3-1

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT, 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES, 

AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES

INTRODUCTION

This purpose of this chapter is to describe existing environmental conditions in the 

areas that would be affected by the No Build Alternative, and the Build Alternative,

and the Preferred Alternative; evaluate potential environmental impacts associated 

with the No Build Alternative and with constructing and operating the Build 

Alternative and the Preferred Alternative, and present potential program-level 

mitigation strategies to avoid or reduce those impacts. 

The analysis presented in this chapter addresses the general effects of a program of 

actions that would make up the proposed Coast Corridor Improvements project. 

This chapter describes the general differences in potential environmental 

consequences between the No Build Alternative, the Build Alternative and the

Preferred Alternative. The description of environmental issues among various 

components will help to guide possible future design refinements and/or projectlevel studies. 

This chapter will provides the technical environmental analysis for each resource 

topic. Each section in this chapter will discusses the existing conditions of the study 

area, with regard to the resource topic, and how each alternative would potentially 

affect the environment. 

Much of this analysis was facilitated through the use of geographic information 

system (GIS) spatial data. Appendix D (and Appendix 1) is a compilation of the data 

gathered for this analysis. 

Chapter 5.0, Comments and Coordination and Appendix 2, include the comments 

on the Draft Program EIS/EIR and provides responses to each comment. 
Coast Corridor

3.0 Affected Environment Final Program EIS/EIR

3-2

HOW THIS CHAPTER IS ORGANIZED

This chapter is divided into several sections, roughly grouped by resource topic. The 

resource topic groups are as follows

 Transportation and related topics (air quality, noise and vibration, energy)

 Human Environment (land use and community impacts, visual resources, 

agricultural resources, public utilities and services, hazardous materials/wastes)

 Cultural Resources (historic architecture, archaeological resources, 

paleontological resources)

 Natural Environment (geology and soils, mineral resources, hydrology and water 

resources, and biological resources)

Each resource topic discussion will contains the following information: 

 Regulatory Requirements 

 An overview of relevant federal, state, and local policies within the study area.

 Methods of Evaluation

 An identification of the proposed study area relative to the resource, 

approaches taken to evaluate each resource topic, and potential issues that 

may occur.

 Affected Environment

 Background information and discussion of the existing conditions within the 

study area defined for the resource topic analysis.

 Environmental Consequences

 A comparison of the existing conditions of the study area to the Build 

Alternative action alternatives and No Build Alternative. For each resource 

topic, the environmental consequences section analyzes potential effects that 

might occur if any of the Build Alternative or Preferred Alternative

components improvements are implemented. The Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) section 1508.8 defines “effects” as the following:

Direct effects: are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.

Such direct effects, which may potentially result from construction and/or

operation of the Build Alternative improvements action alternative 

components, are discussed for each resource topic. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.0 Affected Environment

3-3

Indirect effects: are caused by the action and are later in time or farther 

removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. Such indirect 

effects are discussed, as necessary, for the resource topics with pertinent 

indirect effects.

 Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Strategies

 These sections will outline potential measures to fully avoid, minimize the 

effects of, or compensate for substantial environmental impacts. The 

discussion will includes design and construction practices that would be 

developed into project-specific mitigation measures to avoid or minimize 

impacts as project-level plans are advanced in subsequent stages. 

 Subsequent Analysis

 This discussion will defines studies that would be required for project-level 

environmental documentation in the future. 
Coast Corridor

3.0 Affected Environment Final Program EIS/EIR

3-4

Page Intentionally Left Blank
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.1 Traffic and Travel

3.1-1

3.1 TRAFFIC AND TRAVEL

This section describes existing traffic and circulation conditions in the project 

corridor and identifies the potential transportation impacts related to the No Build

and the Build Alternative action alternatives. 

This section also describes the potential traffic impacts associated with the 

Preferred Alternative in comparison with the No Build and Build Alternatives. 

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

Program EIS/EIR and provides responses to each comment. Several of the City of 

King’s comments relate to Section 3.1 of the Draft Program EIS/EIR. Of these, only 

comment A-3.11 requires a change to the text of the Affected Environment section. 

Other comments from the City of King related to transportation are addressed in 

this section in the analysis of the Preferred Alternative and in Section 3.15, 

Cumulative Impacts Analysis.

3.1.1 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

3.1.1.1 Federal

Federal Railroad Administration

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) was created by the Department of 

Transportation Act of 1966, and is concerned with intermodal transportation. FRA 

issues, implements, and enforces safety regulations, selects investments to develop 

the rail network across the country, and conducts research and technology 

development.

The Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 relieved private rail carriers of their 

obligation to provide passenger rail service and led to the creation of Amtrak in 

1971. 

The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) created new 

railroad investment programs and reauthorized Amtrak for five years. 

The FRA’s Office of Railroad Policy and Development provides financial assistance, 

quantitative analysis, environmental research, project reviews, research and 

development, technical assistance, and supports development of intercity 

passenger rail policy. 
Coast Corridor

3.1 Traffic and Travel Final Program EIS/EIR

3.1-2

3.1.1.2 State

Caltrans Division of Rail

The Caltrans DOR manages and coordinates statewide intercity passenger rail 

service (Amtrak) that helps to improve the state’s air quality and reduce highway 

congestion and fuel consumption. Caltrans contracts with National Railroad 

Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) to provide daily operation and maintenance of 

Amtrak California service.

3.1.1.3 Local 

Monterey County General Plan

The General Plan for Monterey County includes goals aimed at optimizing the use of 

the County’s transportation facilities, achieving acceptable level of service for 

County roads and intersections, promoting viable transportation alternatives, and 

encouraging a rail system that offers efficient and economical transport of people 

and commodities.

City of Salinas General Plan

The Salinas General Plan contains goals related to providing and maintaining a 

circulation system that meets the current and future needs of the community, 

working with other local and regional agencies to develop regional transit and 

transportation systems, and promoting an efficient public transportation network.

City of Soledad General Plan

The Soledad General Plan outlines goals aimed at providing a safe and efficient 

circulation network to meet the present and future needs of the city, encouraging 

the use of alternate forms of transportation, and specifically calling for coordination 

with appropriate agencies to establish a train station in the city.

City of King (King City) General Plan 

The city’s General Plan contains goals and policies calling to provide an integrated 

transportation system that adequately serves residential, commercial, industrial, 

and recreational uses, as well as public facilities and agricultural properties. Goals 

also pertain to providing a public street and highway system that accommodates 

existing and projected traffic volumes within the city. Additionally, as described in 

Section 2.0, Alternatives, since publication of the Draft EIS/EIR the City of King has 

adopted draft revised plans for the Multi-Modal Transportation Center – Conceptual 

Design ((MMTC) 2014).
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.1 Traffic and Travel

3.1-3

San Luis Obispo County General Plan

The San Luis Obispo County General Plan outlines goal and objectives related to 

transportation and circulation including integrating land use and transportation 

planning so that necessary transportation facilities and services can be provided to 

accommodate urban and rural development, coordinating the transportation 

system between different travel modes, and designing a transportation system that 

provides for safe travel within attainable and feasible economic and technical 

means.

City of El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) General Plan

The Paso Robles General Plan contains goals and policies to establish a safe, 

balanced, efficient, and multimodal circulation system, focusing on the mobility of 

people, and preserving the city’s small town character and quality of life, as well as 

to promote regional, interstate, and intrastate rail service.

City of San Luis Obispo General Plan

Transportation-related goals outlined in the San Luis Obispo General Plan include 

encouraging transit development, expansion, coordination, and aggressive 

marketing throughout San Luis Obispo County to serve a broader range of local and 

regional transportation needs including commuter service. Additionally, policies 

supporting increased availability of rail service for travel within the county, state, 

and among states are encouraged.

3.1.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION

The analysis herein methodology used to identify potential transportation impacts

was based in part on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines and FRA’s Environmental 

Procedures. 

Construction-Period Effects

To assess potential road traffic and transportation environmental impacts, 

construction-related roadway traffic impacts resulting from implementation of the 

various improvements components were analyzed qualitatively. 

Effects on Rail Operations

To determine potential environmental impacts related to railway transportation and 

travel, ridership projections and operations modeling (RailOPS) from the Service 
Coast Corridor

3.1 Traffic and Travel Final Program EIS/EIR

3.1-4

Development Plan (SDP) were used.

1

 The SDP modeled multiple scenarios for three 

planning horizon years: 2012 (Existing Year), 2020, and 2040. The modeling includes 

all rail activity in the Corridor, including freight, intercity passenger rail and 

commuter rail. For the year 2020, the SDP considered whether adding projected 

passenger and freight volumes and any physical components improvements to the 

Year 2020 Base Case network could result in achievement of the on-time 

performance (OTP) goal of 87 percent for all passenger train services. 

Effects on Local Roadways

Roadway impacts resulting from operation of the various physical components 

improvements and new service were qualitatively assessed. The analysis included a 

review of aerial mapping to determine if any new at-grade crossings would be 

created. Local traffic impacts resulting from new station areas were assessed 

qualitatively based on projected ridership and conditions of local roadways 

providing access to the stations.

3.1.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1.3.1 Existing Freight Rail

Freight rail operations in California facilitate the State’s participation in both 

domestic and international markets. The freight railroad system in California is an 

expansive network comprised of Class 1 railroads,2short line railroads, and 

switching yards and terminals covering over 5,000 miles across the State. Freight 

rail volume within the project area is relatively low as the Coast Corridor is 

considered a “secondary” or “relief” line to the busier Central Valley line to the east.

The UPRR owns the railroad and operates freight trains along the Coast Corridor. 

The 2013 Coast Corridor SDP reports that 2 daily long-haul3freight trains run daily 

between Salinas and San Luis Obispo. Freight service in the Corridor does not follow 

a particular schedule, and service throughout the network is not uniform. Train 

length, railcar type, and number of locomotives vary depending on the type(s) of 

cargo in transit and distance to be traveled. 

 

1

Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b.

2

Class 1 railroads are regulated by the Surface Transportation Board and are subject to the Uniform 

System of Accounts (49CFR1201) and are defined as carriers with annual carrier operating revenues of 

$433.2 million or more (2011).

3

Long-haul refers to freight trains traveling across the entire Corridor or a significant portion of it.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.1 Traffic and Travel

3.1-5

Outside the Salinas-San Luis Obispo portion being studied here, local freight trains 

also operate over shorter (less than 50 mile) segments of the Coast Corridor 

between Salinas and San Jose and between Oxnard and Los Angeles.4,5 

3.1.3.2 Existing Passenger Rail

Amtrak operates the Coast Starlight passenger train service, which runs between 

Seattle and Los Angeles, and carried just over 454,000 passengers in 2012.6 The 

Coast Starlight runs through the project area on the Coast Corridor. This long-haul 

passenger train is intended to serve the needs of interstate leisure/recreational 

travelers. With limited service and relatively few stops between the San Francisco

Bay Area and Los Angeles, the Coast Starlight does not provide a widely practical 

service for intrastate commuters (refer to Table 3.1-4 for a station arrival schedule). 

As of 2014, the Coast Starlight provides one daily round trip between Seattle and 

Los Angeles. The Coast Starlight makes stops at three stations along the study 

corridor: Salinas, Paso Robles, and San Luis Obispo. Table 3.1-1 shows year 2012 

ridership (boardings and alightings) for each station, as well as average daily 

ridership. It should be noted that San Luis Obispo is the northern terminus of 

Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner route, which provides twice-daily plus weekend service to 

Los Angeles Union Station and continuing service to San Diego. Ridership reported 

in Table 3.1-1 for San Luis Obispo thus comprises both Coast Starlight and Pacific 

Surfliner passengers. 

Table 3.1-1 Coast Corridor Passenger Station Ridership, 2012

Station Location Annual Riders Average Riders per Day

Salinas 11 Station Place 19,879 54.5

Paso Robles 800 Pine Street 11,728 32.1

San Luis Obispoa1011 Railroad Avenue 108,439a297.1a

Total 140,046 383.7

a Ridership includes Pacific Surfliner and Coast Starlight passengers

Source: Amtrak, 2012a

 

4

County of San Luis Obispo, 2013, p. 4.12-8

5

Refer to Section 3.16, Cumulative Impacts, for a discussion of future freight operations on the 

corridor.

6

Amtrak, 2012b
Coast Corridor

3.1 Traffic and Travel Final Program EIS/EIR

3.1-6

Track capacity constraints and shared-track conflicts exist between passenger and 

freight trains. According to the SDP, over 90 percent of the Corridor has only singletrack operations resulting in constrained passing capabilities. As a result, long 

freight trains must be given priority over passenger trains when the two meet 

because most existing sidings are not long enough to accommodate the typically 

longer length of freight trains.7 Additionally, all trains, but particularly passenger 

trains, can “stack” at either end of single-track sections, resulting in delays and thus 

reducing the attractiveness of passenger rail as a travel mode choice.

3.1.3.3Adjacent Roadways

The roadway network in the vicinity of the Corridor is comprised of a US highway, 

state routes, country routes, and local arterial streets. The majority of the Corridor 

between Salinas and San Luis Obispo runs parallel to US Highway 101 (US 101) and 

the Salinas River. A general overview of the regional transportation network for this 

section of the Corridor is provided below.

US 101 

US 101 connects northwestern Washington, Oregon, and California, terminating in 

Los Angeles. In central California, US 101 is primarily oriented in a north-south 

direction, and transitions to a rough east-west orientation between Santa Barbara 

and Los Angeles. It is used most heavily in urban areas (between San Francisco and 

San Jose and between Santa Barbara and Los Angeles) where it serves as a primary 

travel corridor. US 101 also provides secondary highway access between San 

Francisco and Los Angeles (the primary route being Interstate 5). Table 3.1-2 shows 

US 101 traffic count data at relevant locations between Salinas and San Luis Obispo. 

US 101 roughly parallels the Coast Corridor from Salinas to the Cuesta Grade north 

of San Luis Obispo. In this area, the railroad tracks are as close as immediately 

adjacent to the US 101 right of way and as distant as 2-3 miles away. From Salinas 

to Soledad, US 101 is to the immediate west of the Coast Corridor. At Soledad, the 

tracks pass underneath US 101. From Soledad south to the Cuesta Grade, US 101 is 

to the east of the Coast Corridor. North of the peak of the Cuesta Grade, US 101 

overpasses the Coast Corridor as the railroad transitions to the west of the freeway.

 

7

 Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b, p. 4-2
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.1 Traffic and Travel

3.1-7

Table 3.1-2 Traffic and Vehicle Data for US 101 (2012)

Region Location Average Daily 

Traffic Volume

Peak Hour 

Vehicle Trips

Peak Month 

Vehicle Trips

Salinas Junction Route

183 73,900 6,700 82,000

East Market 

Street 73,900 6,700 82,000

Soledad North Soledad 38,200 4,250 47,000

King City First Street 16,500 1,600 20,200

Paso Robles 13th Street 33,300 3,300 36,000

Cuesta Grade Junction Route

58 East, Santa 

Margarita

43,800 4,800 47,000

San Luis Obispo

California Blvd 47,400 4,700 52,000

Junction Route 1 

North 60,300 5,900 68,000

Junction Route

227 67,100 6,700 72,000

Source: Caltrans Traffic Operations Division, 2013

Other Roads

Local circulation in the vicinity of the Coast Corridor is provided by several local 

roads that parallel and traverse the railway. In Monterey County these roads are 

primarily two lane rural roads. The railway also crosses several driveways, and 

other private and agricultural unpaved roads along this portion of the alignment. 

Within cities and near station areas much of the travel is provided by paved arterial 

public roadways. In San Luis Obispo County much of the circulation is provided by 

paved city streets as agricultural uses decline in this portion of the rail corridor. 

Near Santa Margarita, the railroad crosses under US 101 into the Cuesta Grade. 

Through the grade, the railroad diverges from US 101 and travels through several 

tunnels in the mountains before descending into the City of San Luis Obispo.
Coast Corridor

3.1 Traffic and Travel Final Program EIS/EIR

3.1-8

At-Grade Crossings

As noted in Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, the existing railroad crosses a number of 

existing local roads at-grade. As shown in the Table 3.1-3, the existing railway 

crosses public roads in about 36 locations along the Corridor between Salinas and

San Luis Obispo. Through Monterey County there are 16 paved, public road atgrade crossings, and there are 20 in San Luis Obispo County. A spectrum of safety 

provisions are in place at these crossings, ranging from passive warning devices, 

active warning devices, crossbucks (x-shaped signs), pavement markings, and 

flashing lights and gates.

The railway also crosses several driveways, and other private and agricultural 

unpaved roads along the alignment. Safety provisions at these locations are 

typically minimal, consisting mainly of crossbucks and pavement markings, although 

many such private crossings are entirely unsigned. 

Table 3.1-3 Summary of Existing Paved Public Road At-Grade Crossings

Monterey County San Luis Obispo County

John Street, Salinas 14th Street, San Miguel

Harkins Road, Salinas 11th Street, San Miguel

Somavia Road, between Salinas and Chualar Wellsona Road, Paso Robles

Main Street, Chualar 21st Street, Paso Robles

Foletta Road, Gonzales 16th Street, Paso Robles

Katherine Street, Gonzales 13th Street, Paso Robles

Gonzales River Road, Gonzales 12th Street, Paso Robles

Lanini Road, Gonzales 10th Street, Paso Robles

Elm Avenue/G16, Greenfield Marquita Avenue, Templeton

Spreckels Road, north of King City Phillips Road, Templeton

East San Antonio Drive, King City Chico Road, Atascadero

Lyons Street Bitterwater Road, King City Curbaril Avenue, Atascadero

East Pearl Street, King City Halcon Road, Atascadero

Lonoak Road, King City Santa Clara Road, Atascadero

Wildhorse Road, south of King City Asuncion Road, Atascadero
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.1 Traffic and Travel

3.1-9

Monterey County San Luis Obispo County

Hare Canyon Road, south of Bradley State Route 58/Estrada Avenue, Santa Margarita

Encina Avenue, Santa Margarita

Wilhelmina Avenue, Santa Margarita

Foothill Boulevard, San Luis Obispo

Marsh Street, San Luis Obispo

Source: Circlepoint, 2013

Station Areas

Salinas 

The Salinas train station is located at 11 Station Place, 1 block north of Market 

Street. The station has a ticket office, enclosed waiting room, payphone, and 

restrooms. Currently, the station is served by Coast Starlight trains; in 2012, 

average annual passenger boardings and alightings in Salinas was 8,760, which 

translates to 54 average daily riders.8 Amtrak Thruway buses provide connections at 

the Salinas train station to the Coast Starlight, Capitol Corridor and Pacific Surfliner 

Routes, as well as to other intermediate destinations.

