysis conducted for Cultural Resources (see Section 3.10), there is 

only one historic architectural resource that has been determined eligible for NRHP 

listing, the Bradley Road Bridge. The Bradley Road Bridge is located west of the 

existing alignment in southern Monterey County. The only physical component 

potentially occurring outside the railroad ROW near the Bradley Road Bridge is the 

proposed Bradley siding extension. The siding currently ends about 0.75 miles the 

southeast of the Bradley Road Bridge. If the siding is extended to the south, the 

siding extension would be about 0.8 miles to the southeast of the Bradley Road 

Bridge - in other words, farther away from the Bradley Road Bridge than the current 

siding. Therefore, it is unlikely that a use of the Bradley Road Bridge would occur. 

If the Bradley Siding moves forward into construction, project-level of review would 

be conducted to formally determine the potential for the Preferred Alternative 

component to affect the bridge’s previously established eligibility. 

Additionally, over 50 recorded historic resources potentially affected by various 

components of the Preferred Alternative may require evaluation under the NRHP 

criteria. One or more of these may be found to qualify for protection under Section 
Coast Corridor 

4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Final Program EIS/EIR 

4-30

4(f). If such resources are determined to be eligible for the NRHP and warrant 

protection, FRA would prepare Section 4(f) evaluations. 

The Preferred Alternative reflects the City of King’s revised draft station area plans, 

which retain the general downtown location assumed for the Build Alternative in 

the Draft Program EIS/EIR. The Preferred Alternative more specifically encompasses 

the parcels envisioned by the City for its future passenger station. 

Two structures are located within the footprint of the City of King passenger station 

analyzed as part of the Preferred Alternative. While the structures appear to be 

older than 45 years in age, the actual year of their construction is not recorded in 

County or City records. The structures appear to be utilitarian storage buildings, 

with metal exteriors and are located within the railroad ROW. In its preliminary 

design work for the proposed station, the City of King did not call out these 

structures as potentially historic resources. While it is highly unlikely that these 

structures possess historic value, without a more formal evaluation, there is not 

enough evidence to conclusively determine in this Program EIS/EIR whether one or 

both are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places and also 

protected by Section 4(f). Therefore, any future project-level environmental review 

of the proposed City of King station would require a site-specific analysis of 

potential cultural resources. If any federal approval or funding were to be involved, 

this environmental review would need to include an evaluation of potential Section 

4(f) uses. 

Regarding the siding extension, the Draft Program EIS/EIR found no Section 4(f) 

resources within the study area of the Build Alternative siding extension. However, 

as discussed in the Section 3.10, Cultural Resources, the revised siding extension 

buffer assumptions included under the Preferred Alternative would extend to be 

within proximity of a portion of the Southern Pacific Railroad, which was identified 

as potentially historic resource within Existing Alignment #3 of the Build Alternative, 

but was not evaluated. Physical components would be unlikely to alter historical 

values or eligibility as the components would be consistent with existing railroad 

use. However, future project-level environmental review would be necessary to 

formally determine the potential to affect cultural resources in this location. 

Class I Areas 

The Preferred Alternative would add up to four new train trips each day; therefore, 

it is possible that a slight increase in pollutant emissions could affect visibility in the 

identified areas. However, as detailed in Section 3.2, Air Quality and Greenhouse 

Gases, the Preferred Alternative could have a minor positive effect on regional air 
Coast Corridor 

Final Program EIS/EIR 4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

4-31

pollutant emissions. Given these factors, the Preferred Alternative would not be 

expected to cause substantial degradation in visibility in Class I areas. 

4.7 PRELIMINARY SECTION 4(F) FINDING 

Based on this program-level analysis and as described above, certain components of 

the Preferred Alternative could result in impacts to resources protected by Section 

4(f). Further analysis will be completed during project-level environmental 

process(es) to make final determinations regarding a resource’s eligibility for 

protection under Section 4(f) (e.g., two potentially historic properties near the 

passenger station in the City of King), as well as whether the project component(s) 

would result in a use of any of those resources eligible for protection. If the projectlevel environmental analysis finds a use of a 4(f) property, it would also include the 

identification of all feasible and prudent avoidance alternatives and all possible 

measures to minimize harm. 

As discussed above, at this stage in the environmental review process, design is still 

at a conceptual level. Furthermore, final Section 106 eligibility and effects 

determinations have not been completed. However, all components of the 

Preferred Alternative would include the following avoidance, minimization and 

mitigation strategies. 

