4-1

4.0 SECTION 4(F)/6(F) EVALUATION

4.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter provides the analysis to support preliminary determinations necessary 

to comply with the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 303 (hereinafter referred to as “Section 

4(f)”) and the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act of 1965 (hereinafter 

referred to as “Section 6(f)”).

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 may not approve a project that uses 

protected use 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 LWCF Act. 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 No Build Alternative and Build Alternative. 

4.1.1 STUDY AREA

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

properties considered for 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 for the study areas 
Coast Corridor

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

4-2

defined below.

1

 Potential resources were further determined 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 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Potential Section 4(f) resources include 

those that are listed or eligible for listing for the NRHP.

Cultural Resources

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the San Luis Obispo Council of 

Governments (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 to confirm an appropriate study area for conducting 

a records search and identification of cultural resources. SHPO concurred with the 

study area designation for this programmatic evaluation. .

Study areas analyzed herein reflect 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 proposed physical improvements in the Build 

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

noise, vibration, or visual effects that could lead to constructive use. Screening 

distances for potential direct use were defined as follows:

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

 Second mainline: entire projected right-of-way.

 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 right of way.

 

1

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

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

4-3

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

of existing right of way.

 Curve realignments: entire projected length and 200 feet on either side, for a 

total of 500 feet.

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

right-of-way, so no constructive use anticipated.

 New Stations: Footprints for proposed sites plus 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 proposed physical improvement. This area was 

intended to capture park and recreation areas that could be indirectly (or 

constructively) used by any of the elements of the Build Alternative. 

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 proposed project were identified and assessed for 

potential visibility impacts related to 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.

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

4(f)]

In brief, Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 19662is intended to 

minimize or avoid impacts to public park and recreational areas, wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges, and certain historic properties. The Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) uses Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations 23 

CFR 771/774 as guidance in applying Section 4(f), as described below.

 

2

49 USC 303
Coast Corridor

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

4-4

Section 4(f) prohibits Department of Transportation, 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.

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 understand the potential impacts to 

such properties.

Section 4(f) and Section 106

Section 4(f) is applicable to programs and projects undertaken by any agency within 

the U.S. DOT that may entail the use of publically owned parks, recreation areas, 

and wildlife refuges, and/or to historic sites on or eligible for the NRHP.

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

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

archaeological resources. 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) “actual use” (permanent or temporary occupancy 

of a site) or a “constructive use” (substantial impairment of the features or 

attributes which qualified the land for the NRHP. 

Archaeological sites on or eligible for inclusion on the NRHP are covered under 

Section 4(f), except those whose principal importance is related to data recovery

and thus have minimal value for preservation in place.

3

Section 6(f)

The Land and Water Conservation Fund Act provides grants to state and local 

governments for the acquisition or improvement of parks and recreation areas.

4

 

 

3

23 CFR §771.135[g][2] 

4

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

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

4-5

Section 6(f) of this act restricts the conversion of land acquired or developed under 

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

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

value (monetary), location, and usefulness must 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. When the protected property is permanently incorporated into a 

transportation facility.

Temporary Use. When there is a temporary occupancy of a Section 4(f) property 

that is adverse in terms of the statute’s preservationist purpose.

Constructive Use. When the transportation project does not incorporate land, but 

its proximity results in impacts (e.g., noise, vibration, visual, access, ecological) that 

substantially impair the activities, features, or attributes that qualify a resource for 

protection under Section 4(f). Substantial impairment occurs only if the protected 

activities, features, or attributes of the resource are diminished. 

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 use, 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:

 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.
Coast Corridor

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

4-6

 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.

 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 

diminished. This determination is made through the following:

 Identifying the currently 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.

In addition, it is important to note that erecting a structure over a Section 4(f) 

property, and thus requiring an air lease, does not in and of itself constitute a use 

unless a constructive use is present.

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:

 Public notice and opportunity for public review and comment.

 Written concurrence received from the officials with jurisdiction over the 

property.
Coast Corridor

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

4-7

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, it is found that the transportation program or project will have no effect 

or no adverse effect on historic properties. 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, the proximity impacts 

must be evaluated to determine if the proximity impacts will substantially impair 

the features or attributes that contribute to the National Register eligibility of the 

historic site or district. While the statutory requirements of Section 106 and Section 

4(f) are similar, even if a proposed action 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. 