Automobile access to the station is primarily through two major arterial roadways -

West Market Street/State Route 183 (SR 183) and North Main Street/SR 183. West 

Market Street/SR 183 is a two-way four lane road that travels east/west through 

central Salinas. North Main Street is oriented in the north to south direction and 

starts in North Salinas. North Main Street intersects with US 101 at the north of the 

city and in the center as a four-lane road, then splits off into a couplet of two oneway two-lane roads under the railway until it intersects with West Market Street. 

From there, it splits into two one-way, three-lane arterials, northbound Monterey 

Street and southbound Salinas Street. Several two-lane residential collector streets 

terminate at West Market and North Main Streets. The Salinas General Plan (2002) 

reports that North Main Street operates at an unacceptable level of service (LOS)9E 

 

8

Amtrak, 2012a

9

LOS is a qualitative measure of traffic levels. LOS A-C indicates free-flowing traffic with little delay, 

LOD D-E indicates congestion, and LOS F indicates gridlock and severe delay.
Coast Corridor

3.1 Traffic and Travel Final Program EIS/EIR

3.1-10

between Market Street and Bernal Drive, adjacent to the train station. The stopcontrolled station approach at Station Place and West Market Street operates at 

LOS F during peak commute hours.10 Salinas strives to maintain LOS D or better for 

all intersections and roadways.

Bus service is provided at the Salinas Transit Center, about a quarter mile south of 

the train station (110 Salinas Street). Access is primarily provided by Salinas Street, 

Lincoln Avenue, Central Avenue, and West Gabilan Street, all major arterial 

roadways. Salinas Street is a three-lane one-way street traveling in the north-south 

direction. Lincoln Avenue, Central Avenue, and West Gabilan Street are all two-lane 

local roadways. Monterey-Salinas Transit (MST) buses serve the transit center, 

operating a number of routes throughout Monterey County. Greyhound, located 

just one block south of the Salinas Transit Center at 19 West Gabilan Street, offers 

service to major cities including San Francisco, Santa Barbara, and Los Angeles. 

New train stations are planned in Pajaro/Watsonville and Castroville to expand the 

Capitol Corridor passenger rail service 68 miles from San Jose to Salinas. The service 

is initially expected to offer 2 daily round trips during commute periods, increasing 

to up to six round trips per day as demand warrants. Projected annual ridership is 

approximately 150,000 passengers. Capital improvements would include a train 

layover facility, intermodal bus facility, commuter parking in Salinas, and new 

platforms and parking facilities at Pajaro/Watsonville and Castroville.11

Soledad 

At present, there is no passenger train station in Soledad, although passenger (as 

well as freight) trains pass through the railroad alignment that traverses the city. 

The Build Alternative includes the construction of a new passenger station in 

Soledad. The City of Soledad has adopted a Downtown Specific Plan, which 

anticipates Coast Daylight passenger service and includes a conceptual plan for a 

train station to be located on Front Street, at the end of Main Street. Both Front 

Street and Main Street are two-lane major arterial roadways in Soledad. The traffic 

report prepared for the City of Soledad Downtown Specific Plan (2012) reported 

that the Front Street and Main Street intersection operates at LOS B. 

 

10 TAMC, 2006, p. 3

11 TAMC, 2004
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.1 Traffic and Travel

3.1-11

The station area comprises approximately 1.9 acres of the larger 200-acre Specific 

Plan area. The Specific Plan indicates that the station is to consist of a passenger 

boarding platform, ticket depot, bus pull outs, and pedestrian and bike connections. 

The station is envisioned as a multimodal facility, serving both train and bus 

passengers.12

King City 

At present there is no passenger train station in King City, although both freight and 

passenger trains pass through the city on the existing alignment. The Build 

Alternative includes the construction of a new passenger station in King City. King 

City has adopted a conceptual plan for a new passenger station near the 

intersection of First Street and Broadway in downtown King City. 

King City also included a conceptual plan for a multi-modal transportation center in 

two recent plans: the First Street Corridor Master Plan and the Historic Corridor 

Revitalization Plan. The conceptual plans included in the cited documents call for a 

1,200-foot train platform alongside the existing tracks, a station building for ticket 

sales and restrooms, on-street bus pullout areas, and an off-street parking lot.13 

Primary entry to the station would be via First Street, a two-lane north-south 

arterial roadway that is also provides connection to US 101. The King City General 

Plan Final EIR reports that existing traffic operations for First Street and for the US 

101/First Street Interchange are at acceptable levels. 

Paso Robles 

The Paso Robles Intermodal Station is located within the North County Transit 

Center near the south end of the city at 800 Pine Street. Access to the station is 

provided via 8th Street and Pine Street, both two lane local streets, which intersect 

at the station. 8th and 9th Streets are the primary linkages to Spring Street, a four 

lane arterial thoroughfare that is the main local north-south road on the west side 

of the city. Traffic volumes on these local streets are generally low. Intersections 

within the vicinity of the station, namely 13th Street at Paso Robles Street and Spring 

Street at 1st Street/Niblick Road, have been identified to operate at acceptable LOS 

levels.14

 

12 City of Soledad, 2012,Chapter 3

13 City of King, 2013, pp. 154-156

14 City of El Paso de Robles, 2006
Coast Corridor

3.1 Traffic and Travel Final Program EIS/EIR

3.1-12

The station consists of an enclosed waiting and ticketing area, a platform, restroom 

facilities, and parking/waiting areas. Several buses serve the station, including 

Amtrak Thruway, Greyhound, Paso Express, San Luis Obispo Regional Transportation 

Authority (SLORTA), and MST. Station ridership (boarding or alighting from Coast 

Starlight trains) averages about 11,680 annual riders (about 32 riders per day).15

Currently there are 10 short-term and 10 long-term parking spacing onsite, as well 

as taxi service and car rental opportunities nearby. Bicycle access is available along 

local roadways in the area. Vine Street, located three blocks east of Spring Street, is 

designated a Class II bikeway, and several Class II and III bikeways are proposed that 

would lead directly to the existing Amtrak station.16

San Luis Obispo 

The Amtrak Station in San Luis Obispo is located at 1011 Railroad Avenue, along the 

southeast edge of the downtown area. It has an enclosed waiting area, ticket office, 

self-service ticket kiosk, and restrooms. Access to the station is primarily via Santa 

Barbara Avenue/Osos Street, Leff Street, and/or Santa Rosa Street. Santa Rosa 

Street and Osos Street both terminate at Railroad Avenue, providing direct access to 

the station and associated parking areas. The station provides 20 short-term and 30 

long-term parking spaces.17 Santa Barbara Street/Osos Street operates at an 

acceptable LOS between Broad Street and Higuera Street.18

The station is served by San Luis Obispo Transit, Greyhound, and Amtrak Thruway 

buses. Car rental and taxi services are available within one mile of the station, as 

well as an extensive network of Class I, II, and III bicycle routes.

3.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

The programs of proposed physical components improvements and service changes 

comprising the Build Alternative action alternatives are specifically intended to 

expand passenger rail services from existing levels while accommodating existing 

and anticipated future freight operations. The components of the Build Alternative

action alternatives would have varying potential to result in significant 

environmental effects related to transportation and travel. 

 

15 Amtrak, 2012a

16 City of El Paso de Robles, 2009, p. 24

17 Amtrak, 2014

18 City of San Luis Obispo, 2006, p. 2-53
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.1 Traffic and Travel

3.1-13

3.1.4.1No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative represents the continuation of existing operations and 

physical components, and assumes the perpetuation of existing freight and 

passenger service.

Rail Operations

Under the No Build Alternative, passenger rail operations between Salinas and San 

Luis Obispo would not change. Coast Starlight service would continue through the 

corridor. Pacific Surfliner service to Southern California would continue to 

originate/terminate in San Luis Obispo. Freight traffic would likely increase from 2 

daily long-haul trains to 4 daily long-haul trains by year 2020, per the SDP. 

The only physical component 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. Therefore, there 

would be no substantial change to rail operations in the Corridor.

Roadway Operations

Under the No Build Alternative, the existing number of passenger trains traveling 

the Corridor would increase from existing passenger service. No construction would 

occur to construct proposed physical components improvements. Given that rail

service would not be expanded under the No Build Alternative, traffic and transit

activity near existing stations would not be expected to increase substantially. The 

No Build Alternative would not create any new at-grade crossings.

3.1.4.2 Build Alternative

Operations Modeling

Chapter 9 of the SDP sets forth an estimated timetable for proposed Coast Daylight 

Service at both existing and proposed stations in the Salinas to San Luis Obispo 

project corridor. Table 3.1-1 below summarizes the existing Starlight and projected 

Daylight station arrival times for the year 2020 and Table 3.1-5 summarizes the 

existing Starlight and projected Daylight station arrival times for the year 2040.
Coast Corridor

3.1 Traffic and Travel Final Program EIS/EIR

3.1-14

Table 3.1-4 Existing and Projected Station Arrivals for 2020

Station Southbound Northbound

Starlight Daylight Starlight Daylight

Salinas 11:48am 10:11am 6:47pm 3:31pm

Soledad NA 10:52am NA 3:05pm

King City NA 11:17am NA 2:40pm

Paso Robles 1:30pm 12:12pm 4:45pm 1:20pm

San Luis Obispo 3:20pm 1:49pm 3:43pm 12:07pm

Source: Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b, Chapter 9.

Table 3.1-5 Existing and Projected Station Arrivals for 2040

Station Southbound Northbound

Starlight Daylight Starlight Daylight

Salinas 11:48am 10:11am, 12:10am 6:17pm 3:31pm, 3:26am

Soledad NA 10:52am, 12:51am NA 3:05pm, 3:00am

King City NA 11:17am, 1:11am NA 2:40pm, 2:39am

Paso Robles 1:50pm 12:12pm, 2:06am 4:15pm 1:20pm, 1:35am

San Luis Obispo 3:20pm 1:49pm, 3:43am 3:13pm 12:07pm, 12:30am

Source: Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b, Chapter 9.

As shown in the tables above, the proposed new Coast Daylight service would 

initially reach existing and proposed stations in the Salinas-San Luis Obispo corridor 

during midday hours - between 10 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., with at least a 90-minute gap 

between the arrival of southbound and northbound Coast Daylight trains at any 

single station. Year 2040 expanded service would continue to reach existing and 

proposed stations in the Salinas-San Luis Obispo Corridor during midday hours -

between 10 a.m. and 3:30 p.m., and would offer an additional service reaching 

existing and proposed stations in the Corridor between 12 a.m. and 4 a.m. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.1 Traffic and Travel

3.1-15

Rail Operations

Construction-Period Effects

The Build Alternative includes the potential future construction of one or more 

physical components improvements to facilitate expanded passenger service 

without disruption of freight services.

Construction of any of the proposed physical components improvements would 

have potential to temporarily disrupt freight and passenger rail, but such effects 

would be temporary. Some of the physical improvements Build Alternative 

components are more substantial than others (such as track realignments, siding 

extensions, etc.) and could limit activity on the railway during the constructionperiod. These potential disruptions would be coordinated with UPRR and Coast 

Starlight service to reduce service delays to the maximum extent feasible. 

Operational Effects

The SDP attempted a “sensitivity” analysis by testing to see how future performance 

would be affected by the inclusion of a single improvement Build Alternative 

component, namely the introduction of CTC in the 27-mile stretch of rail alignment 

from the Santa Margarita siding (milepost 229.6) to the McKay siding (milepost

202.3). As reflected in Master Response 3 in Chapter 5.0, Comments and 

Coordination, it was the intention of Caltrans DOR and SLOCOG to include island 

CTC as part of the Build Alternative. However, island CTC was inadvertently omitted 

from the list of Build Alternative components included in the Draft Program EIS/EIR, 

even though it was referenced in Chapters 9 and 14 of the SDP. The Preferred 

Alternative identified in this Final EIS/EIR clarifies the intention to include island CTC 

as a physical component SLOCOG and Caltrans would like to carry forward. And as 

noted in the SDP (and further described below), the inclusion of island CTC alone -

without any other physical components - was found to allow for on-time passenger 

and freight train performance in two horizon year scenarios. Given the conceptual 

nature of many of the other Build Alternative components, no detailed modeling of 

their operational effects on on-time performance were evaluated at this stage. 

Therefore, the rail operations analysis of the Build Alternative continues to assume 

the introduction of island CTC between McKay and Santa Margarita as a means of 

demonstrating the efficacy of this component. It is possible that one or more other 

components in the Build Alternative, if carried forward, would result in equally 

robust train performance, but such scenarios are speculative at this point given that 

the plans have not been developed beyond the conceptual stage and, thus, cannot 

be expected to generate verifiable modeling results. 
Coast Corridor

3.1 Traffic and Travel Final Program EIS/EIR

3.1-16

Within this 27 mile portion of the alignment The 27 miles between McKay and Santa 

Margarita are currently single-tracked and have four existing sidings that use subpar 

signaling infrastructure. As many of the delays within the Corridor are attributable 

to subpar signaling infrastructure, implementing CTC between Santa Margarita and 

McKay, a single tracked region with four siding locations, could significantly improve 

on-time-performance (OTP).19 Therefore, the SDP modeled performance based on 

implementing island CTC through this area. 

The model was run with Year 2020 freight and passenger rail service and the results 

indicated 100 percent OTP for both Coast Starlight and Coast Daylight at each new 

existing and proposed station on the Corridor.20 The SDP determined that with the

implementation of CTC alone, existing freight and existing passenger train 

movement would not be significantly affected by the introduction of expanded 

passenger service. Moreover, the SDP found that the installation of “island” CTC 

would substantially improve OTP throughout this region. It should be noted that in 

real-world operations, OTP levels could be somewhat lower due to random and 

unforeseeable events, such as severe weather and passenger emergencies.

For the year 2040, the SDP considered the impact of projected passenger and 

freight volumes and any physical components improvements to the Year 2040 Base 

Case network necessary to reach the OTP goal of 87 percent for all passenger train 

services operating in 2040. The Year 2040 Base Case model infrastructure is 

identical to the Year 2020 Base Case model as no necessary physical components

improvements were identified for the Year 2020 aside from the implementation of 

CTC between Santa Margarita and McKay in the Existing Year. The model was run 

with Year 2040 freight and passenger rail traffic and yielded 100 percent OTP for the 

Coast Starlight at each station on the Corridor. The Coast Daylight had 100 percent

OTP for each station except San Jose, which yielded 96 percent OTP.21 As described 

in the results for the Year 2020, the level of traffic in Year 2040 results in sufficient 

network capacity to schedule trains such that there is little to no impact from train 

interference effects, resulting in high OTP levels. In real world operations, OTP 

levels may be slightly lower due to random and unforeseeable events.

 

19 Rail OPS considers a train on-time to a station if it arrives within five minutes of its scheduled arrival 

time. OTP values in actual operations are likely to be lower than model results due to random realworld delays, such as passenger loading, medical emergencies, severe weather, etc. OTP values of less 

than 100 percent in model results are typically due to train interference effects only.

20 Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b, p. 9-19.

21 Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b, pp. 9-26, 9-27
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.1 Traffic and Travel

3.1-17

Roadway Operations 

Construction-Period Effects

Construction of the proposed improvements under the Build Alternative 

components would result in temporary impacts to local roadways in the form of 

increased construction traffic (e.g., equipment, trucks, and materials hauling, etc.). 

Construction of the new passenger stations and curve realignments would require 

more significant construction activities that could result in increased traffic impacts 

to surrounding roadways in the way form of delays and detours. These 

construction-related period impacts would vary by location, however, given that

because the duration of construction period of most for most physical components 

improvements would be relatively short, and the impacts of construction on local 

roadways would not be considered significant. 

Operational Effects

Existing and Proposed Stations

With the introduction of new Coast Daylight trains, ridership is anticipated to 

increase, which may result in increased traffic and transit demand near existing and 

proposed station areas. Table 3.1-6 illustrates the estimated ridership between San 

Jose and San Luis Obispo for 2020 and 2040.22

Table 3.1-6 Existing, 2020, and 2040 Ridership Forecasts

Service

Existing Year 2012

(Seattle to Los 

Angeles)

Forecast Year 2020

(San Jose to San Luis 

Obispo)

Forecast Year 2040

(San Jose to San Luis 

Obispo)

Annual Ridership

Coast Daylight N/A 124,000 274,000

Coast Starlight 454,4431105,000 150,000

SUBTOTAL 454,443 229,000 424,000

1

Ridership forecasts are available for the segment from San Jose to San Luis Obispo, existing ridership for the 

Coast Starlight is only reported for the entirety of the Coast Corridor (Seattle to Los Angeles).

Source: Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b, Chapter 8; Amtrak, 2012b.

 

22 These ridership forecasts have not been disaggregated to distinguish between passengers traveling 

south to San Luis Obispo and those traveling north through San Luis Obispo. Those passengers 

travelling from the south are included in these ridership forecasts.
Coast Corridor

3.1 Traffic and Travel Final Program EIS/EIR

3.1-18

Annual ridership for both the Coast Daylight and Coast Starlight trains is anticipated 

to increase through the year 2040. In turn, activity at existing stations would 

increase, and new activity would take place at the new stations. The number of 

passengers traveling through existing and new stations is unknown. However, 

based on the increase in ridership, traffic surrounding the stations would likely 

worsen, and the demand for public transit may increase. Such increases in activity 

at the new stations were anticipated to some degree in planning documents 

prepared by Soledad and King City, as discussed in greater detail below.

Both of the cities in which the Build Alternative contemplates new passenger 

stations have planned for these stations in their General and/or Specific Plans and 

accompanying environmental documents. 

The traffic report prepared for the City of Soledad Downtown Specific Plan reported 

that all studied intersections currently operate at acceptable LOS. However, several 

all-way-stop-controlled intersections along Front Street would degrade to 

unacceptable LOS with buildout of the Specific Plan, which includes development 

and operation of the proposed passenger station. Installation of traffic signals at 

these intersections has been recommended to achieve acceptable LOS for year 2030 

volumes. 