Future evaluations could include the following analyses: 

 Detailed physical descriptions of the plan area for the component (including 

plans and profiles). 

Complete descriptions of the potential impacts on Section 4(f) resources in light 

of refined designs. Specific potential impacts on each resource would be 

identified, including any impacts that could affect ambient noise, air quality, 

transportation, and visual resources. In particular, a reevaluation of the 

potential noise effects of the proposed curve realignments and second mainline 

on Section 4(f) resources would be completed. 

Applicability of the de minimis finding would be evaluated for proposed uses 

and potential impacts on Section 4(f) resources. 

 If necessary, the identification of feasible and prudent alternatives that avoid 

the use of a Section 4(f) property. 

 Identification and evaluation of strategies to avoid or minimize proposed use of 

and impacts on Section 4(f) resources by narrowing ROW/disturbance limits, 

realigning/relocating project features, and developing other alignment 
Coast Corridor 

4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) Final Program EIS/EIR 

4-32

adjustments. The accompanying analysis would evaluate the technical 

feasibility of each mitigation measure, including cost estimates with figures 

showing percentage differences in total project costs, possibility of community 

or ecosystem disruption, and other potential significant adverse environmental 

impacts of each alternative. The financial, social, or ecological costs or potential 

adverse environmental impacts of each alternative would also be addressed, as 

well as unique problems and extraordinary magnitudes of impacts. 

 Documentation of consultation with the affected local jurisdictions and 

owners/operators of each of the identified Section 4(f) resources. Required 

documentation includes proof of concurrence or efforts to obtain concurrence 

from the public official or officials having jurisdiction over the Section 4(f) 

resources and documentation of the planning that took place to minimize harm 

to the affected resources. Input from the public, or documentation of efforts to 

obtain input from the public, must be included. The public would be consulted 

on proposed effects to recreational or wildlife refuge resources and historic 

resources. 

In addition to these analyses, mitigation measures would be identified. Mitigation 

measures for natural, cultural, aesthetic and recreational impacts could include, but 

would not be limited to, the following: 

 Compensation for temporary and loss of park and recreation use. 

 Where necessary, provide alternative transit service to park visitors. 

 Restore directly impacted park lands to a natural state after construction. 

 Planning studies for relocated facilities, including measures for design and 

appropriate replacement with minimal impact on park use. 

 Inventory and document affected historic structures. Identify appropriate 

mitigation to address adverse effects to historic structures. 

 Use local native plants for revegetation. 

 Employ best management practices during construction and maintenance to 

protect wetland resources. 

 Construct wildlife under- or over-crossings as necessary. 

 Incorporate construction best practices to protect critical wildlife corridors and 

visitor use areas within any impacted public park. 
Coast Corridor 

Final Program EIS/EIR 4.0 Section 4(f) and 6(f) 

4-33

4.8 PRELIMINARY SECTION 6(F) FINDING 

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

Conservation Fund grants list for Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties and did 

not identify any Section 6(f) resources that would be affected by the Selected 

Alternative. Like Section 4(f) , to the extent any individual components of the 

Selected Alternative advance toward construction, project-level evaluations and 

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

reviews. 
San Luis Obispo Station

Salinas Station

San L uis Ob is po Co un ty Mo nte re yC ou nty

Ansel Adams

Wilderness

John Muir

Wilderness

Kings Canyon

Wilderness

Cucamonga

Wilderness

Desolation

Wilderness

Yosemite

Wilderness

Kaiser

Wilderness

Emigrant

Wilderness

Hoover

Wilderness

Mokelumne

Wilderness

Sequoia Wilderness

Pinnacles

Wilderness

San Gabriel

Wilderness

San Rafael

Wilderness

Domeland

Wilderness

Ventana

Wilderness

CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA

NEVADA

Fresno Fresno

San San

Francisco Francisco

Sacramento Sacramento

Los Los

Angeles Angeles

Salinas Salinas

Bakersfield Bakersfield

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

Clean Air Act Designated Class 1 Areas Figure 4-1

Source: ICF International, 2013

± 0 32.5 65

Miles

Legend

Existing Alignment

100-Km Boundary

US Forest Service Class 1 Areas

National Park Service Class 1 Areas
Spence Siding

Go n za 

Ce me t 

B at a a n

P ar k

H

EA-2

EA-1 H

H

EA-1

Chualar

Spreckels

£¤101

Salinas

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Section 4(f) Properties Figure 4-2a