In order for a cultural resource to be protected by Section 4(f), it must be eligible for 

the National Register under specific criteria. Specifically, archaeological sites whose 

importance as a resource can be documented through a data recovery process 

alone are not protected under Section 4(f). In other words, Section 4(f) does not 

apply to a site if a federal agency, after consultation with the SHPO and the 

appropriate Native American Tribes and/or Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

(THPO), concludes that the archaeological resource is important chiefly because of 

what can be learned by data recovery and has minimal value for preservation in 

place. 

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 such resources 

(such as pottery scatters and refuse deposits), it is generally assumed that there is 
Coast Corridor

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

4-8

minimal value attributed to preserving such resources in place. Conversely, 

resources eligible under Criteria A, B, and/or C are considered to have value intrinsic 

to the resource’s location. 

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, SLOCOG and FRA 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 SLOCOG and FRA 

coordination to date with these agencies. 

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 proposed study area. As such, the NAHC 

recommended that tribal governments and individuals be contacted to determine 
Coast Corridor

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

4-9

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 National 

Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800.2(c)(2)(ii)) the lead Federal agency, FRA, 

reached out to the identified individuals to advise about the project. 

Initial contact was made via letter, sent 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. 

SLOCOG and FRA will continue to consult with these agencies and tribal 

representatives regarding the effects of the project on the features and attributes of 

Section 4(f) properties and provide opportunity for public comment.

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 System and enhancing safety with minimal disruption to existing and 

proposed freight rail operations. Implementation of the Build Alternative 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 

anticipated 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

This Program EIS/EIR evaluates two alternatives: a Build Alternative and a No Build 

Alternative. The Build Alternative includes a list of potential physical improvements 

to the railway and expanded passenger rail service (Coast Daylight). Some, all, or 
Coast Corridor

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

4-10

none of these improvements may eventually be constructed in order to facilitate 

the addition of up to two round trip Coast Daylight trains per day (four 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 

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

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

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 assumes 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 

includes an exhaustive list of potential physical improvements between Salinas and 

San Luis Obispo, some number of which may be found necessary to accommodate 

increased Coast Daylight service. The extent of needed physical improvements has 

not been identified at this time but is expected to be determined outside the 

context of CEQA/NEPA environmental review. The Build Alternative looks broadly at 

each physical improvement contemplated for the area to provide decision-makers 

additional information in identifying which if any conceptual physical improvements 

should be carried forward. Both corridor-wide and specific area improvements are 

further discussed below. 

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

performance are proposed along the entire rail alignment between Salinas and 

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

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

track resurfacing, tie replacement, replacing or upgrading ballasting, 

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

reduces the number of joints and thus enables trains to move more quickly and 

with less friction and noise. 
Coast Corridor

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

4-11

 Signal System Upgrades: The Build Alternative proposes that centralized traffic 

control (CTC) be introduced in two locations: 1) from Salinas to Soledad, via the 

extension of an existing CTC system to the north and 2) an “island” CTC 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 right 

of way. 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 thus 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 also includes 

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

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

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

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

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

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

ranging between 25 and 35 mph. Slow speeds here are considered to be related 

to track curvature and deficient train control systems. A second mainline here 

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. Such 

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

frequency of repair or maintenance. 
Coast Corridor

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

4-12

 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: The MP 172 curve realignments 

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

paved road at Cattlemen Road, about 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 indicate trains leaving San Francisco and Los Angeles in the 

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

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

the addition of one additional daily southbound and northbound departure. 

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

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

following morning. 

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

and potentially also at proposed new stations identified in the Service Development 

Plan (Soledad and King City). The proposed Coast Daylight service would require the 

acquisition of locomotives and passenger railcars.

4.4.3 SECTION 4(F)/6(F) PROPERTIES (PARKS, WILDLIFE 

REFUGES, AND HISTORIC SITES)

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

properties evaluated as Section 4(f) resources and the project components that 

potentially use these properties. The project will have no Section 4(f) use if the 

property is not directly incorporated into the project, or when the project’s 

proximity impacts, such as noise, visual change, or minor access changes do not 

substantially impair the features and attributes that qualify the site for protection 

under Section 4(f) during construction or operation. 
Coast Corridor

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

4-13

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

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 Soledad7

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. 