The King City General Plan Final EIR reports acceptable LOS for First Street and for 

the US 101/First Street Interchange, and with buildout of the General Plan (which 

includes development and operation of the new station), LOS is projected to remain 

at acceptable levels for both. 

Ridership projections have not been developed for the proposed new stations. 

However, it is reasonable to assume that ridership at the new stations would be at 

or below the current ridership of Paso Robles station (about 10,000 riders per year), 

because Soledad and King City are smaller communities that are not considered 

major activity centers. There would be relatively few riders per average day (up to 

approximately 27 per day, using Paso Robles ridership estimates); given train 

schedules, most riders would be accessing the stations outside peak road traffic 

hours. The additional night service commencing in 2040 would pass through in the

middle of the night, resulting in negligible ridership and low traffic levels effects on 

peak period traffic. Transit demand may increase around the new station areas; 

however, given the low levels of riders expected per day, no substantial effects are 

expected to result.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.1 Traffic and Travel

3.1-19

Given that the new stations are included in city planning documents and the offpeak timing of trains through Soledad and King City, the only potentially significant 

impact to local roadways would occur in the vicinity of the Soledad station at Front 

Street. However, the City of Soledad Downtown Specific Plan EIR describes requires

mitigations measures for each intersection, including those along Front Street, 

which would, when enacted, achieve acceptable LOS. 

As passenger rail activity increases, demand for parking near station areas could

increase at both new and existing stations. However, current and planned parking 

at the existing and new stations will would likely be adequate given the low 

ridership expected with the new service. Additionally, Soledad and King City are 

relatively small, somewhat isolated communities where abundant street parking is 

available within reasonable proximity of the rail stations. Projected growth in each 

community is relatively modest, such that on-street parking would likely remain 

abundant even with the implementation of new train stations.

Furthermore, parking adequacy itself is not necessarily a physical environmental 

impact, but inadequate parking can result in secondary physical effects, such as 

increased traffic congestion and/or air pollutant emissions resulting from the search 

for available parking. Coast Daylight service would reach existing and proposed 

stations in the Salinas-San Luis Obispo corridor during midday hours - between 10 

a.m. and 3:30 p.m., and expanded service by 2040 would offer an additional service 

reaching existing and proposed stations in the Corridor between 12 a.m. and 4 a.m. 

Given that Because the new service would occur during off-peak hours, anticipated 

new or increased ridership is anticipated to be relatively low, and other parking is 

available near stations, it is unlikely that secondary environmental impacts from

parking inadequacy would occur.

Existing stations in the Corridor, located in Salinas, Paso Robles, and San Luis 

Obispo, will would experience additional service (two additional stops per day). As 

noted in Table 3.1-1 above, existing passenger levels at these stations are generally 

low (the highest is in San Luis Obispo, which averages about 300 passenger trips per 

day). It is reasonable to estimate that ridership may double by 2020 - based on the 

SDP ridership projections, and that there will would be some increase in traffic that 

would result.

23

 Under these projections, Coast Starlight ridership would not 

increase significantly; however, 124,000 additional trips north of San Luis Obispo are 

projected to occur. Given that these trips would be spread across the five stations

 

23 Ridership projections for these particular stations have yet to be developed, but it is reasonable to 

assume that some increase in passenger traffic would occur. 
Coast Corridor

3.1 Traffic and Travel Final Program EIS/EIR

3.1-20

(existing and proposed) along the Coast Corridor, and some of the travel associated 

with getting to stations would be served by public transit, it is unlikely that any 

substantial adverse impacts to local roadways would occur as a result of the Build 

Alternative. Furthermore, roadways serving existing stations are generally large 

thoroughfares that already accommodate station-related traffic, and are likely 

adequate to meet projected additional passenger travel demands. Current transit 

accessing the existing stations may experience an increase in ridership resulting 

from new train service; however, given the SDP ridership projections, no substantial 

effects are anticipated.

At-Grade Crossings

As previously discussed, the existing railroad crosses paved public roads at 36 more 

than 30 locations along the 130 miles between Salinas and San Luis Obispo. 

Implementation of the Build Alternative will would result in additional trains 

crossing through these roads. Improved, yet-to-be-determined warning devices 

would be installed at some of the crossings, which would result in improved safety 

at these locations. The Build Alternative would result in some minor additional 

delays occurring from increased train traffic; new passings of each Coast Daylight 

train would take approximately one minute.

One new at-grade crossing may be created by the track realignment proposed for

mile post (MP) 172 at Cattlemen Road. In this area, Cattlemen Road is a 2-lane, 

paved rural road about ten 10 miles south of King City. It is unlikely that a 

significant amount of delay resulting from a new at-grade crossing could would

occur in this location due to its rural/agricultural setting and low existing traffic 

volumes. Furthermore, some type of warning device would be implemented at the 

new at-grade crossing to ensure the safety of motorists and others at this location.24

Additionally, several new at-grade crossings would occur across private, typically 

dirt roads in agricultural holdings. Traffic levels in these rural areas are very low. 

The implementation of new and additional at-grade crossings would not be 

expected to result in any significant travel delays or traffic impacts as a result.

 

24 In two additional locations, elements of the Build Alternative could result in crossings of paved public 

roads where the existing rail alignment already causes an at-grade crossing. These additional potential 

crossings (Lone Oak Road by the King City Siding Extension and Asuncion Road by the Henry-Santa 

Margarita curve realignment) would not be considered “new” at-grade crossings. Both of these 

existing at-grade crossings occur in areas with low traffic volumes and thus substantial new traffic 

delay is not expected from any additional crossings that the Build Alternative may create. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.1 Traffic and Travel

3.1-21

3.1.4.3 Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would include the same service as the Build Alternative

(see Tables 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 above) and would retain all corridor-wide and almost all 

of the location-specific physical components. The only differences are that the 

Preferred Alternative incorporates revised draft plans for the City of King passenger 

station (known locally as the City of King Multimodal Transit Center or MMTC), 

includes a modified footprint for the King City siding extension, and would exclude 

each of the four curve realignments within San Luis Obispo County. Additionally, 

the Preferred Alternative includes the aforementioned 27 mile “island” of CTC 

between MP 202 and 229 (McKay to Santa Margarita). 

Accordingly, effects on traffic and travel for the Preferred Alternative would be the 

same as the Build Alternative, except in the areas where the modified or excluded 

components are located. The discussions below assess traffic and travel effects as a 

result of modified or excluded components. 

Rail Operations

Construction-Period Effects

Construction of any of the physical components associated with the Preferred 

Alternative would have the same potential as the Build Alternative to disrupt freight 

and passenger rail, but such effects would be temporary. Some of the physical 

components are more substantial than others (such as track realignments, siding 

extensions, etc.) and could limit activity on the railway during the construction

period. These potential disruptions would be coordinated with UPRR and Coast 

Starlight service to reduce service delays to the maximum extent feasible. Because

the Preferred Alternative does not include four of the curve realignments in San Luis 

Obispo County proposed under the Build Alternative, construction-period 

interruptions would be reduced. Thus, the Preferred Alternative would not result in 

any substantial adverse construction-period effects.

Operational Effects

Rail operational effects of the Preferred Alternative would be the same as the Build 

Alternative. This analysis found that the installation of island CTC between McKay 

and Santa Margarita would allow for on-time performance of passenger and freight 

trains in the years 2020 and 2040. The Preferred Alternative would, thus, not result 

in any substantial adverse rail operational effects. 
Coast Corridor

3.1 Traffic and Travel Final Program EIS/EIR

3.1-22

Roadway Operations

Construction-Period Effects

Construction of any of the physical components associated with the Preferred 

Alternative would have the same general potential as the Build Alternative to 

disrupt roadway traffic, but such effects would be temporary. The Preferred 

Alternative would have reduced location specific effects because the Preferred 

Alternative does not include four curve realignments in San Luis Obispo County, the

construction of which would have involved temporary disruptions to nearby local 

roadways. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would not result in any substantial 

adverse construction-period impacts to roadway operations.

Operational Effects

Existing and Proposed Stations

With one exception, existing and proposed stations are identical to those included 

in the Build Alternative. The exception is the City of King passenger station, which 

per revised draft plans submitted by the City of King, shifts slightly northwest within 

the downtown area and would be located near the intersection of First Street and 

Broadway, adjacent to the existing railroad tracks. The revised draft station area 

plan has a smaller footprint than what was analyzed in the Build Alternative, but it is 

reasonable to assume that operational effects at this station would be similar to 

those described for the Build Alternative. 

At-grade Crossings

With one exception, the number and location of at-grade crossings would be the 

same in the Build and Preferred Alternatives. The exception is that the Preferred 

Alternative incorporates revised draft plans for the City of King passenger station. 

At present, Pearl Street in the City of King has an at-grade crossing with the Coast 

Corridor railroad. This plan calls for the shifting of the existing at-grade crossing in 

the City of King from Pearl Street in the northwest direction to Broadway Street. 

The City of King’s revised draft station area plan calls for this at-grade crossing to be 

closed and a new at-grade crossing to be opened at Broadway Street. This plan 

would require the review and approval of the California Public Utilities Commission, 

which would include conditions or measures on this relocation to help ensure safe 

rail and roadway operations through the City of King. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.1 Traffic and Travel

3.1-23

3.1.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION 

STRATEGIES

The following strategies have been identified at this preliminary stage to avoid, 

minimize, and/or mitigate any potential significant impacts. The measures listed 

below are applicable to the Build and Preferred Alternatives and have been 

identified at this preliminary stage to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate any 

potentially significant impacts. The identification and implementation of specific 

mitigation measures necessary for each project component will occur as part of 

subsequent project-level environmental review. Additional avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation measures may also be identified during that review.

MIN-TRA-1. During the construction of any railway physical component 

improvement selected for design, disruption to existing rail operations would be 

minimized to the maximum extent feasible by scheduling construction at times to 

minimize interference. Appropriate construction and operational strategies would 

be developed for project-level reviews through coordination between FRA, Amtrak, 

UPRR, Caltrans DOR, and other interested agencies.

MIN-TRA-2. Transportation System Management (TSM)/Signal Optimization 

(including retiming, re-phasing, and signal optimization) may would be 

implemented, as well as other measures including turn prohibitions, use of one-way 

streets, and traffic diversion to alternate routes, to reduce impacts to roadways and 

intercity travel.

MIN-TRA-3. Local spot widening of existing curved areas of the railroad could would

be implemented to allow for geometric improvements that could would allow for 

increased rail speeds without significant right-of-way acquisition. Spot widening 

could would avoid or minimize some of the effects associated with full 

implementation of curve realignments. 

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

coordination with public transit services in order to encourage the provision of 

adequate bus feeder routes to serve proposed station areas, which could would 

mitigate potential transit impacts.

Where proposed improvements components have the potential to require a new atgrade crossing, the following approaches would apply:

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

crossing. The one identified new at-grade crossing is associated with a potential 

track realignment (MP 172, Cattlemen Road). The primary strategy for avoiding the 

creation of the new at-grade crossing at Cattlemen Road would be to omit the MP 
Coast Corridor

3.1 Traffic and Travel Final Program EIS/EIR

3.1-24

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

creation of a new at-grade crossing at Cattlemen Road. No specific layout for that 

track realignment has been defined to date.

MIN-TRA-6. If the MP 172 Track Realignment is carried forward for further design 

and the design cannot feasibly avoid the creation of a new at-grade crossing, the 

development process would include a detailed Traffic Study, consultation and 

approval from the CPUC, and implementation would be required to follow all 

pertinent federal, state, and local policies regarding new at-grade crossings.25 

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

components improvements are carried forward for funding, design, and 

construction, and the above measures cannot be successfully employed to avoid or 

minimize roadway traffic effects, major or minor intersection improvements would 

be employed to reduce any potential adverse traffic effects. This would likely 

require significant right-of-way acquisition to accommodate additional left-turn 

and/or through lanes. Adverse effects from such components improvements would 

be assessed during future project-level review.

3.1.6 SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS

3.1.6.1 Construction-Period Effects

Subsequent analysis of potential construction-related effects would need to be 

conducted once some or all of the proposed improvements project components are 

approved. Future project-level environmental review should focus on potential 

service disruptions resulting from railway construction activities, as well as potential 

traffic and roadway effects resulting from detours and delays. Additional avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation measures may be identified during the project-level 

environmental review.

3.1.6.2 Rail Operations

As the entire program of proposed improvements components is currently 

unfunded, future project-level environmental review would focus on some subset of 

the proposed improvements components. Any improvements components

identified for an initial phase of construction would need to be analyzed for 

 

25 CPUC policy typically requires the removal of one or more existing at-grade crossing in order to 

permit any newly requested at-grade crossings.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.1 Traffic and Travel

3.1-25

potential impacts to existing freight and passenger rail, particularly for components 

involving the existing railway (continuous welded rail (CWR)/track upgrades, 

powered switches). This could require modeling of the existing and rail network, 

along with proposed modifications, to determine the ultimate outcome of the initial 

phases of construction.

3.1.6.3 Roadway Operations 

Subsequent multimodal access and circulation studies may would be conducted at 

all station areas as plans for alignments, stations, and operations are refined. 

Additional environmental analysis would be required in conjunction with these 

studies to ascertain the exact locations of potential project-generated traffic 

impacts and potential parking demand impacts. Station area circulation studies, 

including site-specific parking demand evaluations, would be expected as part of 

project-level environmental documentation. Additionally, as Build Alternative

project components are further refined, they would need to be analyzed and ideally 

be designed to avoid the creating a new at-grade crossing at Cattlemen Road. 

Additional mitigation measures may be identified during project-level review as 

necessary.
Coast Corridor

3.1 Traffic and Travel Final Program EIS/EIR

3.1-26

Page intentionally left blank
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.2-1

3.2 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS 

EMISSIONS

This section describes existing air quality conditions in the project area and vicinity, 

including the attainment status for air pollutants of concern within the two air 

basins traversed by the project corridor. This section also includes ; provides an 

overview of the regulatory framework for air quality management in the project 

area, a discussion of potential environmental consequences; describes the potential 

air quality and greenhouse gas (GHG) impacts associated with the Preferred 

Alternative in comparison with the No Build and Build Alternatives; and identifies

mitigation strategies for both construction and operational phases. 

This section also describes updates and modifications made in response to 

comments on the Draft Program EIS/EIR. Chapter 5.0, Comments and 

Coordination, includes all comments on the Draft Program EIS/EIR and provides 

responses to each comment. The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control 

District (SLOAPCD) provided several comments regarding air quality and GHG 

emissions discussions of the Draft Program EIS/EIR (see comments A-4.1 through A4.10). As shown below, one of SLOAPCD’s comments resulted in a text revision to 

the air quality and GHG emissions section. 

Air pollution is a general term that refers to one or more substances determined to 

degrade the quality of the atmosphere. Eight air pollutants have been identified by 

the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as being of nationwide 

concern, based on standards for human health: 

 carbon monoxide (CO)

 sulfur oxides (SOx), including sulfur dioxide (SO2)

 hydrocarbons (HC)

 nitrogen oxides (NOx)

 ozone (O3)

 particulate matter sized 10 microns or less (PM10)

 particulate matter sized 2.5 microns or less (PM2.5) 

 lead (Pb) 

All of these pollutants are further described below.
Coast Corridor

3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Final Program EIS/EIR

3.2-2

With the exception of hydrocarbons, these pollutants (NOxin the form of NO2 and 

SOx in the form of SO2) may be referred to collectively as criteria pollutants. 

Pollutants that are considered greenhouse gases also affect air quality. Greenhouse 

gases include NOx, HC, and carbon dioxide (CO2). The precise sources of these 

pollutants, their effects on human health and general welfare, as well as their final 

disposition in the atmosphere vary considerably. In addition, diesel particulate 

matter (DPM) is also considered here. 

3.2.1 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

The alternatives are subject to a number of air quality regulations developed and 

implemented at the federal and state levels. An overview of all relevant policies 

governing air quality in the project area can be found below.

3.2.1.1 Federal

Clean Air Act 

Air quality is regulated at the federal level under the Clean Air Act (CAA) of 1970 and 

the related Final Conformity Rule.1 The CAA Amendments of 19902empower the 

EPA to establish environmental policies and regulations to ensure better air quality. 

In response, the EPA set National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for all air 

pollutants identified as being of nationwide concern, established emission standards 

for certain mobile sources (airplanes and locomotives), and designed procedures to 

oversee state air programs.

The CAA requires that states submit a State Implementation Plan (SIP) for all areas 

designated as nonattainment by federal air quality standards. Nonattainment is 

defined as any area that does not meet (or that contributes to ambient air quality in 

a nearby area that does not meet) the NAAQS for the pollutant.3 The SIP, which is 

reviewed and approved by the EPA, must identify a plan for achieving the federal 

standards. Failure to follow this procedure could lead to denial of federal funding 

and permits. In cases where a SIP is submitted by the state but a nonattainment 

area remains below federal standards, the EPA is directed to prepare a federal 

implementation plan. 

 

1

Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations [CFR], Parts 51 and 93

2

Public Law [P.L.] 101-549, November 15, 1990

3

42 U.S.C. § 7404[d][1][A]
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.2-3

EPA has established de minimis thresholds4for criteria pollutant emissions to help 

determine whether conformity determinations will be required for a given project. 

Table 3.2-1 lists the de minimis thresholds for the various criteria pollutants.

Table 3.2-1 General Conformity De Minimis Thresholds

Pollutant Area Type Tons/Year

Ozone (VOC or NOx)

Serious nonattainment 50

Severe nonattainment 25

Extreme nonattainment 10

Other areas outside an ozone transport region 100

Ozone (NOx)

Marginal and moderate nonattainment inside 

an ozone transport region 100

Maintenance 100

Ozone (VOC)

Marginal and moderate nonattainment inside 

an ozone transport region 50

Maintenance within an ozone transport region 50

Maintenance outside an ozone transport 

region 100

Carbon monoxide, SO2 and NO2

All nonattainment and maintenance 100

Inhalable Particulate Matter (PM10)

Serious nonattainment 70

Moderate nonattainment and maintenance 100

Fine Particulate Matter (PM2.5) Direct 

emissions, SO2, NOx(unless determined not to 

be a significant precursor), VOC or ammonia 

(if determined to be significant precursors)

All nonattainment and maintenance 100

Lead (Pb) All nonattainment and maintenance 25

Source: EPA, 2014

 

4

http://www.epa.gov/air/genconform/deminimis.html
Coast Corridor

3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Final Program EIS/EIR

3.2-4

Consistent with the CAA, “No federal agency may approve, accept or fund any 

transportation plan, program or project unless such plan, program or project has 

been found to conform to any applicable SIP in effect under this act.”5 

Conformity is defined as follows: conformity to an implementation plan’s purpose of 

eliminating or reducing the severity and number of violations of the NAAQS and 

achieving expeditious attainment of such standards; such activities will not cause 

any of the following occurrences.