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Section 4(f) Study Area

4(f) Property

Potential 4(f) Property

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013; Greeninfo Network, 2013

Page 2a ±

1:75,000
Harlem/Metz

Harlem/Metz

Harlem/Metz

New Chalone Creek

Vos t i

Pa rk

B ill Ra m us

P ar k

Go n za l es

Ce me t e r y

Ce s a r

Ch a v ez P ar k

H

EA-3

EA-2 H

Soledad

Gonzales

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Section 4(f) Properties Figure

4-2b

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Section 4(f) Study Area

4(f) Property

Potential 4(f) Property

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013; Greeninfo Network, 2013

Page 2b ±

1:75,000
Harlem/Metz Realign Tracks at MP 165

Coburn

Coburn 

Harlem/Metz

King City Siding

New Chalone Creek

E

H

EA-4

EA-3 H

H

EA-3

EA-2 H

Greenfield

King

City

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Section 4(f) Properties Figure

4-2c

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Section 4(f) Study Area

4(f) Property

Potential 4(f) Property

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013; Greeninfo Network, 2013

Page 2c ±

1:75,000
Realign Tracks at MP 165 Realign Tracks at MP 172

San Lucas Siding

EA-5

EA-4 H

H

H

EA-4

UV198

San

Lucas

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Section 4(f) Properties Figure

4-2d

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Section 4(f) Study Area

4(f) Property

Potential 4(f) Property

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013; Greeninfo Network, 2013

Page 2d ±

1:75,000
!(

Getty/Bradley

Getty/Bradley

Getty/Bradley

Bradley Siding B ra d le y R o ad 

EA-6 H

H

EA-6

H

EA-5

Bradley

San Ardo

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Section 4(f) Properties Figure

4-2e

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Section 4(f) Study Area

4(f) Property

Potential 4(f) Property

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013; Greeninfo Network, 2013

Page 2e ±

1:75,000
Wellsona/Paso Robles

McKay/Wellsona

McKay/Wellsona

McKay/Wellsona

Wellsona Siding

B ig S an d y

Wil dl if e A re a

Rio s C al ed on ia

A do be

P io ne e r

P ar k

B ra d le y R o ad B r i dg e

H

EA-8

H

H

EA-7

EA-6 H

EA-7

San

Luis Obispo County

Monterey County

El Paso de

Robles (Paso

Robles)

San

Miguel

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Section 4(f) Properties Figure 4-2f

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Section 4(f) Study Area

4(f) Property

Potential 4(f) Property

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013; Greeninfo Network, 2013

Page 2f ±

1:75,000
Henry/Santa Margarita Templeton/Henry

Henry/Santa Margarita

Henry/Santa Margarita

Henry/Santa Margarita

Templeton Siding

Second Main Line

S t en n er S p r in g

Op en S p a c e

S an t a Ma rg a ri t a

Co mm un it y P a r k

P alo ma

Cr e ek P a r k

P as o R o bl es

Ci t y P ar k

B LM

E v er s

P ar k

Ro b bin s

Fie ld

La w re n c e

Moo r e P ar k

Lo s P a dr es

Na t io na l F or e s t

He il ma nn P a rk / Ch a lk

Mou n t a in Go lf C o ur s e

Te mple to n

Sk a te P ar k

Lo s P a dr e s

Na t io n al Fo re s t

H

EA-10

EA-9 H

H

EA-9

EA-8 H

UV46

Atascadero

El Paso de

Robles (Paso

Robles)

Templeton

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Section 4(f) Properties Figure

4-2g

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Section 4(f) Study Area

4(f) Property

Potential 4(f) Property

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013; Greeninfo Network, 2013

Page 2g ±

1:75,000
Henry/Santa Margarita 

Second Main Line

S t en n er S p r in g

Op en S p a c e

E ls f or d

P ar k

S an t a

Ro s a P ar k

S an t a Ma rg a ri t a

Co mm un it y P a r k

B LM

Lo s P a dr e s 

Na t io n al Fo re s t

EA-10 H

H

EA-10

EA-9 H

UV1

UV227

Arroyo

Grande

San Luis

Obispo

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Section 4(f) Properties Figure

4-2h

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Section 4(f) Study Area

4(f) Property

Potential 4(f) Property

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013; Greeninfo Network, 2013

Page 2h ±

1:75,000