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

 

5

City of Salinas, 2002c 

6

City of Gonzales, 2010

7

City of Soledad, 2014

8

Rios-Caledonia Adobe, 2013
Coast Corridor

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

4-14

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

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

 

9

City of Paso Robles, 2013b

10 City of Paso Robles, 2013a

11 City of Paso Robles, 2013c

12 City of Paso Robles, 2013d

13 City of Atascadero, 2013 
Coast Corridor

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

4-15

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

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

 

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 Build 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 Build 

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

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

 

14 San Luis Obispo County Parks, 2002

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

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

17 City of San Luis Obispo2009, pp. 5-6 
Coast Corridor

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

4-16

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. 

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

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. 

4.4.4 PRELIMINARY 4(F) USE ASSESSMENT AND DRAFT 

DETERMINATION

No Build Alternative

The Build Alternative represents the continuation of existing operations and physical 

components, and assumes the perpetuation of existing passenger service and

freight service. No physical improvements are anticipated beyond the installation of 

rail-side equipment associated with Positive Train Control (PTC). Since such 

equipment is assumed to be similar to existing signaling equipment and would be 

placed in the railroad right-of-way, no Section 4(f) use would be assumed for the No 

Build Alternative. 

Under the No Build scenario, it is assumed that between today and 2040, there 

would be no substantial changes to 4(f) resources in the study area. Moderate 

changes to these resources could be expected as a result of ongoing development in 

 

18 California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2014
Coast Corridor

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

4-17

the Coast Corridor region. Various planned and programmed projects would be 

implemented. However, the No Build Alternative is not expected to directly or 

indirectly affect any 4(f) properties in the study area. 

Build Alternative

This analysis evaluated the potential for permanent, temporary, and constructive 

uses of Section 4(f) resources. A constructive use is an indirect impact to a Section 

4(f) resource, such as noise, access restrictions, vibration, and visual impacts, 

resulting from the close proximity of project features to a Section 4(f) resource.

Table 4-2 below summarizes the potential for permanent, temporary, and 

constructive use impacts to Section 4(f) resources to result from each proposed 

improvement comprising the Build Alternative. The acreage of impacts tabulated 

below is consistent with the parameters outlined for the study area in Section 4.1.1

above. 

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

Build Alternative 

Components

Sum of Acreage with 

Potential for 

Permanent Use

Sum of Acreage 

with Potential for 

Temporary Use

Sum of Acreage with 

Potential for 

Constructive Use

Salinas Powered Switch 0 0 0

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #1 

0 0 Bataan Memorial Park: 0.3

Spence Siding Extension 0 0 0

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #2 

0

Bill Ramus Park: 0.2

Cesar Chavez Park: 0.1

Gonzales Cemetery: 4.5

Vosti Park: 6.3

Gonzales Powered Switch 0 0 0

Soledad Powered Switch 0 0 0

Soledad New Passenger 

Station

0 Cesar Chavez Park: 1.36

Harlem/Metz Curve 

Realignments

0 0 0

Chalone Creek New Siding 0 0 0
Coast Corridor

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

4-18

Build Alternative 

Components

Sum of Acreage with 

Potential for 

Permanent Use

Sum of Acreage 

with Potential for 

Temporary Use

Sum of Acreage with 

Potential for 

Constructive Use

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

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

Big Sandy Wildlife Area: 2.3 0 Big Sandy Wildlife Area: 23.9

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #7

Big Sandy Wildlife Area: 0.3 0

Big Sandy Wildlife Area: 89.7

Rios Caledonia Adobe: 3.2

McKay/Wellsona Curve 

Realignments

Big Sandy Wildlife Area: 10.5

Big Sandy Wildlife Area:

36. 8

Big Sandy Wildlife Area: 91.6
Coast Corridor

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

4-19

Build Alternative 

Components

Sum of Acreage with 

Potential for 

Permanent Use

Sum of Acreage 

with Potential for 

Temporary Use

Sum of Acreage with 

Potential for 

Constructive Use

McKay Powered Switches 0 0 0

Wellsona New Siding 0 0 0

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #8

0 0

Lawrence Moore Park: 1.5

Paso Robles City Park: 1.8

Pioneer Park: 2.2

Robbins Field: 2.1

Wellsona/Paso Robles 

Curve Realignments

0 0 0

Templeton Siding Evers Sports Park: 0.5 Evers Sports Park: 1.2

Evers Sports Park: 11.9

Templeton Skate Park: 2.0

Templeton/Henry Curve 

Realignments

0 0 0

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #9 a

0 0

Heilmann Park: 58.5

Paloma Creek Park Open Space: 

9.2

Santa Margarita Community Park: 

1.6

Henry/Santa Margarita 

Curve Realignment b

0 0 0

Santa Margarita Powered 

Switch

0 0 0

Cuesta Second Main 

Trackc

0 0 0

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #10

0 0

Elsford Park: 0.2

Los Padres National Forest: 25.6

Santa Rosa Park: 0.6

Stenner Springs Open Space: 27.3

Source: ICF 2013.