 Cause or contribute to any new violation of any NAAQS in any area.

 Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of any NAAQS in any 

area.

 Delay timely attainment of any NAAQS or any required interim emissions 

reductions or other milestones in any area.6 

EPA’s General Conformity Rule establishes NAAQS for six principal pollutants. 

Pursuant to the Rule, the lead federal agency must make a Conformity 

Determination for all federal actions in non-attainment or maintenance areas where 

the total of direct and indirect emissions of a non-attainment pollutant or its 

precursors exceeds levels established by the regulation. Federal conformity for

projects under FRA FRA projects is called “General Conformity.” 

In an area without a SIP, a federal action can be shown to "conform" by 

demonstrating there will be no increase in emission in the nonattainment or 

maintenance area from the Federal action that could cause new violations of the 

standards and/or no increase in the frequency or severity of previous violations.

In an area with a SIP, conformity can be demonstrated in one of four ways:

 By showing that the emission increases caused by an action are included in the 

SIP,

 by demonstrating that the State agrees to include the emission increases in the 

SIP,

 through offsetting the action’s emissions in the same or nearby area,

 through mitigation to reduce the emission increase, or

 through an air quality modeling demonstration in some circumstances.

 

5

42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.

6

42 U.S.C. § 7506[c][1]
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.2-5

Urban Air Toxics

In addition to NAAQS for criteria pollutants, the CAA identified a list of 188 urban air 

toxics, alternatively known as toxic air contaminants (TACs). In its final ruling in 

March 2001, EPA narrowed this list to a group of 21 mobile-source air toxics 

(MSAT).7 From this list of 21 MSATs, EPA identified six priority MSATs: benzene, 

formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, diesel particulate matter/diesel exhaust organic gases, 

acrolein, and 1, 3-butadiene. To address emissions of MSATS, EPA has introduced a 

number of measures targeting cleaner fuels and cleaner engines.

Most air toxics originate from human-generated sources, including road mobile 

sources (e.g., cars, trucks, buses), non-road mobile sources (e.g., airplanes, 

locomotives), stationary sources (e.g., factories, refineries, power plants) and indoor 

sources (e.g., building materials). A smaller proportion of air toxics are released 

from natural sources such as volcanic eruptions and forest fires. Human health risks 

caused by exposure to urban air toxics at sufficiently high concentrations or 

extended durations include increased risk for cancer or other serious health effects, 

including damage to the immune system; and neurological, reproductive, 

developmental and respiratory problems.

In March 2001, EPA issued regulations requiring the producers of urban air toxics to 

decrease emissions of these pollutants by target dates in 2007 and 2020. As a 

result, on-highway emissions of benzene, formaldehyde, 1.3-butadiene and 

acetaldehyde will be reduced by amounts ranging from 67 percent to 76 percent 

between 1990 and 2020. On-highway DPM emissions will be reduced by 90 

percent. These reductions are expected as a result of the national mobile source 

control programs, including:

 The reformulated gasoline program;

 A new threshold for the toxic content of gasoline;

 The national low-emission vehicle standards;

 The Tier 2 motor vehicle emissions standards and gasoline sulfur control 

requirements; and

 The heavy-duty engine and vehicle standards and on-highway diesel fuel sulfur 

control requirements.

The predicated improvements are net emission reductions, which will be 

experienced even after growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is taken into account.

 

7

Control of Emissions of Hazardous Air Pollutants from Mobile Sources, 66 F.R. 17235
Coast Corridor

3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Final Program EIS/EIR

3.2-6

Tools and modeling techniques exist for quantitative PM and CO hot-spot analysis 

associated with motor vehicles. However, neither EPA nor FRA has released 

guidance on how to evaluate the effect of future rail lines on ambient 

concentrations of urban air toxics in the context of NEPA. Specifically, EPA has not 

established NAAQS or provided other project-level standards for hazardous air 

pollutants. Furthermore, neither federal or state of California ambient standards 

exist for mobile source air toxics, although FHWA has developed interim guidance 

for the evaluation of such toxics generated within a highway context (from 

automobile and truck sources).8 

Greenhouse Gas Regulatory Considerations

In December 2009, the EPA Administrator issued findings under the U.S. Clean Air 

Act that the current and projected GHG concentrations in the atmosphere threaten 

the health and welfare of current and future generations. In response, the United 

States EPA has introduced a series of policies designed to slow the growth of 

emissions, invest in science and technology, and enhance international cooperation. 

These policies include a Renewable Fuel Standard Program that mandates a 

minimum volume of renewable fuel in all transportation fuel sold in the United 

States. The EPA partnered with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA) to enable the production of a new generation of clean vehicles with 

improved fuel economy and reduced emissions of greenhouse gases.9 Lastly, the 

EPA introduced the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program. Through this program, the 

EPA tracks greenhouse gas data from large emission sources across a range of 

industry sectors.10 In addition, the EPA has established multiple incentive-based 

programs that encourage voluntary GHG reductions. These programs include 

“ENERGY STAR,” “Climate Leaders,” and Methane Voluntary Programs.11

In 2010, CEQ released draft guidance explaining how Federal agencies should 

analyze the environmental impacts of GHG emissions and climate change when they 

describe the environmental impacts of a proposed action under NEPA. It provides 

practical tools for agency reporting, including a presumptive threshold of 25,000 

metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions from the proposed action to 

trigger a quantitative analysis, and instructs agencies how to assess the effects of 

climate change on the proposed action and their design.12

 

8

FHWA, 2014

9

US EPA, 2013a

10 US EPA, 2013c

11 US EPA, 2013b 

12 CEQ, 2014 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.2-7

3.2.1.2 State 

Air Quality Regulations

The responsibility for controlling air pollution in California is shared by 35 local or 

regional air pollution control/air quality management districts, CARB, and EPA. 

As noted above, EPA establishes the NAAQS, sets emission standards for certain 

mobile sources (including locomotives), oversees state air programs, and reviews 

and approves the SIP. 

The California Clean Air Act of 198813 (CCCA) and other provisions of the California 

Health and Safety Code (HSC)14 entrusts CARB with preparing the SIP for EPA review 

and approval. CARB also sets state ambient air quality standards, adopts and 

enforces federal and state emission standards for mobile sources, and adopts 

standards and suggested control measures for TACs. 

CARB must enforce the CCAA, which requires that all districts designated as 

nonattainment areas for any pollutant “adopt and enforce rules and regulations to 

achieve and maintain the state and federal ambient air quality standards in all areas 

affected by emission sources under their jurisdiction.”

CARB also oversees local and regional air pollution control or air quality 

management districts. For the proposed project, the relevant air pollution control 

districts are the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) and 

the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). See Figure 3.2-1, 

Regional Air Basins, for a map depicting the two air pollution control districts. Per 

the CCA, e Each local district is charged with the distribution of permits for industrial 

pollutant sources and the development of plans and policies to meet standards set 

at the State and National level.

Greenhouse Gas Regulations

Order S-3-05 

This executive order set targets for the reduction of California’s Greenhouse Gas 

(GHG) emissions to: 

1. 2000 levels by the year 2010, 

2. 1990 levels by the year 2020, and 

3. 80 percent below the 1990 levels by the year 2050.

 

13 Assembly Bill [AB] 2595

14 HSC § 39000 et seq.
Coast Corridor

3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Final Program EIS/EIR

3.2-8

The executive order also calls for the California Environmental Protection Agency 

(CalEPA) to prepare biennial reports on the potential impact of increased warming 

of the atmosphere on certain sectors of the California economy. The first of these 

reports, Scenarios of Climate Change in California: An Overview (Climate Scenarios 

report), was published in February 2006 (California Climate Change Center 2006).

 In September 2006, the State Assembly passed new legislation to address GHG 

emissions in California, Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) or the Global Warming 

Solutions Act of 2006. Through AB 32, California established a new model for 

GHG emissions reduction, effectively acknowledging the political threat of 

climate change due to anthropogenic emissions. AB 32 further directed CARB to 

lay the foundation for tighter climate legislation through a series of measures 

with discrete deadlines. Since 2007, CARB has approved a scoping plan for GHG 

reductions in California that includes direct regulations, alternative compliance 

mechanisms, monetary and non-monetary incentives, voluntary actions, and 

market-based mechanisms;15 identified 1990 levels of statewide GHG emissions, 

thereby articulating a 2020 emissions target;16 implemented a series of nine 

discrete early action GHG emission reduction measures including regulations for 

landfills, motor vehicle fuels, refrigerants in cars, tire pressure, port operations 

and other sources;17 adopted regulation requiring the largest industrial sources 

to report and verify their GHG emissions;18 and established both the 

Environmental Justice Advisory Committee (EJAC) and the Economic and 

Technology Advancement Advisory Committee (ETAAC) to provide guidance to 

CARB throughout the development of related regulation.19

 In 2011, CARB adopted cap-and-trade regulation designed to meet the 

emissions reduction targets established in AB 32 through market-based 

mechanisms. The cap-and-trade program sets an enforceable emissions cap for 

major sources of GHG emissions, including refineries, power plants, industrial 

facilities, and transportation fuels. The State will oversee the distribution of 

tradable permits to these major emitters, the sum of which will equal the 

emissions allowed under the cap. This cap will reduce over time.20

 

15 HSC §38561

16 HSC §38550

17 HSC §38560.5

18 HSC §38530

19 HSC §38591

20 HSC §38562(c)
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.2-9

 On December 6, 2007 CARB approved and adopted a statewide GHG emissions 

limit that is equivalent to the 1990 level, which is 427 million metric tons of 

carbon dioxide equivalent (an approximately 25 percent reduction in existing 

statewide GHG emissions);

 In 2007, CARB approved a list of nine discrete early action GHG emission 

reduction measures.

The proposed Scoping Plan was approved in August 2011. The Scoping Plan 

summarizes quantifiable, verifiable, and enforceable emission reduction measures 

by regulation that will achieve the statewide GHG emissions limit by 2020. Among 

the measures that became operative on January 1, 2012 are GHG reporting 

regulations, alternative compliance mechanisms, and potential monetary and nonmonetary incentives that reduce GHG emissions from any sources. Cap-and-trade 

programs began on January 1, 2013 with a GHG emissions cap that will decline over 

time. The first update to the Scoping Plan was approved by CARB in May, 2014, 

which builds upon the initial Scoping Plan with new strategies and 

recommendations. 

AB 32 also takes into account the relative contribution of each source or source 

category to help limit adverse impacts on small businesses and others by requiring 

CARB to recommend a minimum threshold of GHG emissions below which 

emissions reduction requirements would not apply. AB 32 also allows the Governor 

to adjust the deadlines established therein for individual regulations or the entire 

state to the earliest feasible date in the event of extraordinary circumstances, 

catastrophic events, or threat of significant economic harm.

The Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (SB 375) advanced 

California’s GHG legislation by tying regional land use, housing, and transportation 

planning to emissions reduction targets. SB 375 directs CARB to develop regional 

GHG reductions targets for emissions associated with passenger vehicles in 2020 

and 2035. Each of California’s Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) must 

then prepare a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), wherein the MPO 

articulates a plan to meet the target established by CARB. The SCS must be 

reviewed by CARB and incorporated into the federally enforceable regional 

transportation plan.

Governor’s Low Carbon Fuel Standard (Executive Order #S-01-07): Executive Order 

#S-01-07 establishes a statewide goal to reduce the carbon intensity of California’s 

transportation fuels by at least 10 percent by 2020 through the introduction of a 

Low Carbon Fuel Standard. The Low Carbon Fuel Standard will be incorporated into 

the State Alternative Fuels Plan as required by AB 1007 and represents one of the 
Coast Corridor

3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Final Program EIS/EIR

3.2-10

proposed discrete early action GHG reduction measures identified by CARB 

pursuant to AB 32.

Ambient Air Quality Standards

Table 3.2-2 lists the relevant national and state ambient air quality standards for the 

criteria pollutants in the project corridor. 

Federal primary standards are intended to protect the public health with an 

adequate margin of safety; secondary standards are intended to protect the 

nation’s welfare, accounting for air-pollutant impacts on soil, water, visibility, 

vegetation, etc. Areas that violate these standards are designated nonattainment 

areas. Areas that once violated the standards but now meet the standards are 

classified as maintenance areas. 

3.2.1.3 Local 

Monterey County General Plan

Monterey County has adopted a draft Municipal Climate Action Plan (MCAP). The 

MCAP was prepared pursuant to policies and subsequent mitigation in the 

Monterey County General Plan (2010) to address GHG emissions associated with the 

County’s own operations. The MCAP outlines a three-phased approached to 

achieve GHG emission reductions through 2020 by implementing many of the 

measures outlined in the AB 32 Scoping Plan. Beginning in phase 3 (2017) of the 

MCAP, the County will commence planning for the post 2020 period.21

San Luis Obispo County General Plan

SLOCAPCD has adopted a set of GHG significance thresholds to ensure that new land 

use development is consistent with County GHG reduction goals. According to 

these thresholds, non-stationary sources shall be determined insignificant and 

consistent with AB 32 when they are in compliance with either a Qualified 

Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy or with the Bright-Line or Efficiency Threshold. 

The Bright-Line threshold of 1,150 Megatons of CO2 emitted per year attempts to 

include all projects for which emissions would be less than “cumulatively 

considerable” to global climate change. The Efficiency Threshold includes all 

projects for which GHG emissions are below 4.9 megatons of CO2 emitted per 

service population per year. For this analysis, construction emissions shall be 

amortized over the life of a project and added to the operational emissions.22 

 

21 Monterey County, 2013

22 Air Pollution Control District: San Luis Obispo County, 2012b
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.2-11

Table 3.2-2 Ambient Air Quality Standards

Pollutant Averaging 

Time

CAAQSb NAAQSa North Central Coast Air Basin† San Luis Obispo County‡

Primary Secondary State 

Standards

National 

Standards

State 

Standards

National 

Standards

Ozone (O3)

1-hour 0.09 ppmc-- -- Nonattainment Attainment/

Unclassified d

Nonattainment Attainment 

Western SLO 

County

Non-Attainment 

Eastern SLO 

County 

8-hour 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm 0.075 ppm

Carbon 

Monoxide (CO)

1-hour 20 ppm 35 ppm -- Attainment Attainment/

Unclassified

Attainment Unclassified

8-hour 9 ppm 9 ppm --

Nitrogen 

Dioxide (NO2)

1-hour 0.18 ppm 0.1 ppm

**

-- Attainment Attainment/

Unclassified e

Attainment Unclassified

Annual*** 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm 0.053 ppm

Sulfur Dioxide 

(SO2)

1-hour 0.25 ppm 0.075 ppm -- Attainment AttainmentfAttainment Unclassified

3-hour -- -- 0.5 ppm 

24-hour 0.04 ppm -- --

Inhalable 

Particulate 

Matter (PM10)

24-hour 50 μg/m3 c 150 μg/m3150 μg/m3 Nonattainment Attainment Nonattainment Unclassified/

Attainment

Annual** * 20 μg/m3-- --

Fine Particulate 

Matter (PM2.5)

24-hour -- 35 μg/m3 *35 μg/m3 **Attainment Attainment/

Unclassified g

Attainment Unclassified/

Attainment

Annual*** 12 μg/m312 μg/m315 μg/m3

Sulfates 24-hour 25 μg/m3

-- -- Attainment No federal 

standard

Attainment No federal 

standard
Coast Corridor

3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Final Program EIS/EIR

3.2-12

Pollutant Averaging 

Time

CAAQSb NAAQSa North Central Coast Air Basin† San Luis Obispo County‡

Primary Secondary State 

Standards

National 

Standards

State 

Standards

National 

Standards

Lead (Pb) 30-day 1.5 μg/m3

-- -- Attainment Attainment/

Unclassified h

Attainment No Attainment 

Information

Rolling 3 

month 

average

-- 0.15 μg/m30.15 μg/m3-- Attainment -- Attainment

Notes:

a The National Ambient Air Quality Standards, other than O3 and those based on annual averages, are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The O3

standard is attained when the expected number of days per calendar year with maximum hourly average concentrations above the standard is equal to or less 

than one.

b

The California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for O3, CO, SO2(1-hour and 24-hour), NO2, PM10, and PM2.5 are values not to be exceeded. All other 

California standards shown are values not to be equaled or exceeded.

c

ppm = parts per million by volume, μg/m3= micrograms per cubic meter

d

On March 12, 2008, EPA adopted a new 8-hour ozone standard of 0.075 ppm. In April 2012, EPA designated the NCCAB attainment/unclassified based on 2009-

2011 data, with a design value of 0.070 ppm.

e

In 2011, EPA indicated it planned to designate the entire state as attainment/unclassified for the 2010 NO2 standard. As of 2013, however, final designations 

have yet to be made by EPA. 

f

In June 2011, the ARB recommended to EPA that the entire state be designated as attainment for the 2010 primary SO2 standard. Final designations have yet to 

be made by EPA. 

g In 2006, EPA revised the 24-hour standard for PM2.5 from 65 to 35 μg/m3

. In 2009, EPA designated the NCCAB as attainment/unclassified.

h On October 15, 2008 EPA substantially strengthened the national ambient air quality standard for lead by lowering the level of the primary standard from 1.5 

μg/m3 to 0.15 μg/m3. Final designations were made by EPA in November 2011.

I CARB has identified vinyl chloride as a toxic air contaminant with no threshold level of exposure for adverse health effects yet determined. 

*

98th percentile, averaged over 3 years

**Annual Arithmetic Mean

*** 99th percentile of 1-hour daily maximum concentrations, averaged over 3 years

† North Central Coast Air Basin Attainment Status – January 2013 is based on 2009 to 2011 air monitoring data.

‡ San Luis Obispo County Attainment Status reflects the status as of October, 2012.

Sources: EPA, 2012; CARB, 2009; CARB, 2012
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.2-13

3.2.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION

Potential program-level impacts to air quality and GHG emissions were assessed 

using significance thresholds established by each of the two relevant air quality 

districts: each of which incorporate relevant NAAQS. The CEQA Guidelines air 

quality impact criteria contained in Appendix G were also consulted.

SLOAPCD has established five categories of evaluation for determining the 

significance of a proposed project’s impacts:

 Consistency with the most recent Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County;

 Consistency with a plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions that has 

been adopted by the jurisdiction in which the project is located and that, at a 

minimum, complies with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5;

 Comparison of predicted ambient criteria pollutant concentrations resulting 

from the project to state and federal health standards, when applicable;

 Comparison of calculated project emissions to SLOAPCD emission thresholds; 

and,

 The evaluation of special conditions that apply to certain projects.23

In Monterey, the MBUAPCD outlines similar criteria for determining a project’s 

impact on air quality, in accordance with CEQA guidelines:

 Consistency with the applicable air quality plan;

 Consistency with any air quality standard and avoidance of contributing 

substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation;

 Avoids a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for 

which the project region is nonattainment;

 Avoids exposing sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations;

 Avoids the creation of objectionable odors that would affect a substantial 

number of people.24

 

23 Air Pollution Control District: San Luis Obispo County, 2012a, p. 3-1

24 Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, 2008, p. 5-1
Coast Corridor

3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Final Program EIS/EIR

3.2-14

In accordance with the guidelines for each air district, a thorough emissions analysis 

would be performed during project-level evaluations to address both construction 

phase and operational phase impacts of the proposed components improvements.

This section will also include a qualitative evaluation of the alternatives’ consistency 

with SB 375. While primarily concerned with land use, a key intent of SB 375 was to 

help the applicable regional transportation plan comply with the Clean Air Act. 

To the extent any of the proposed physical components improvements are carried 

forward, such components improvements would be subject to General Conformity 

review under the Clean Air Act. As stated in Chapter 1.0, Purpose and Need, and 

Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, there is considerable uncertainty as to whether some, all, 

or none of the physical components improvements will be carried forward for 

further design, further environmental review, and eventual construction. Several 

components of the Build Alternative action alternatives are highly conceptual in 

nature, like curve realignments; further design would be essential before any 

meaningful analysis could be completed. Therefore, a programmatic General 

Conformity determination at this Tier 1 level was deemed to be both impractical 

and infeasible. Additionally, as described in more detail below, implementation of 

the Build Alternative action alternatives is expected to reduce VMT and associated 

emissions. Thus, it is not expected that the proposed components improvements

would result in the generation of air emissions that would exceed conformity 

threshold levels of pollutants for which the air basins are designated as 

nonattainment or maintenance areas.

3.2.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The proposed project would be located within two air quality district jurisdictions: 

the MBUAPCD and the SLOAPCD. This analysis has been structured to estimate the 

potential impacts on the two air basins directly affected by the Build Alternative. 

The two associated air basins are the North Central Coast Air Basin and the South 

Central Coast Air Basins. Table 3.2-2 above shows these air basins state and federal 

attainment statuses. State criteria pollutants are classified as in attainment (or 

unclassified) for the following pollutants:

 Carbon monoxide

 Nitrogen dioxide 

 Sulfur dioxide

 Fine particulate matter (PM2.5)

 Sulfates
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.2-15

 Lead 

 Hydrogen sulfide 

Both districts are in nonattainment for:

 ozone (nonattainment in Eastern SLO County only; western SLO County is in 

attainment)

 particulate matter (PM10.) 

Both air basins are considered in attainment (or unclassified) and below the federal 

thresholds for all of the criteria air pollutants.

Sensitive receptors are people that have an increased sensitivity to air pollution or 

environmental contaminants. Sensitive receptor locations include schools, parks 

and playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential 

dwelling units. The location of sensitive receptors is used to assess the impacts of 

project-related emissions on public health.25 The project corridor traverses 

primarily agricultural lands between Salinas and San Luis Obispo. There is some 

concentration of sensitive receptors where the railway travels through urban areas, 

which include existing and proposed station areas.

3.2.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.2.4.1No Build Alternative

Without the proposed passenger service enhancement contemplated as part of the 

Build Alternative, passenger rail operations between Salinas and San Luis Obispo 

would not change. Coast Starlight service would continue through the corridor. 

Amtrak service to Southern California would continue to originate/terminate in San 

Luis Obispo. Options for passenger travel along the corridor would remain limited 

to automobiles and bus. Therefore, potential emissions reductions associated with 

improved passenger rail service would not be realized, and there would be little or 

no change in air pollutant/ greenhouse gas emissions related to passenger rail 

service in the Corridor. 

As set forth in Chapter 9 of the SDP, freight rail operations in the Corridor are 

projected to increase. As of 2013, 2 daily long-haul freight trains travel between 

Salinas and San Luis Obispo. By the year 2020, the SDP projects that a total of 4 

daily long-haul freight trains would travel along the Corridor. Accordingly, air 

 

25 Air Pollution Control District: San Luis Obispo County, 2012a
Coast Corridor

3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Final Program EIS/EIR

3.2-16

pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions originating from freight rail sources would 

likely increase by up to 100 percent over existing conditions unless new freight rail 

service includes newer, less polluting locomotive technology.

The No Build Alternative also assumes the installation of PTC along the corridor. 

Neither the construction nor the operation of PTC would generate substantial 

emissions, as most PTC equipment would be located within trains. The operation of 

such equipment would not be expected to substantially alter emissions of air 

pollutants or greenhouse gases from existing levels. 

3.2.4.2 Build Alternative

Rail Operations

The Coast Corridor SDP includes a preliminary, high-level calculation of potential air 

quality effects for the set of components improvements proposed for the entirety of 

the system (Los Angeles to San Francisco) based on system-wide ridership 

projections, and other rail uses (including freight). The SDP projects state rail 

ridership by region using the Amtrak/California Intercity Passenger Rail Forecasting 

Model,

26 and uses both the FHWA’s Freight Analysis Framework database and the 

Surface Transportation Board’s Confidential Carload Waybill Sample to predict 

future freight flow. 

According to this preliminary assessment, the Build Alternative presents some small 

potential reductions in emissions of air pollutants and GHGs. These reductions 

would be achieved through the implementation of Coast Daylight rail service and its 

related potential to attract passengers from other travel modes (especially 

automobile and airplane). The SDP projects that the Coast Daylight service would 

generate about 100,000 annual person trips by the year 2020. This averages to 

about 300 trips per day and translates in projected reduction about 11,000 daily 

VMT for the Central Coast/Monterey Bay region as a whole. The projected 

expansion of Coast Daylight service by the year 2040 would further reduce VMT in 

the Central Coast/Monterey Bay region by an additional 15,000 daily miles (26,000 

daily miles total). These VMT reductions comprise relatively small amounts of total 

regional VMT and are thus expected to translate to small reductions in criteria 

 

26 The Amtrak/Caltrans Model is based on extensive market and traveler behavior research throughout 

California (and nationwide), historical rail ridership and revenue data and trends, and demographic 

data.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.2-17

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

Central Coast/Monterey Bay region.27 Moreover, it should be noted that passenger 

rail has considerably lower greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile than other 

modes, including aircraft, passenger cars and light-duty trucks.28 

There is potential for some relatively small increases in emissions resulting from 

increased vehicles trips to and from the new stations proposed in Soledad and King 

City. However, the Soledad Specific Plan proposes substantial public transit 

improvements, including additional local bus services connecting residential and 

commercial areas. Improved pedestrian and bicycle access is also planned within 

the city.29 The station design in King City includes parking for Amtrak Thru-Way 

buses, Greyhound buses, and bus pull-outs for two fixed route bus services.30 These 

new activities in the station areas could result in increased emissions levels above 

existing conditions at the immediate station areas. However, these transit-related 

improvements and activities would ultimately contribute to emissions reductions on 

a more regional basis to the extent the improvements were associated with trips 

diverted from automobile to bus or train. 

Physical Improvements 

Construction-Period Effects

Emissions would be expected to result from the use of heavy machinery during 

construction. Additional temporary emissions, potentially including criteria 

pollutants like particulate matter, would result from idling or slowed locomotives 

due to any construction-related interruptions to existing rail operations.

Emissions generated from common construction activities include:

 Exhaust emissions of PM, NOx, and other GHGs from fuel combustion for mobile 

heavy-duty diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment, portable auxiliary 

equipment, material delivery trucks, and worker commute trips.

 Fugitive PM dust from soil disturbance and demolition activity.

 Evaporative emissions of ROG or VOC from paving activity and the application of 

architectural coatings.31

 

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

28 Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013a, p. 26, exhibits 2.9 and 2.10

29 City of Soledad, 2012b

30 City of King, 2013

31 Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 2014
Coast Corridor

3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Final Program EIS/EIR

3.2-18

Construction activity related to signal upgrades would be expected to result in 

minor emissions because substantial use of heavy equipment would not be 

necessary to install signals. Air pollutant emission would primarily be associated 

with delivery of construction materials. Track upgrade construction would involve 

replacement of existing rail (wooden rail ties, etc.) with CWR, track structure 

realignment, track resurfacing, tie replacement, rehabilitation of existing sidings, 

and replacement of existing turnouts, as well as installation of powered switches at 

selected locations. Construction of curve/track realignments, new siding/siding 

extensions, the new second mainline, and new stations would result in emissions

due to fuel use for heavy construction machinery. Additional temporary emissions 

would result from idling or slowed locomotives due to any construction-related 

interruptions to existing rail operations. 

Operational Effects

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

reduce friction and vibration. Improved stabilization would also require less 

frequent maintenance of the railway infrastructure. Less frequent maintenance

would reduce emissions associated with maintenance vehicle trips and idling, as 

well as maintenance equipment use. The increase in efficiency associated with 

track upgrades would reduce the severity of localized carbon monoxide and 

particulate matter emissions, as well as other pollutants.

New powered switches and CTC signals would improve the efficiency of train travel 

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

to reduce the amount of time trains spend waiting for dispatching instructions, 

improve train safety, and improve the overall reliability of service.32 These 

components improvements may enable traffic control to safely manage denser rail 

use and emissions would also be reduced as a result of less time idling. 

Since the curve realignments are designed to improve operating efficiencies by 

reducing the need for deceleration and acceleration around existing curves, the 

proposed components improvements may affect emissions. Currently, trains must 

slow down on the approach to a curve, and then speed back up following the curve. 

The proposed realignments would improve train operations by reducing these 

inefficiencies, thereby incrementally reducing air pollutant emissions associated 

with getting back up to speed. There may thus be additional emissions reductions 

 

32 Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b, pp. 9-4
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.2-19

associated with improved fuel economy. As exact curve realignments are yet to be 

developed, no specific quantification of emissions reductions is possible as part of 

this program-level analysis.

Siding extensions and new sidings would be expected to increase train efficiency 

and reduce the overall time that passenger trains idle in sidings. This would be 

expected to result in a slight decrease in emissions. The proposed siding 

components improvements are meant to serve longer freight trains, allowing 

passenger trains to pass by more efficiently. Since passenger trains currently idle in 

short sidings while (much longer) freight trains pass, the expected idling time for 

freight trains while (comparatively shorter) passenger trains is expected to 

represent an overall decrease in idling time. The decrease in idling time would be 

expected to reduce overall air pollutant emissions for trains on the rail.

A new second mainline would allow for increased speeds through the Santa 

Margarita/Cuesta Grade area, where track curvature and grades contribute to low 

average speeds through this portion of the railroad. Enhanced train movement with 

less dwelling would lead to an overall decrease in air pollutant emissions.

Implementation of new train stations would require new stops along the Coast 

Corridor route, and could be expected to increase emissions associated with 

deceleration, acceleration, and added idling at each station.

In terms of potential indirect effects, it should be noted that improved train service 

could result in an increase in ridership numbers. The increase in service, and 

corresponding increase in ridership, could be expected to decrease passenger travel 

by personal vehicle or bus, as well as freight transport by auto, truck or bus. These 

changes would collectively result in an overall decrease in air pollutant emissions. 

Potential emissions could be offset by implementation of the components

improvements, corresponding increase in ridership, and subsequent reduction in 

emissions.

3.2.4.3 Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would include the same service as the Build Alternative 

and would retain all corridor-wide and almost all of the same physical components. 

The only differences are that the Preferred Alternative would include modified 

footprints for the King City siding extension and passenger station, and would 

exclude each of the four curve realignments within San Luis Obispo County. 

Additionally, the Preferred Alternative includes a 27 mile “island” of CTC between 

MP 202 and 229 (McKay to Santa Margarita). 
Coast Corridor

3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Final Program EIS/EIR

3.2-20

Overall, air quality and GHG emissions effects for the Preferred Alternative would be 

the same as the Build Alternative because of the regional nature of air quality/GHG 

emissions. Construction emissions would change slightly for the areas where the 

changed or deleted features are located. The discussions below assess air quality 

and GHG emissions relative to such modified or excluded features. 

Rail Operations

Under the Preferred Alternative, the railway would retain the same overall systemwide operations as the Build Alternative and thus would result in similar effects to 

air quality and GHG emissions as those identified for the Build Alternative. 

Physical Improvements

Construction-Period Effects

Under the Preferred Alternative, construction activities would be similar to those 

described under the Build Alternative, but the Preferred Alternative excludes four 

curve realignments in San Luis Obispo County that were included in the Build 

Alternative. Accordingly, construction emissions would be expected to be lower for 

the Preferred Alternative than the Build Alternative. 

Operational Effects

Under the Preferred Alternative, the proposed components would have similar 

operational period effects as the Build Alternative and would thus result in similar 

air pollutant/GHG emissions as the Build Alternative. No new or worsened

operational air quality or GHG emissions effects would be expected with the 

Preferred Alternative.

3.2.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION 

STRATEGIES

In addition to the minimization strategies MIN-AQ-1 through MIN-AQ-20 listed 

below, it can be expected that components improvements in air pollution controls 

for locomotives would result in continued reductions of pollutant emissions per mile 

of locomotive travel if freight and passenger locomotives use newer, higher-tech 

equipment. Over time, these new technologies and locomotive emission standards, 

paired with the mitigation measures outlined below, would contribute to an overall 

decrease in air pollutant emissions as a result of the action alternatives Build 

Alternative. The timeline for implementation of these new technologies and 

emission standards is not certain; however, mitigation measures must be identified 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.2-21

to address near-term solutions to the potential impacts, particularly those related to 

the construction of some or all of the components of the action alternatives Build 

Alternative. 

The Build Alternative will action alternatives would be designed to reduce air quality 

and GHG impacts along the Corridor. The following strategies have been identified 

at this preliminary stage to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate any potentially 

significant impacts. The identification and implementation of specific mitigation 

measures necessary for each project component will occur as part of subsequent 

project-level environmental review. Additional avoidance, minimization, and 

mitigation measures may also be identified during that review.

3.2.5.1 Construction-Period Strategies

During project implementation, all strategies should be evaluated to determine 

their appropriateness and effectiveness at reducing regional and localize criteria 

pollutant emissions. 

Strategies that should be considered would be implemented during construction 

include:

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

areas to minimize dust.

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

that all trucks maintain at least two feet of freeboard. 

MIN-AQ-3. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers 

on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. 

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

staging areas at construction sites daily. 

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

carried onto adjacent public streets. 

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

areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). 

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

exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.).

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

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

public roadways. 
Coast Corridor

3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Final Program EIS/EIR

3.2-22

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

disturbed areas. 

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

MIN-AQ-12. Minimize equipment idling time. 

MIN-AQ-13. Maintain properly tuned equipment. 

3.2.5.2 Operational Strategies

Strategies that should would be considered implemented during the operational 

phase include:

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

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

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

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

devices automatically shut-off the main diesel internal combustion engine that is 

used for locomotive motive power after a set amount of time when specified 

parameters (e.g., engine water temperature, ambient temperature, battery charge, 

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

restart the engine when parameters are determined to no longer be at acceptable 

levels. These can reduce emissions at sidings and while trains dwell at stations.

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

after-treatment technologies to reduce emissions. 

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

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

vehicle movements, to reduce idling time and congestion.

3.2.6 SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS

As specific program elements components are implemented, more detailed air 

quality analysis may be appropriate in order to fully determine potential impacts. 

This analysis could include the following:

 Hotspots can form, particularly around existing and new stations, as a result of 

changes in train service. Local traffic counts can help identify these potential 

hotspots near access roads to any new station location.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

3.2-23

 Potential sensitive receptors for air toxics must be identified for any new air 

quality conditions. A risk assessment of the potential impacts to health will be 

performed in consultation with appropriate regulatory agencies. 

Additional evaluation of potential construction impacts may also be warranted to

quantify the emissions associated with construction vehicle traffic, excavation, 

worker trips, and other related construction activities. A construction-period

monitoring program may also be appropriate.
3.2-1

Figure Regional Air Basins

Source: EPA, 2010

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

2-1

Figure WƌŽũĞĐƚ>ŽĐĂƟŽŶDĂƉ

Source: Circlepoint, 2013

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

Monterey County

San Benito County

Monterey C

Obispo C Sa

ounty

n Luis ounty

Salinas River

(!

P a c i f i c

O c e a n

§ ̈¦5

£[101

£[101

UV1

UV58

UV146

UV46

UV146

UV1

UV198

UV68

UV46

UV25

Legend

#I

#I

#I

#I

± 0 5 10

Miles

Coast Corridor Improvements 

>ŽĐĂƟŽŶDĂƉ

Salinas River

Existing Station

Existing Rail Line

Sa

ounty

n Luis ounty

Salinas

Seaside

Gonzales

Soledad

King City

San Lucas

Bradley

San Simeon San Miguel

Paso Robles

Atascadero

San Luis Obispo

Salinas

Seaside

Gonzales

Soledad

King City

San Lucas

Bradley

San Simeon San Miguel

Paso Robles

Atascadero

San Luis Obispo

Legend

#I

0 5 10

Miles

Existing Station

Existing Rail Line

North Central Coast

South Central Coast

±
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.3 Noise and Vibration

3.3-1

3.3 NOISE AND VIBRATION

This section identifies noise and vibration sensitive land uses along the existing 

Coast Corridor rail alignment and identifies potential noise and vibration impacts of 

the No Build and the Build Alternative action alternatives. 