Notes: a)

:

In a review of aerial maps, BLM land was identified for potential constructive use impacts at EA-9. Since 

there are no developed recreation facilities on this land, the lands would not be covered by Section 4(f), so no 
Coast Corridor

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

4-20

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 on this BLM holding, so the lands would not be 

covered by Section 4(f); no Section 4(f) use could occur. (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 in utilities and transportation use 

(including the existing railroad right-of-way and US 101). As this portion of the LPNF does not have any sanctioned 

recreational use, the lands would not be covered by Section 4(f), so no Section 4(f) use could occur. 

Public Parks/Recreation Areas

As noted in Table 4-2 above, potential permanent and constructive use impacts 

were identified to occur on BLM lands at alignment improvement segment #9 and 

associated with the Henry/Santa Margarita Curve Realignment. After consulting 

with Harrison Freidman, an Outdoor Recreation Planner for the BLM, it was 

concluded that no developed recreation facilities exist on the potentially affected 

parcels. Additionally, constructive use impacts were identified to potentially occur 

within the Los Padres National Forest associated with the second mainline. No 

developed recreational uses occur in this area of the Los Padres National Forest.

19

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

are considered Section 4(f) resources, and are thus not discussed further. 

Bataan Park: The only improvements contemplated in close proximity to this park 

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

railway right-of-way. Thus, no permanent or temporary uses of this park would 

occur. Furthermore, track upgrades in this area included in the Build 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. Constructive use associated with 

the Build Alternative may occur to up to 1/3 acre of the park; however it is unlikely 

given its proximity to the existing railway and nature of the improvements in this 

area.

City of Soledad Parks (Vosti, Cesar Chavez, Bill Ramus): Upgrades proposed for the 

existing alignment in Soledad would not result in any permanent or temporary 

impacts to any of the parks identified, as they would occur within the railway rightof-way. Potential constructive uses have been identified at all three parks. 

However, both passenger and freight trains currently travel through Soledad in 

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

 

19 U.S. Forest Service, 2008
Coast Corridor

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

4-21

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

moving at lower speeds as they would be approaching/departing the new proposed 

Soledad station. Therefore, a constructive use of any existing Soledad park would 

be unlikely to occur. 

Gonzales Cemetery: Potential constructive use may occur to the Gonzales Cemetery 

associated with upgrades to the existing railway. However, the cemetery is exposed

to substantial existing noise, due to its location, wedged between US 101 and Old 

US 101, and less than 500 feet from the existing rail alignment. Since the proposed 

project would add new passenger service on the railway, there is the possibility that 

noise would increase slightly above existing levels. Given the high existing noise 

level, the addition of two additional trains by 2020 and four trains total by 2040 

makes it highly unlikely that a constructive use would occur. No temporary or 

permanent uses would result as the proposed upgrades in this area would occur 

within existing railway right-of-way. 

Big Sandy Wildlife Area: The existing railway right-of-way passes directly through 

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

construction of the railroad. The Build Improvement contemplates two different 

physical improvements for the Big Sandy area: track and signal upgrades and a 

portion of a curve realignment. In addition, proposed new passenger rail service 

would travel through the Big Sandy area. 

A portion of the McKay/Wellsona curve realignment would potentially require the 

acquisition of lands within Big Sandy and their conversion to a transportation use. 

As noted in Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, no specific curve realignment plans have 

been developed by any involved entity; the extent of the potential curve 

realignment areas was estimated for purposes of this programmatic environmental 

review. If the proposed curve realignment is selected to move forward for further 

design and environmental review, the final alignment will need to be evaluated 

against Section 4(f) regulations to determine whether any permanent and/or 

temporary use of Big Sandy would result and, as necessary, if any prudent and 

feasible alternatives can be identified. 

Track upgrade work would be completed entirely within the existing right-of-way 

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

some potential for the track upgrade work to result in some temporary use of Big 

Sandy, but most track upgrade work can be completed within the footprint of the 

existing right-of-way. Temporary occupancy requirements would be met as to avoid 

any temporary use under Section 4(f). Therefore, track upgrades would be unlikely 

to result in any Section 4(f) use - permanent, temporary, or constructive. 
Coast Corridor

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

4-22

Rios Caledonia Adobe: The existing right-of-way is directly adjacent to Rios 

Caledonia Adobe. Improvements to the existing railway have the potential to result 

in a constructive use of this park. The Build Alternative would add new passenger 

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

increase noise slightly above existing levels. Given the substantial noise to which 

this resource is exposed as a result of the proximity to US 101 and the existing rightof-way, such additional trains are unlikely to result in a new constructive use of this 

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

result from implementation of the Build Alternative as the track and signal upgrades 

would occur entirely within the existing railway right-of-way.

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

existing railroad. However, the existing railroad does not directly traverse any Paso 

Robles parks nor are the existing tracks immediately adjacent to any Paso Robles 

parks. 

Through Paso Robles, the Build Alternative would result in track upgrades which 

would not be expected to result in a permanent use given that such work would 

take place entirely within the existing right-of-way. The Build 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 substantial noise to which this resource is 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. 

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 reflected in Table 4-2 above, analysis indicates potential direct use of 0.5 acres of 

land associated with the Templeton Siding within Evers Sports Park in Templeton. 

There is also potential for temporary and constructive use. 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. As 

noted in Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, no specific siding plans have been developed by 

any involved entity; the extent of the potential siding and siding extension areas 

were estimated for purposes of this programmatic environmental review. If the 

proposed siding is selected to move forward for further design and environmental 
Coast Corridor

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

4-23

review, the final alignment will need to be evaluated against Section 4(f) regulations 

to determine whether any permanent and/or temporary use of Evers Sports Park

would result and, as necessary, if any prudent and feasible alternatives can be 

identified.

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

parks would include only track upgrades and the addition of passenger service. 

Neither of these proposed improvements would require relocating or expanding the 

railroad right-of-way, either into a Section 4(f) resource or anywhere else. 

Moreover, track improvements would be unlikely to require temporary use of 

adjacent lands, as most such work can be completed entirely within the existing 

footprint of the tracks. Therefore, there is virtually no potential for direct or 

temporary use of Evers Sports Park. 

Owing to the immediate adjacency of the existing railroad to these parks, the 

potential for constructive use must be considered. As noted above, track upgrade 

work would likely be contained to the existing footprint of the tracks themselves. 

The Build Alternative would also increase passenger rail service throughout the 

entire corridor with up to four new train passings per day, which could result in 

increased noise levels at the adjacent Templeton, Atascadero, and Santa Margarita 

parks. Given existing rail use by both freight and passenger trains through these 

communities, the incremental addition of up to four trains per day would be 

unlikely to rise to the level of a constructive use of any of these parks. 

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 

that would be considered Section 4(f) resources. 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 

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

would be unlikely to rise to the level of a constructive use. No temporary or 

permanent impacts would result as the proposed track upgrades would occur 

entirely within existing railway right-of-way. 

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 be completed entirely 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 rise to the level of a constructive use. 
Coast Corridor

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

4-24

Cultural Resources

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 requires federal 

agencies to consider a project’s effect on cultural resources in much the same way 

as Section 4(f). The most important connection between the two statutes is that 

the Section 106 process is generally the method by which a cultural resource’s 

significance is determined under Section 4(f). 

The results of the Section 106 process determine whether Section 4(f) applies to 

historic properties. The results of the Section 106 analysis are critical in determining 

the applicability and outcome of the Section 4(f) evaluation. The most important 

difference between the two statutes is the way each of them measures impacts on 

cultural resources. Whereas Section 106 is concerned with “adverse effects,” 

Section 4(f) is concerned with “use” of protected properties.

Archaeological Sites

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

areas are described in Section 3.10, Cultural Resources. 

The Final Section 4(f) use determinations will be dependent upon the results of 

NRHP eligibility determinations. For cultural resources, such eligibility 

determinations will require a survey, which will be completed once property access 

is obtained through owner permission or purchase of property for the Build 

Alternative. SLOCOG will evaluate design modifications to avoid ground disturbance 

at the location of any archaeologically sensitive areas. If the areas cannot be 

avoided, SLOCOG will conduct archaeological data recovery for the purposes of site 

identification and significance evaluation according to a plan prepared in 

accordance with the Programmatic Agreement for Section 106 to determine if the 

sites are eligible for the NRHP. If they are determined eligible for the NRHP, 

SLOCOG will mitigate impacts through archaeological data recovery as described in 

Section 3.10, Cultural Resources. 