This section describes updates and modifications made in response to comments on 

the Draft Program EIS/EIR. 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 regarding the noise and vibration 

discussions of the Draft Program EIS/EIR (see comments A-3.15 – A-3.20 and A3.32). All of these comments relate to project components that have been 

incorporated as part of the Preferred Alternative. See Master Response 2 for detail 

regarding the modifications to the siding extension and station area requested by 

the City of King. 

3.3.1 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

3.3.1.1 Federal 

Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1972

The Noise Pollution and Abatement Act This act addresses excessive noise as a 

potential threat to human health and welfare, including noise related to 

transportation, machinery, appliances, and other products in commerce. Following 

adoption of this act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency EPA published 

Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and 

Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (EPA 1974). In this document, EPA 

provided recommendations for maximum noise exposure levels below which there 

would be little to no risk from any of the identified health or welfare effects of 

noise.

Federal Noise Emission Compliance Regulation Code

FRA’s Railroad Noise Emission Compliance regulations1prescribe compliance 

requirements for enforcing railroad noise emission standards adopted by the EPA.2 

 

1

49 CFR 210

2

40 CFR 201
Coast Corridor

3.3 Noise and Vibration Final Program EIS/EIR

3.3-2

The provisions apply to the total sound emitted by moving rail cars and locomotives 

(including the sound produced by refrigeration and air conditioning of units that are 

an integral element of such equipment), and associated equipment. 

Train Horn Rule and Quiet Zones

Under the Train Horn Rule,

3

locomotive engineers must begin to sound train horns 

at least 15 seconds, and no more than 20 seconds, in advance of all public grade 

crossings. The maximum volume level for the train horn is 110 decibels (dB), and 

the minimum sound level is 96 decibels.

In a quiet zone, railroads have been directed to cease the routine sounding of their 

horns when approaching public highway-rail grade crossings. Localities desiring to 

establish a quiet zone are first required to mitigate the increased risk caused by the 

absence of a train-mounted horn. Measures to reduce risk include gated crossings 

with flashing signals, other signage, fencing, and related measures.

3.3.1.2 State

California Noise Control Act of 1973

The California Noise Control Act4establishes the Office of Noise Control in the 

Department of Health Services to assist local communities developing noise control 

programs and provide guidance for cities and counties developing noise elements of 

the General Plan in compliance with Government Code Section 65302.

California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

The California OSHA requires employers to provide employees with proper 

protection against the effects of noise exposure when sound exceeds certain level 

(an 8-hour time weighted average of 90 A-weighted decibels [dBA]).5 The protective 

measures may be provided either through engineering or administrative controls. If 

these control measures fail to reduce the noise within the acceptable limits, 

personal protective equipment shall be provided and used. Additionally, whenever 

employee noise exposures equal or exceed an 8-hour sound level of 85 dBA, the 

employer shall develop and administer a Hearing Conservation Program.

 

3

49 CFR Part 222

4

Health and Safety Code Section 46010

5

A decibel (dB) is a unit that describes the amplitude of sound. A dBA describes A-weighting in noise 

measurements, which accounts for the relative frequencies at which humans perceive sound. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.3 Noise and Vibration

3.3-3

California Noise Insulation Standards

California Noise Insulation Standards6detail requirements for new multi-family 

structures located within the 60 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)7contour 

adjacent to roads, railroads, rapid transit lines, airports or industrial areas. 

Residential buildings or structures located within exterior community noise 

equivalent level contours of 60 dB of an existing or adopted freeway, expressway, 

major street, thoroughfare, railroad or rapid-transit line shall require an acoustical 

analysis showing that the proposed building has been designed to limit intruding 

noise to the allowable interior noise levels prescribed in Section 1092 (e)(2). 

California Building Standards Code

The California Buildings Standards Code8contains the regulations that govern the 

construction of buildings in California. The Code requires that for any habitable 

room within a multi-family residential development, interior noise levels shall not 

exceed a CNEL of 45 dBA for noises attributable to exterior sources. Multi-family 

residential uses must comply with pertinent requirements in addition to and 

separate from CEQA. However, the State does not regulate noise levels within 

single-family detached homes. 

3.3.1.3 Local

Government Code Section 65302 requires cities and counties to include a noise 

element as part of their general plans. The Noise Element identifies the major 

sources of noise in the area and establishes ways to minimize exposure to sensitive 

receptors. A city or county must quantify the current and projected noise levels 

from highways and freeways, passenger and freight railroad operations, ground 

rapid transit systems, air travels, and other sources. 

Monterey County General Plan

The main sources of noise in Monterey County include transportation facilities 

(highways, roads, railroads, and aircraft), several industrial and food-packing plants, 

mining operations, and power-generation. The Safety Element includes policies that 

establish acceptable limits of noise exposure. New noise-sensitive land uses may 

only be allowed in areas where existing and projected noise levels are deemed 

acceptable. Furthermore, the County requires the inclusion of standard noise 

 

6

Title 25, Section 1092

7

Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) is a 24-hour average sound level that includes both an 

evening and nighttime weighting, as further discussed in Subsection 3.3.2.

8

Title 24, California Code of Regulations
Coast Corridor

3.3 Noise and Vibration Final Program EIS/EIR

3.3-4

protection measures into all construction contracts. These measures limit 

construction hours, require noise muffling equipment, and set forth other 

regulations to reduce potential noise effects. 

City of Salinas General Plan

The Noise Element identifies existing and projected noise sources in the community 

and identifies ways to reduce potential impacts. The Noise Element contains 

policies and programs to achieve and maintain noise levels compatible with various 

types of land uses. Like most urbanized areas, Salinas experiences increasing noise 

levels associated with transportation and other sources. In addition to standard

policies to shield sensitive receptors from noise exposure, Salinas has developed a 

Noise Plan that defines the City’s specific programs along with an implementation 

plan. Programs include specific land use compatibility guidelines with maximum 

noise level amounts, based on the land use designation. 

City of Soledad General Plan 

The major source of noise in Soledad is car and truck traffic on US 101. However, 

other noise generators that contribute to local ambient noise levels include 

railroads, aircraft, farming activities, quarry activities, and industrial facilities. 

Policies and implementation programs outlined in the Noise Element focus on 

establishing noise projections for proper planning and reducing the noise impacts at 

sensitive receptor locations. The Soledad Downtown Specific Plan (2012) 

contemplated a variety of new land uses in central portion of the City, including 

conceptual plans for a proposed new passenger rail station (identical to the station 

included here as part of the Build Alternative action alternatives). In its 

environmental review of the specific plan as a whole, the City concluded that build

out would result in temporary construction noises, but with mitigation, such noises 

would not result in any significant impacts.9

City of King (King City) General Plan

According to the King City Noise Element, primary noise sources are US 101, the 

railroad, and industrial activities. King City has adopted goals and policies to 

encourage land use patterns that reduce the level of human noise exposure.10 King 

City adopted the First Street Corridor Master Plan, in which the city contemplated a 

number of land use changes, including conceptual plans for a passenger rail station 

 

9

City of Soledad,2012, p. 1-3 and appendix

10City of King, 1998, pp. 25-29
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.3 Noise and Vibration

3.3-5

(identical to the station included here as part of the Build Alternative).11

Additionally, as described in Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, since publication of the Draft 

EIS/EIR the City of King has adopted draft revised plans for the Multi-Modal 

Transportation Center – Conceptual Design [(MMTC) (2014)].

San Luis Obispo County General Plan

The main sources of noise in San Luis Obispo County are from roadways, railroads, 

airports, and agricultural and commercial activities. The County General Plan 

includes policies and mitigation to reduce noise impacts from railroads and these 

other sources. The noise exposure ranges depicted on noise contour maps are used 

to determine the land use designation of the area and where new development may 

occur. Noise created by new transportation noise sources must be consistent and 

not exceed the levels specified within each land use designation.

3.3.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION

Information for the noise and vibration analysis was obtained/developed from 

several sources. A qualified acoustical professional, with specific subject-matter 

expertise as an author of FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment 

Manual (2006) (FTA Guidance Manual), reviewed aerial mapping of proposed 

components improvements as well as considerable background information 

(including but not limited to Appendices B, C, and D) and recommended appropriate 

screening distances to assess noise and vibration impacts based on relevant criteria. 

The acoustical professional based the screening distances on potential future train 

speed estimates and the type of construction work for each component

improvement type. Recommended noise screening distances along the corridor are 

shown in Table 3.3-1 for train operations in both 2020 and 2040. Vibration 

screening distances are shown in Table 3.3-2.

Federal Transit Administration Noise and Vibration Impact 

Assessment

The Federal transit Administration FTA Guidance Manual, Transit Noise and 

Vibration Impact Assessment (2006) contains methods for combining transit/rail 

noise sources with traffic and bus noise sources at stations using both FTA criteria 

(which are identical to the FRA criteria) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

criteria. FHWA provides a model to assess roadway construction noise near 

 

11 City of King, 2013, p. 29, p. 82
Coast Corridor

3.3 Noise and Vibration Final Program EIS/EIR

3.3-6

sensitive receptors. Accordingly, Table 3.3-3 outlines typical construction 

equipment and their relative noise levels from the FHWA criteria to assess potential 

noise effects.12

The purpose of the document is to provide understanding of noise and vibration 

effects of mass-transit projects located in population centers and populated land 

use types. Furthermore, the document provides noise and vibration fundamentals 

for subject-matter understanding and context. 

Noise Compatibility

Based on the recommended screening distances, the second component of the 

analysis was to inventory the surrounding land uses within the screening areas. 

Generally, land use categories characterize the density of people and intensity of 

nearby development. As a result, land use typology is a helpful gauge of the 

potential presence of sensitive receptors. A review of aerial maps was conducted to 

determine the presence of potentially sensitive land uses near the existing rail 

alignment and proposed component improvement areas. Sensitive land uses for 

this analysis include residences, schools, hospitals, parks, and historic structures. 

Land use assumptions are as follows:

 Agricultural: Fields of crops, fences, farm equipment, rural dirt roads, electrical 

distribution lines, barns, and crop processing buildings are dominant features in 

an agricultural area. Agricultural areas may also include residential uses -

typically farmhouses or other farmworker housing. 

 Urban/Suburban: Urban/suburban areas include residential and commercial 

buildings, parking lots, and landscaping along streets and sidewalks. Generally, 

urban/suburban areas have many residential sensitive receptors.

 Industrial/Institutional: Industrial areas typically include utility lines, 

equipment, machinery, freight tracks, and factories. Sensitive receptors in these 

areas would be employees working in factories or operating machinery. 

 Open Space/Undeveloped: Open space and undeveloped areas include rolling 

hills, mountain ranges, valleys, and trees and shrubs are visible on the horizon. 

Residential and commercial developments are not prevalent in these areas.

The analysis then compares future noise and vibration created by each alternative 

with the existing land use to determine the level of compatibility with each existing 

land use type:

 

12 Federal Highway Administration. 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.3 Noise and Vibration

3.3-7

 High compatibility indicates areas where the alternative would affect none or 

very few sensitive receptors, either because sensitive land uses are not present 

within the provided screening distances or that the nature of the proposed work 

would not produce noticeable noise and vibration effects.

 Medium compatibility indicates areas where there may be a moderate number 

of sensitive land uses nearby within the screening distances and would be 

moderately affected.

 Low compatibility indicates areas where there are many sensitive land uses 

nearby within the screening distances and would be highly affected.

Trains and train horns sounding at at-grade crossings are main contributor to 

ambient noise levels in the immediate vicinity of the existing railroad, particularly 

where the railroad is separated from US 101 by more than 0.25 miles. 

As neither alternative would remove any existing at-grade crossings, screening 

distances are sized to assume the ongoing use of horns (i.e., the distances are larger 

than if no horns were sounding). Table 3.3-1 below reflects the screening distances 

used in this analysis which reflect existing or new mainline operations as well as 

siding increases. 

Table 3.3-1 Noise Screening Distances

Segment 2020 2040

Start Point

(Mile Post)

End Point

(Mile Post)

Mainline 

Operations 

(Feet)

Siding 

Increase

(Feet)

Mainline 

Operations

(Feet)

Siding 

Increase

(Feet)

MP 114.9

Salinas

MP 116.9

Salinas

100 200 200 0

MP 116.9

Firestone

MP 144.9

Soledad

500 100 600 0

MP 144.9

Harlem

MP 155.5

Harlem

500 0 700 0

MP 155.5

Detector

MP 160.3

Detector

50 100 100 100

MP 160.7

King City

MP 163.7

King City

50 200 100 100

MP 163.7

Welby

MP 185.7

San Ardo

500 100 600 0
Coast Corridor

3.3 Noise and Vibration Final Program EIS/EIR

3.3-8

Segment 2020 2040

Start Point

(Mile Post)

End Point

(Mile Post)

Mainline 

Operations 

(Feet)

Siding 

Increase

(Feet)

Mainline 

Operations

(Feet)

Siding 

Increase

(Feet)

MP 185.7

Wunpost

MP 207.6

McKay

500 100 600 0

MP 207.6

Wellsona

MP 210.7

Wellsona

600 0 700 0

MP 210.7

Detector

MP 218.4

Paso Robles

500 100 600 0

MP 218.4

Templeton

MP 226.9

Atascadero

600 0 700 0

MP 226.9

Detector

MP 229.6

Detector

50 100 50 100

MP 229.6

Santa 

Margarita

MP 233.1

Santa 

Margarita

100 200 300 0

MP 233.1

South Santa 

Margarita

MP 234 

South Santa 

Margarita

300 100 500 0

MP 234

Cuesta

MP 238.8

Cuesta

500 100 700 0

MP 238.8

Serrano

MP 244.8

Chorro

600 0 900 0

MP 244.8

Detector

MP 248.4

Detector

500 100 700 0

MP 248.4

N. San Luis 

Obispo

MP 248.5

N. San Luis 

Obispo

500 0 800 0

Source: Cross-Spectrum Acoustics, 2013

Vibration Compatibility

Table 3.3-2 shows proposed screening distances for vibration. These distances were 

recommended in order to assess potential human annoyance and potential damage 

to historic and potentially historic properties. The vibration distances are for both 

2020 and 2040 because there is no difference between the operating scenarios for 

vibration. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.3 Noise and Vibration

3.3-9

Table 3.3-2 Vibration Screening Distances

Segment Vibration Screening Distance

Start Point End Point (Feet)

MP 114.9

Salinas

MP 116.9

Salinas

80

MP 116.9

Firestone

MP 144.9

Soledad

130

MP 144.9

Harlem

MP 155.5

Harlem

100

MP 155.5

Detector

MP 160.3

Detector

100

MP 160.7

King City

MP 163.7

King City

100

MP 163.7

Welby

MP 185.7

San Ardo

130

MP 185.7

Wunpost

MP 207.6

McKay

120

MP 207.6

Wellsona

MP 210.7

Wellsona

120

MP 210.7

Detector

MP 218.4

Paso Robles

120

MP 218.4

Templeton

MP 226.9

Atascadero

120

MP 226.9

Detector

MP 229.6

Detector

120

MP 229.6

Santa Margarita

MP 233.1

Santa Margarita

80

MP 233.1

South Santa Margarita

MP 234 

South Santa Margarita

60

MP 234

Cuesta

MP 238.8

Cuesta

50

MP 238.8

Serrano

MP 244.8

Chorro

40
Coast Corridor

3.3 Noise and Vibration Final Program EIS/EIR

3.3-10

Segment Vibration Screening Distance

Start Point End Point (Feet)

MP 244.8

Detector

MP 248.4

Detector

50

MP 248.4

N. San Luis Obispo

MP 248.5

N. San Luis Obispo

40

Source: Cross-Spectrum Acoustics, 2013

3.3.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Noise Fundamentals

Noise is defined as unwanted sound. Airborne sound is a rapid fluctuation of air 

pressure above and below atmospheric pressure (frequency). Sound levels are 

usually measured and expressed in dB, with zero dB corresponding roughly to the 

threshold of hearing. A decibel is a unit that describes the amplitude of sound.

Most of the sounds heard in the environment do not consist of a single frequency, 

but rather a broad band of frequencies, with each frequency differing in sound level. 

The intensities of each frequency add together to generate a sound and form the 

overall ambient noise level. The method commonly used to quantify environmental 

sounds consists of evaluating all of the frequencies; human hearing is less sensitive 

at low frequencies and extreme high frequencies than in the frequency mid-range, 

which is called "A" weighting and is how humans perceive noise. A-weighting deemphasizes low-frequency and very high-frequency sound in a manner similar to 

human hearing. The use of A-weighting is required by most local agencies as well as 

other federal and state noise regulations (e.g., the California Department of 

Transportation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Labor, 

Occupational Safety & Health Administration and U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development).

In practice, the level of a sound source is measured using a sound level meter that 

includes an electrical filter corresponding to the A-weighting curve. Typical Aweighted levels measured in the environment are shown in Figure 3.3-1 for 

different types of noise. 

In determining the daily level of environmental noise, it is important to account for 

the difference in response of people to daytime and nighttime noises. During the 

nighttime, exterior background noises are generally lower than the daytime levels. 

However, most household noise also decreases at night and exterior noise becomes 

very noticeable. Further, most people sleep at night and are very sensitive to noise 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.3 Noise and Vibration

3.3-11

intrusion. To account for human sensitivity to nighttime noise levels, a descriptor, 

Ldn (day/night average sound level), was developed. The Ldn divides the 24-hour day 

into the daytime of 7:00 AM to 10:00 PM and the nighttime of 10:00 PM to 7:00 

AM. The nighttime noise level is weighted 10 dB higher than the daytime noise 

level. The CNEL is another 24-hour average that includes both an evening and 

nighttime weighting.

Vibration Fundamentals

Ground vibration consists of rapidly fluctuating motions or waves with an average 

motion of zero. Peak Particle Velocity (PPV) is typically used to quantify vibration 

amplitude. The PPV is defined as the maximum instantaneous positive or negative 

peak of the vibration wave and are used to evaluate human response to vibration. 

To sensitive individuals, vibrations approaching the threshold of perception can be 

annoying. Figure 3.3-2 displays the reactions of people and the effects on buildings 

that continuous typical ground-borne vibration levels can produce. 