SLOCOG has not subjected portions of the study area to intensive archaeological 

cultural resource surveys. Consequently, SLOCOG and FRA cannot determine 

potential effects on presently unidentified cultural sites, features, artifacts, or other 

sensitive properties within the footprint of the Build Alternative. In the event any 

one or more elements of the Build Alternative move forward for further design, 

funding, and implementation, the lead agency would conduct intensive surveys 

prior to project-related ground-disturbing activities to comply with the identification 

provisions of Section 106. Previously undocumented archaeological materials may 

be present on documented significant sites and sensitive landforms, and could be 

inadvertently discovered or damaged through project ground-disturbing activities. 
Coast Corridor

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

4-25

Section 3.10, Cultural Resources, describes measures to address unidentified 

archaeological 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.

Historic Architectural 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 proposed physical 

improvement potentially outside the railroad right-of-way near the Bradley Road 

Bridge is the proposed Bradley siding extension. The siding currently ends about 

0.75 miles to 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, further away from the Bradley Road Bridge 

than the current siding and thus highly unlikely to result in a Section 4(f) use of the 

Bradley Road Bridge. 

If the Bradley Siding is selected for this portion of the corridor, an appropriate level 

of review will be needed to formally determine the potential for such improvements 

to affect the bridge’s previously established eligibility. 

Additionally, over 50 recorded historic resources potentially affected by various 

components of the Build Alternative may require evaluation under the NRHP 

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

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

protection, FRA will expedite preparation of separate Section 4(f) evaluations.

Class I Areas

The proposed project would add up to four new train trips each day, so 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 

Build Alternative could have a minor positive effect on regional air pollutant 

emissions. Given these factors, the Build Alternative would not be expected to 

cause substantial degradation in visibility in Class I areas.
Coast Corridor

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

4-26

4.4.5 IMPACT AVOIDANCE STRATEGIES, MITIGATION 

STRATEGIES AND SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS

Based on the analysis above, potential effects to Section 4(f) resources would most 

likely be limited to the Big Sandy Wildlife Area and Evers Sports Park. It is assumed 

that the affected portion of the Los Padres National Forest would not be deemed a 

Section 4(f) resource owing to existing transportation and utilities uses in the 

immediate area. 

It may be possible to avoid significant impacts to these resources through design 

modifications. However, if corresponding components of the Build Alternative are 

selected for further design leading to potential construction, mitigation efforts 

should be focused on these two areas. 

Potential impacts to Big Sandy Wildlife Area and Evers Sports Park are associated 

with the McKay/Wellsona curve realignment and the Templeton Siding, 

respectively. Future analysis must assess the centrality of this curve realignment

and siding to overall train performance in light of anticipated impact to biological 

and 4(f) resources. Pending future analysis, it may be possible to introduce design 

refinements or mitigation strategies to lessen the significance of the potential 

impacts.

In these areas and others, avoidance of impacts to 4(f) resources may not be 

possible. Therefore, thorough evaluation of impacts, alternatives, and strategies to 

minimize the effects on these resources will be critical. 

Prior to implementing elements of the Build Alternative, a more detailed analysis of 

potential impacts to Section 4(f) resources should be conducted to identify potential 

prudent and feasible alternatives, and identify and analyze potential mitigation 

measures.

Future evaluations could include the following analyses:

 Detailed physical descriptions of the plan area for the proposed project 

(including plans and profiles). 

 Complete descriptions of the proposed uses of and 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. 
Coast Corridor

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

4-27

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

and impacts on Section 4(f) resources by narrowing rights-of-way/disturbance 

limits, realigning/ relocating project features, and developing other alignment 

adjustments. Where feasible, 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 will 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 as well as 

historic resources. 

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

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

would not be limited to:

 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. 
Coast Corridor

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

4-28

 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. 
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
Coast Corridor

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

4-30

Page Intentionally Left Blank
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
This page intentionally left blank. 
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
This page intentionally left blank. 
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
This page intentionally left blank. 
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
This page intentionally left blank. 
!(

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
This page intentionally left blank. 
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
This page intentionally left blank. 
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
This page intentionally left blank. 
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
This page intentionally left blank.