Low-level vibrations frequently cause irritating secondary vibration, such as a slight 

rattling of windows, doors, or stacked dishes. The rattling sound can give rise to 

exaggerated vibration complaints, even though there is very little risk of actual 

structural damage. In high noise environments, which are more prevalent where 

groundborne vibration approaches perceptible levels, this rattling phenomenon may 

also be produced by loud airborne environmental noise causing induced vibration in 

exterior doors and windows.

Construction activities can cause vibration that can vary in intensity. The use of pile 

driving and vibratory compaction equipment typically generates the highest 

construction related ground-borne vibration levels. Because of the impulsive nature 

of such activities, the use of the PPV peak particle velocity descriptor has been 

routinely used to measure and assess ground-borne vibration and almost exclusively 

to assess the potential of vibration to induce structural damage and the degree of 

annoyance for humans.

Railroad Noise and Vibration

Transit noise is generated by transit vehicles in motion, as well as from locomotive 

engine exhaust. Speed also plays a direct factor in noise levels; however, according 

to the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidance Manual, 

locomotive exhaust noise dominates at low speeds for diesel-powered trains. As 

speed increases, wheel-rail noise becomes dominant. Trains are also equipped with 

horns and bells for use in emergency situations as well as to signal to pedestrians 
Coast Corridor

3.3 Noise and Vibration Final Program EIS/EIR

3.3-12

and vehicles before traveling through an intersection or at-grade crossings. Horns 

and bells combined with moving vehicle noise can generate noise levels that are 

considered annoying to nearby residents and other sensitive receptors.13

Ambient vibration is usually characterized with a continuous 10- to 30-minute 

measurement of vibration. Passenger and freight trains usually create high levels of 

vibration, but intermittently and for short periods of time. Train vibration results 

from the type of wheel, texture of the railway tracks, and train speed. Effects upon 

sensitive receptors will vary based on structural components of the nearby building 

as well as geology of the underlying bedrock and soil.14

The study area encompasses a spectrum of land uses, all of which differ in ambient 

noise level. Rural, undeveloped areas have lower noise levels in comparison to 

noise levels near roadways and urban developments. Much of the study area 

encompasses agricultural, open space areas as well as industrial/institutional and 

urban/suburban areas. US 101 and the existing Coast Corridor alignment are the 

largest contributors to the ambient noise levels in the study area. 

According to information from the applicable county general plans, existing noise 

levels along the US 101 corridor - near which much of the existing railroad is located 

-are between 60 and 70 CNEL.15 

3.3.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.3.4.1No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would involve maintaining existing physical conditions 

along the Coast Corridor study area. The No Build Alternative contemplates rail 

service components improvements in Salinas and points north along the railroad 

tracks in Monterey County that are intended to facilitate expanded passenger rail 

service (toward San José). According to the SDP, freight rail operations are likely to 

increase by the year 2040, doubling from 2 daily freight trains today to 4 daily trains 

in 2040. Implementation of these projects would occur regardless of whether or 

not any of the proposed physical components improvements comprising the Build 

Alternative are ultimately constructed. 

 

13 Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006, pp. 2-6 – 2-7

14FTA, 2006,.pp. 7-11

15 County of Monterey, 2006, figure 4.8-3; County of San Luis Obispo , 1992, Noise Element and 

Appendix A
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.3 Noise and Vibration

3.3-13

The No Build Alternative may thus result in noise and vibration impacts to sensitive

land uses, but primarily north of Salinas, as these areas would see both increased 

passenger and freight service. The Salinas to San Luis Obispo study area would see 

only increased freight service. If additional freight service is proposed for late night 

hours, the additional service could result in somewhat more pronounced noise 

effects along the corridor, because people are somewhat more sensitive to 

nighttime noises. As reflected herein in the discussion of cumulative effects 

(Section 3.15), the Phillips 66 Company Rail Spur Extension Project is currently 

undergoing CEQA-only review for the proposed construction and operation of a rail 

spur into an existing oil refinery (Nipomo Mesa), south of the City of San Luis 

Obispo. 

3.3.4.2 Build Alternative

Construction-Period Noise and Vibration Effects

The Build Alternative contemplates a number of physical components

improvements throughout the Coast Corridor study area. To the extent any of these

improvements components are ultimately carried forward for further design leading 

to construction, heavy equipment and vehicles could result in temporary increases 

in noise and vibration levels. These temporary construction impacts would be more 

pronounced at nighttime when overall ambient noise levels are lower. Table 3.3-3 

outlines typical construction equipment and their relative noise levels. 

Proposed Project improvements components that require extensive grading or 

excavation, such as curve realignments, siding extensions, and new stations would 

have a more noticeable noise and vibration effect owing to anticipated construction 

time. Additionally, some of the components would likely require site clearing and 

earthmoving activities, such as excavation, grading, and vibratory rolling, toward the 

construction of new rail tracks. 

Powered switches and other track/signal upgrades would generally not require such 

extensive use of heavy construction equipment and, thus, would have less potential 

to result in significant noise or vibration effects upon sensitive receptors. However, 

the anticipated equipment required for construction is unclear at this time, since 

the Build Alternative improvements are conceptual at the programmatic level.
Coast Corridor

3.3 Noise and Vibration Final Program EIS/EIR

3.3-14

Table 3.3-3 Typical Construction Equipment Noise Levels

Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) dBA 

at 50 feet

Maximum Noise Level (Lmax) 

dBA at 300 feet

Backhoe 78 63

Compactor (ground) 83 68

Compressor (air) 78 63

Concrete Mixer Truck 79 64

Concrete Pump Truck 81 66

Crane 81 66

Dozer 82 67

Dump Truck 76 61

Excavator 81 66

Front End Loader 79 64

Generator 81 66

Paver 77 62

Pneumatic Tools 85 70

Pumps 81 66

Roller 80 65

Scraper 85 70

Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide, 2006 

Operational Noise and Vibration Effects

The Build Alternative proposes an increase of two passenger trains per day through 

the corridor by 2020 and two additional passenger trains per day by the year 2040. 

The components improvements included in the Build Alternative would also provide 

improved efficiency in the movement of existing freight rail through the corridor. As 

a result, the Build Alternative has the potential to increase operational noise and 

vibration within the Coast Corridor study area. 

For diesel-powered commuter rail trains at low speeds, locomotive exhaust is 

typically the greatest source of noise. This would occur primarily as trains approach 

and pass through urban areas. As speed increases, wheel-rail noise becomes the 

dominant noise source. Additionally, the railway itself can radiate noise as it 

vibrates in response to the dynamic loading of the moving train. Trains are also 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.3 Noise and Vibration

3.3-15

equipped with horns and bells for use in emergency situations and as a general 

audible warning to track workers and trespassers within the right-of-way as well as 

to pedestrians and motor vehicles at highway grade crossing.16

Noise Compatibility

Table 3.3-4 summarizes the potential for the proposed physical improvements

components and service expansion comprising the Build Alternative to result in

operational period noise impacts. The table identifies each proposed improvement

component’s noise compatibility within the screening distances identified in 

Table 3.3-1. Table 3.3-4 also notes existing and proposed maximum speeds for each 

rail segment. For a more conservative analysis, a potential top speed of 90 mph was 

assumed even though the SDP contemplates maintaining the Coast Corridor as an 

FRA Class IV railroad, in which a maximum top speed of 80 mph is permitted. 

Table 3.3-4 Noise Compatibility of Build Alternative

Build Alternative 

Components/Current and 

Future Maximum Train 

Speeds in the Area

Predominant Land Use

Types within Screening 

Distance

Noise Compatibility

Salinas Powered Switch

Current Max Speed: 40-60 mph

Future Max Speed: No Change

N/A N/A

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #1

Current Max Speed: 60-70 mph

Future Max Speed: 90 mph

Industrial/Institutional; 

Urban/Suburban; Some 

Agricultural

High in Agricultural areas; Low in 

Residential areas

Spence Siding Extension

Current Max Speed: 60-70 mph

Future Max Speed: 90 mph

Agricultural N/A High

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #2 

Current Max Speed Zones 60-70 

mph; 35-40

Future Max Speed Zones: 90 

mph; 60 mph

Mostly Agricultural; 

Urban/Suburban near Chualar, 

Gonzales, and Soledad 

High in Agricultural areas; Low in 

Residential areas

Gonzales Powered Switch

Current Max Speed: 60-70 mph

Future Max Speed: 90 mph

N/A N/A

Soledad Powered Switch

Current Max Speed: 60-70 mph

Future Max Speed: 90 mph

N/A N/A

 

16 FTA, 2006
Coast Corridor

3.3 Noise and Vibration Final Program EIS/EIR

3.3-16

Build Alternative 

Components/Current and 

Future Maximum Train 

Speeds in the Area

Predominant Land Use

Types within Screening 

Distance

Noise Compatibility

Soledad New Passenger Station

Current Max Speed: 60-70 mph

Future Max Speed: 90 mph

Industrial/Institutional; 

Urban/Suburban; Vosti Park

Medium

Harlem/Metz Curve Realignments

Current Max Speed: 35-40 mph

Future Max Speed: 60 mph

Agricultural; Open 

Space/Undeveloped; Some 

Residential

High in Agricultural areas; Low in 

Residential areas

Chalone Creek New Siding 

Current Max Speed: 35-40 mph

Future Max Speed: 60 mph

Agricultural; Open 

Space/Undeveloped; Some 

Residential

N/A High in Agricultural areas; 

Medium in Residential areas

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #3

Current Max Speed Zones: 35-40

mph; 60-70 mph

Future Max Speed Zones: 60 

mph; 60-70 mph (no change)

Agricultural; Open 

Space/Undeveloped; Some 

Industrial

High

Coburn Curve Realignments

Current Max Speed: 35-40 mph

Future Max Speed: 60 mph

Agricultural; Open 

Space/Undeveloped; Some 

Industrial

High in Agricultural areas; Low in 

Residential areas

King City Siding Extension

Current Max Speed: 60 mph

Future Max Speed: No Change

Some Agricultural; 

Urban/Suburban

N/A High in Agricultural areas; 

Medium in Residential areas

King City New Passenger Station

Current Max Speed: 60 mph

Future Max Speed: No Change

Industrial/Institutional; 

Urban/Suburban

Medium

King City Powered Switch

Current Max Speed: 60 mph

Future Max Speed: No Change

N/A N/A

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #4

Current Max Speed: 60-70 mph

Future Max Speed: 90 mph

Agricultural; Some 

Industrial/Institutional; Some 

Residential

High in Agricultural areas; Low in 

Residential areas

MP 165 Curve Realignment

Current Max Speed: 60-70 mph

Future Max Speed: 90 mph

Agricultural; Some 

Industrial/Institutional; Some 

Residential

High in Agricultural areas; Low in 

Residential areas

San Lucas New Siding 

Current Max Speed: 60-70 mph

Future Max Speed: 90 mph

Agricultural; Urban/Suburban N/A High in Agricultural areas;

Medium in Residential areas

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #5

Current Max Speed Zones: 60-70

mph; 40-55 mph

Future Max Speed Zones: 90 

mph; 70 mph

Agricultural; Open 

Space/Undeveloped; some 

Industrial; some Residential

High in Agricultural areas; Low in 

Residential areas
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.3 Noise and Vibration

3.3-17

Build Alternative 

Components/Current and 

Future Maximum Train 

Speeds in the Area

Predominant Land Use

Types within Screening 

Distance

Noise Compatibility

MP 172 Track Realignment

Current Max Speed: 60-70 mph

Future Max Speed: 90 mph

Agricultural; Open 

Space/Undeveloped; some 

Industrial; some Residential

High in Agricultural areas; Low in 

Residential areas

San Ardo Powered Switch

Current Max Speed: 60-70 mph

Future Max Speed: 90 mph

N/A N/A

Getty/Bradley Curve 

Realignments

Current Max Speed Zones: 60-70

mph; 40-55 mph

Future Max Speed Zones: 90 

mph; 70 mph

Open Space/Undeveloped High

Bradley Siding Extension

Current Max Speed: 40-55 mph

Future Max Speed: 70 mph

Open Space/Undeveloped; some 

Residential

N/A High in Open 

Space/Undeveloped areas; 

Medium in Residential areas

Bradley Powered Switch

Current Max Speed: 40-55 mph

Future Max Speed: 70 mph

N/A N/A

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #6

Current Max Speed: 40-55 mph

Future Max Speed: 70 mph

Open Space/Undeveloped; some 

Industrial and Residential near 

Camp Roberts

High in Open Space/Undeveloped 

areas; Low in Residential areas

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #7

Current Max Speed: 40-55 mph

Future Max Speed: 70 mph

Urban/Suburban; some 

Agricultural

High in Agricultural areas; Low in 

Residential areas

McKay/ Wellsona Curve 

Realignments

Current Max Speed: 40-55 mph

Future Max Speed: 70 mph

Open Space/Undeveloped; some 

Residential

High in Open Space/Undeveloped 

areas; Low in Residential areas

McKay East Powered Switches

Current Max Speed: 40-55 mph

Future Max Speed: 70 mph

N/A N/A

Wellsona New Siding

Current Max Speed: 40-55 mph

Future Max Speed: 70 mph

Open Space/Undeveloped; some 

Residential

High in Open Space/Undeveloped 

areas; Medium in Residential 

areas

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #8

Current Max Speed: 40-55 mph

Future Max Speed: 70 mph

Urban/Suburban; some Industrial; 

some Open Space/Undeveloped 

High in Open Space/Undeveloped 

areas; Low in Residential areas

Wellsona/ Paso Robles Curve 

Realignments

Current Max Speed: 40-55 mph

Future Max Speed: 70 mph

Agricultural; Industrial; some 

Residential

High in Agricultural areas; Low in 

Residential areas
Coast Corridor

3.3 Noise and Vibration Final Program EIS/EIR

3.3-18

Build Alternative 

Components/Current and 

Future Maximum Train 

Speeds in the Area

Predominant Land Use

Types within Screening 

Distance

Noise Compatibility

Templeton Siding

Current Max Speed: 40-55 mph

Future Max Speed: 70 mph

Urban/Suburban N/A Medium in Residential areas

Templeton/ Henry Curve 

Realignments

Current Max Speed: 40-50 mph

Future Max Speed: 70 mph

Urban/Suburban; Agricultural High in Agricultural areas; Low in 

Residential areas

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #9

Current Max Speed Zones: 40-55 

mph; 35 mph

Future Max Speed Zones: 70 mph 

(between mp 218.4-223.0)

Urban/Suburban; Santa Margarita 

Community Park; Pine Mountain 

Cemetery

High in Open Space/Undeveloped 

areas; Low in Residential areas

Henry/Santa Margarita Curve 

Realignment

Current Max Speed Zones: 40-55 

mph; 35 mph

Future Max Speed: No Change

Urban/Suburban; Open Space/ 

Undeveloped; some Industrial

Low

Santa Margarita Powered Switch

Current Max Speed 40-55 mph

Future Max Speed: No Change

N/A N/A

Cuesta Second Main Track

Current Max Speed: 20-30 mph

Future Max Speed: No Change

Utilities/Open Space High

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #10

Current Max Speed: 20-30 mph

Future Max Speed: No Change

Urban/Suburban; Parks Medium

Source: Circlepoint, 2013; Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013

Generally speaking, physical improvements project components in urban/suburban 

areas (where residential uses are common) generally have lower noise compatibility 

because there are more sensitive land uses located within the noise screening 

distances. Less populated areas like open space/undeveloped lands have few 

sensitive land uses, but are considered more sensitive because increased noise 

levels could degrade the quality of recreational activities. 

Conversely, areas that have agricultural land use types are less likely to be affected 

by proposed improvements project components because there are few people 

present in these areas to experience increased noise. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.3 Noise and Vibration

3.3-19

The noise compatibility level also depends on the type of improvement Build 

Alternative component because modifications to the existing rail alignment may

would potentially expose new sensitive land uses to operational impacts of the 

train. 

The existing railway alignment passes through all areas potentially affected by curve 

realignments; thus, the noise generated by passing trains is currently experienced at 

these locations. Additionally, curve realignments would serve to straighten the 

alignment to some degree; therefore, noise associated with reduced train speeds 

would likely decrease.

The Build Alternative considers curve realignments mostly within agricultural and 

open space/undeveloped areas, but some (particularly Wellsona/Paso Robles, 

Templeton/Henry, and Henry/Santa Margarita) have the potential to affect

residential properties within the operative noise screening distances. The 

McKay/Wellsona curve realignment is proposed for lands adjacent to and within the

Big Sandy Wildlife Area. These curve realignments would alter noise levels in these 

areas by relocating portions of the railway. However, given the land uses in this 

area, noise compatibility would be considered low. 

The proposed King City and Soledad passenger rail stations are located in relatively

densely populated areas through which existing passenger and freight rail trains 

pass without stopping. There are many noise sensitive uses located near the 

footprint of the proposed stations. Train service associated with the Build 

Alternative would result in trains that would potentially stop at the proposed new 

passenger stations. Trains coming to a stop at a passenger station would travel at 

lower speeds and thus result in a different noise profile than trains passing through 

without stopping. Locomotive exhaust noise may be more apparent at such low 

speeds, but wheel noise would be lower. Additionally, a train traveling through a 

populated area would likely sound the train’s horn for standard safety purposes. As 

a result, existing noise levels would not drastically change. Therefore, noise 

compatibility in these locations would be moderate.

Proposed new sidings or siding extensions are generally less likely to affect sensitive 

land uses because the new tracks would be placed within existing right-of-way of 

the rail alignment. However, some proposed siding additions or new sidings 

(Templeton, Wellsona, Bradley, and King City) could expose populated areas to 

potential new noise from train idling. Noise compatibility in these populated 

locations would be moderate; trains currently travel along these areas, but the 

incremental addition of idling noise could affect sensitive receptors.
Coast Corridor

3.3 Noise and Vibration Final Program EIS/EIR

3.3-20

Upgrades to tracks along the existing alignment would allow for trains to safely 

travel at faster speeds, which may have additional noise impacts. Moreover, 

increases in noise due to increased rail service would be gradual over time and 

would be intermittent, rather than sudden and sustained. 

Along several segments of the existing railroad (#1, #2, #4, and #6), proposed train 

speeds would increase from a maximum of 60 mph to as high as 90 mph 80 mph. 

Because there are some sensitive land uses in proximity to this segment, the 

incremental noise increase leads to a conclusion of medium compatibility. 

Along existing alignment segment #3, train speeds would not substantially increase

and few sensitive land uses are present. Accordingly, noise compatibility would be 

high. 

Along existing alignment segments #7, #8, and #9, trains could increase from a 

maximum speed of 55 mph to 70 mph. Resultant noise compatibility would be high

along portions that are in agricultural use; low in areas with residential uses. Speeds 

along existing alignment #10 would not substantially increase, but since this is a 

residential area, the resultant noise compatibility would be medium.

Vibration Compatibility

Generally, vibration effects are more localized near the proposed improvement

Build Alternative components, thus the screening distance is shorter than noise 

compatibility. Similarly to the noise compatibility assessment, proposed 

improvements project components within urban/suburban areas have low vibration 

compatibility because there are more sensitive land uses located within the 

vibration screening distances. Vibration impacts are not as prevalent for agricultural 

and open space/undeveloped areas, owing to sparse population and limited 

developed infrastructure in these areas. 

Table 3.3-5 Vibration Compatibility of Build Alternative

Build Alternative 

Components

Land Use/Probability of 

Sensitive Receptors

Vibration Compatibility

Salinas Powered Switch N/A N/A

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #1 

Some potentially Residential buildings; 

Mostly Agricultural land uses

High in Agricultural portions; 

Low in Residential portions

Spence Siding Extension Agricultural High
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.3 Noise and Vibration

3.3-21

Build Alternative 

Components

Land Use/Probability of 

Sensitive Receptors

Vibration Compatibility

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #2 

Some potentially Residential buildings; 

Mostly Agricultural land uses

High in Agricultural portions; 

Low in Residential portions

Gonzales Powered Switch N/A N/A

Soledad Powered Switch N/A N/A

Soledad New Passenger Station Some potentially Residential buildings; 

8 potentially Historic buildings and 1 

potentially Historic park resource

Medium

Harlem/Metz Curve Realignments Mostly Agricultural and Open 

Space/Undeveloped; Some potentially 

Residential properties; 4 potentially 

Historic properties

High in Agricultural portions; 

Low in Residential portions

Chalone Creek New Siding Mostly agricultural and open 

space/undeveloped; Some potentially 

residential properties; 1 potentially 

historic property

High in Agricultural portions; 

Low in Residential portions

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #3

Mostly Agricultural and Open 

Space/Undeveloped; Some potentially 

Residential properties; 2 potentially 

Historic properties

High in agricultural portions; 

Low in Residential portions

Coburn Curve Realignments Mostly Agricultural; Some potentially 

Residential properties

High in agricultural portions; 

Low in Residential portions

King City Siding Extension Mostly potentially Residential 

properties; some Agricultural; 6 

potentially Historic properties

High in agricultural portions; 

Medium in Residential 

portions

King City New Passenger Station Mostly potentially Residential 

properties; 3 potentially Historic 

properties

Medium

King City Powered Switch N/A N/A

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #4

Mostly agricultural and open 

space/undeveloped; Some potentially 

residential properties; 3 potentially 

historic properties

High in Agricultural portions; 

Low in Residential portions

MP 165 Curve Realignment Mostly agricultural; Some potentially 

residential properties; 2 potentially 

historic properties

High in Agricultural portions; 

Low in Residential portions
Coast Corridor

3.3 Noise and Vibration Final Program EIS/EIR

3.3-22

Build Alternative 

Components

Land Use/Probability of 

Sensitive Receptors

Vibration Compatibility

San Lucas New Siding Mostly agricultural; Some potentially 

residential properties

High in Agricultural portions; 

Medium in Residential 

portions

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #5

Agricultural; open space/undeveloped; 

some industrial; some residential

High in Agricultural portions; 

Low in Residential portions

MP 172 Track Realignment Mostly Agricultural; some potentially 

Residential properties; 1 potentially 

Historic property

High in Agricultural portions; 

Low in Residential portions

San Ardo Powered Switch N/A N/A

Getty/Bradley Curve Realignments Open Space/Undeveloped; 1 

potentially Historic property

Medium

Bradley Siding Extension Open Space/Undeveloped High

Bradley Powered Switch N/A N/A

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #6

Open Space/Undeveloped; some 

Industrial and Residential near Camp 

Roberts; 3 potentially Historic 

properties

High in Open 

Space/Undeveloped portions; 

Low in Residential portions

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #7

Many potentially Residential 

properties; some Open 

Space/Undeveloped; 3 potentially 

Historic properties

High in Agricultural portions; 

Low in Residential portions

McKay/Wellsona Curve 

Realignments

Mostly Open Space/Undeveloped; 

some potentially Residential 

properties; 1 potentially Historic 

property

High in Open Space/

Undeveloped portions; Low 

in Residential portions

McKay East Powered Switches N/A N/A

Wellsona New Siding Mostly open space/undeveloped; some 

potentially residential properties; 2 

potentially historic properties

High in Open 

Space/Undeveloped areas; 

Medium in Residential areas

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #8

Many potentially residential 

properties; some open space/

undeveloped; 3 potentially historic 

properties

High in Open 

Space/Undeveloped portions; 

Low in Residential portions
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.3 Noise and Vibration

3.3-23

Build Alternative 

Components

Land Use/Probability of 

Sensitive Receptors

Vibration Compatibility

Wellsona/Paso Robles Curve 

Realignments

Mostly Open Space/Undeveloped; 

some potentially Residential 

properties; 3 potentially Historic 

properties

High in Agricultural portions; 

Low in Residential portions

Templeton Siding Many potentially Residential properties Low

Templeton/Henry Curve 

Realignments

Many potentially Residential properties Low

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #9

Many potentially Residential 

properties; some Open 

Space/Undeveloped; 3 potentially 

Historic properties

High in Open 

Space/Undeveloped portions; 

Low in Residential portions

Henry/Santa Margarita Curve 

Realignment

Many potentially Residential 

properties; 2 potentially Historic 

properties

Low

Santa Margarita Powered Switch N/A N/A

Cuesta Second Main Track Open Space; 1 potentially Historic 

property

High

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #10

Many potentially Residential 

properties; some Open 

Space/Undeveloped; 1 potentially 

Historic property

High in Open 

Space/Undeveloped portions; 

Low in Residential portions

Note: Sensitive receptors reported here may differ in some instances to those reported in Table 3.3-4. This is due 

to different screening distances used in the noise and vibration analyses. 

Source: Circlepoint, 2013; AECOM, 2013; ICF, 2013

Similar to noise compatibility, vibration compatibility is based on the potential to 

result in new effects upon sensitive land uses. Proposed curve realignments could 

potentially move train tracks closer to potential residential buildings, as well as 

allow trains to travel at faster speeds, thereby increasing vibration effects on 

sensitive land uses. The Harlem/Metz and Mile Post 165 curve realignments occur 

in a primarily agricultural area; however, several potentially historic structures are 

located within the vibration screening distances. The proposed Wellsona/Paso 

Robles, Templeton/Henry, and Henry/Santa Margarita curve realignments are 

located in relatively populated areas that also include potentially historic buildings. 

Vibration compatibility of these proposed components improvements is therefore 

low. 
Coast Corridor

3.3 Noise and Vibration Final Program EIS/EIR

3.3-24

There are several potentially historic structures surrounding the footprint of the 

proposed Soledad and King City stations. Freight and passenger train services 

already travel through these downtown districts. The Build Alternative would 

potentially result in increased passenger service but also new stations in these 

communities. If new stations are developed, the result would be that the new Coast 

Daylight passenger service would pass slowly through these communities, resulting 

in a lower level of vibration than if trains passed through at high speed.17 Freight 

and Coast Starlight trains would continue to pass through Soledad and King City 

without stopping at the new stations.

Similarly to proposed curve realignments, new sidings or siding extensions in mostly 

developed areas, such as the proposed King City, San Lucas, and Wellsona sidings, 

could expose populated areas to potential new noise from train idling. Although 

trains currently travel along these areas, new sidings could result in incremental 

addition of idling vibration impacts. Vibration compatibility in these areas is 

moderate.

As with the noise compatibility assessment, track components improvements to 

existing alignment areas would allow trains to safely travel at higher speeds and 

would accommodate a higher capacity of trains on the corridor. Both of these 

factors would contribute to increased vibration to sensitive receptors. Several

notable historic structures and bridges occur within existing alignment areas. The 

Mission San Miguel and the Rios Caledonia Adobes area both within the vibration 

screening distance of segment #7 of the existing alignment. In this area, which 

includes nearby residential lands, track components improvements would allow for 

maximum speeds to increase from 55 mph to 70 mph. The Bradley Bridge, which is 

eligible for the National Record Register of Historic Places (NRHP) (and discussed in 

Section 3.10, Cultural Resources), is located within segment #6 of the existing 

alignment where speeds would increase from a maximum of 60 55 mph to 90 70 

mph. Therefore, vibration compatibility both these areas (segments #6 and #7)

would be low.

3.3.4.3 Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would include the same service as the Build Alternative 

and would retain all corridor-wide and almost all of the same physical components. 

The only differences are that the Preferred Alternative would include modified 

footprints for the King City siding extension and passenger station, and would 

exclude each of the four curve realignments within San Luis Obispo County. 

 

17 FTA, 2006, p. 7-10
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.3 Noise and Vibration

3.3-25

Additionally, the Preferred Alternative includes a 27 mile “island” of CTC between 

MP 202 and 229 (McKay to Santa Margarita). 

Accordingly, effects related to noise and vibration for the Preferred Alternative 

would be the same as the Build Alternative except for the areas where the modified 

or excluded features are located. The discussions below assess noise and vibration 

effects from the modified or excluded components. 

Construction-Period Noise and Vibration Effects

Under the Preferred Alternative, construction activities would be similar to those 

described under the Build Alternative, but the Preferred Alternative excludes four 

curve realignments in San Luis Obispo County that were included in the Build 

Alternative. Therefore, related construction-period noise and vibration impacts 

would be reduced under the Preferred Alternative. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, construction of an additional 27 miles of “island” 

CTC would involve minor construction of signaling equipment, which would be 

similar to noise and vibration impacts for corridor-wide components identified 

within the Build Alternative, which were found not to be substantial/adverse. 

The Preferred Alternative incorporates the revised draft station area plans for the 

City of King passenger station. The proposed station remains in the same general 

area as the plans examined/evaluated as part of the Build Alternative.

Implementation of the revised draft station area plan would not alter the type of 

construction equipment or extend the construction duration in a manner that would 

increase noise and vibration impacts. In addition, the existing railroad tracks would 

not be relocated, and the level of rail activity would be similar to what was assumed 

for the Build Alternative. 

Operational Noise and Vibration Effects

Under the Preferred Alternative, the project components would have similar 

operational period effects as the Build Alternative and would thus result in similar 

noise and vibration impacts as the Build Alternative. The Preferred Alternative 

would include an additional 27 miles of “island” CTC; however, after this feature is 

constructed, no operational noise effects are expected. No new or worsened noise 

and vibration effects would be expected with the Preferred Alternative.

Noise Compatibility

Noise compatibility of the Preferred Alternative would be the same as identified 

above in Table 3.3-4, except for certain areas where the Preferred Alternative 

introduces modifications from the Build Alternative. These modified areas and their 

respective projected noise compatibility are summarized below in Table 3.3.6. 
Coast Corridor

3.3 Noise and Vibration Final Program EIS/EIR

3.3-26

Table 3.3-6 Noise Compatibility of Preferred Alternative

Preferred Alternative 

Components/Current and 

Future Maximum Train 

Speeds in the Area

Predominant Land Use 

Types within Screening 

Distance

Noise Compatibility

King City Siding Extension

Current Max Speed: 60 mph

Future Max Speed: No Change

Agricultural High

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #7 (Including Island CTC 

between McKay and Santa 

Margarita)

Current Max Speed: 40-55 mph

Future Max Speed: 70 mph

Urban/Suburban; some 

Agricultural

High in Agricultural areas; Low in 

Residential areas

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #8 (Including Island CTC 

between McKay and Santa 

Margarita)

Current Max Speed: 40-55 mph

Future Max Speed: 70 mph

Urban/Suburban; some Industrial; 

some Open Space/Undeveloped 

High in Open Space/Undeveloped 

areas; Low in Residential areas

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #9

Current Max Speed Zones: 40-55 

mph; 35 mph

Future Max Speed Zones: 70 mph 

(between mp 218.4-223.0)

Urban/Suburban; Santa Margarita 

Community Park; Pine Mountain 

Cemetery

High in Open Space/Undeveloped 

areas; Low in Residential areas

Source: Circlepoint, 2013; Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013

As shown in Table 3.3-6 above, the Preferred Alternative is located in similar noise 

compatibility areas as the Build Alternative, except the King City Siding Extension, 

which as revised in the Preferred Alternative, would be located exclusively within an 

agricultural area where noise sensitivity is low and, thus, noise compatibility would 

be high. This would reduce potential noise impacts compared to the Build 

Alternative. Along existing alignment segments #7, #8, and #9, trains could increase 

from a maximum speed of 55 mph to 70 mph. Resultant noise compatibility would 

be high along portions that are located in agricultural use and low in areas with 

residential uses. Therefore, construction and operation of the Preferred Alternative 

would not result in new noise and vibration impacts from those identified for the 

Build Alternative. Because the Preferred Alternative excludes four curve 

realignments in San Luis Obispo County, there is no new potential for additional 

noise related effects resulting from curve realignments in this area. The inclusion of 

island CTC from McKay to Santa Margarita would not introduce any new potential

sources for additional noise over existing conditions. Therefore, the Preferred 

Alternative would have a reduced noise impact compared to the Build Alternative.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.3 Noise and Vibration

3.3-27

Vibration Compatibility

Under the Preferred Alternative, construction activities would be similar to those 

described under the Build Alternative, but the Preferred Alternative excludes four 

curve realignments in San Luis Obispo County that were included in the Build

Alternative. Accordingly, vibration impacts would be expected to be lower for the 

Preferred Alternative than the Build Alternative. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, the proposed components would have similar 

operational period effects as the Build Alternative and would, thus, result in similar 

vibration impacts as the Build Alternative. No new or worsened operational 

vibration effects would be expected with the Preferred Alternative.

Table 3.3-7 Vibration Compatibility of Preferred Alternative

Preferred Alternative 

Components

Land Use/Probability of 

Sensitive Receptors

Vibration Compatibility

King City Siding Extension Agricultural High in agricultural portions; 

King City New Passenger Station Mostly potentially Residential 

properties; 3 potentially Historic 

properties

Medium

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #7

Many potentially Residential 

properties; some Open 

Space/Undeveloped; 3 potentially 

Historic properties

High in Agricultural portions; 

Low in Residential portions

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #8

Many potentially residential 

properties; some open space/ 

undeveloped; 3 potentially historic 

properties

High in Open 

Space/Undeveloped portions; 

Low in Residential portions

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #9

Many potentially Residential 

properties; some Open 

Space/Undeveloped; 3 potentially 

Historic properties

High in Open 

Space/Undeveloped portions; 

Low in Residential portions

Source: Circlepoint, 2013; AECOM, 2013; ICF, 2013

Note: Sensitive receptors reported here may differ in some instances to those reported in Table 3.3-4. This is due 

to different screening distances used in the noise and vibration analyses. 

Under the Preferred Alternative, the section between Soledad and King City would 

retain all Build Alternative components without modification, with the exception of 

the King City siding extension. The relocated siding extension would extend from 

MP 156.38 to the north end of the existing siding (MP 158.18), immediately 

adjacent to the existing railroad and within the railroad ROW. Under the Preferred 

Alternative, the siding extension would be located in an entirely agricultural area 
Coast Corridor

3.3 Noise and Vibration Final Program EIS/EIR

3.3-28

with low or no vibration sensitivity. Because the Preferred Alternative excludes four 

curve realignments in San Luis Obispo County, there is no new potential for 

additional vibration related effects resulting from curve realignments in this area. 

The inclusion of island CTC from McKay to Santa Margarita would not introduce any 

new potential sources for additional vibration over existing conditions. Therefore, 

the Preferred Alternative would have a reduced vibration impact compared to the 

Build Alternative.

3.3.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION 

STRATEGIES

The measures listed below are applicable to the Build and Preferred Alternatives 

and were identified at this preliminary stage to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate any 

potentially significant impacts. Individual components improvements comprising 

the Build Alternative would be designed to minimize noise and vibration impacts 

along the Corridor. Strategies have been identified at this preliminary stage to 

avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate any potentially significant impacts. The 

identification and implementation of specific mitigation measures necessary for 

each project component will occur as part of subsequent project-level 

environmental review. Additional avoidance, minimization, and mitigation 

measures would also be identified during that review. 

Mitigation strategies for construction noise and vibration impacts would generally 

include noise control measures that would be applied as needed. Such strategies 

include the following:

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

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

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

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

material, between noisy activities and noise-sensitive receivers.

MIN-NO-5. Re-route construction-related truck traffic along roadways that will 

cause the least disturbance to residents.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.3 Noise and Vibration

3.3-29

MIN-NO-6. Where construction of components improvements requires deep 

foundations, avoid impact pile driving near noise-sensitive areas, where possible. 

Drilled piles or the use of a sonic or vibratory pile driver are quieter alternatives 

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

used, their use will be limited to the periods between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM on 

weekdays.

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

and vibration impacts can would generally be applied to the trains and the path 

between the train and the receiver or property. 

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

transportation sources. Noise walls constructed near the railroad ROW can 

would shield sensitive receptors from train noise as well. Building sound 

insulation can would also be an effective mitigation strategy. 

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

widely applied around airports and has seen limited application for rail projects. 

Although this approach has no effect on noise in exterior areas, it may be the 

best choice for sites where noise barriers are not feasible or desirable, and for 

buildings where indoor sensitivity is of most concern. Substantial improvements 

in building sound insulation (on the order of 5 to 10 dBA) can often be achieved 

by adding an extra layer of glazing to the windows, by sealing any holes in 

exterior surfaces that act as sound leaks, and by providing forced ventilation 

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

 Localities wishing to reduce train horn noise may take the steps needed to 

establish a new quiet zone. This would cease the use of train horns at public 

highway-rail grade crossings. The locality would be required to mitigate the 

increased risk associated with the absence of a horn before receiving approval 

of the quiet zone.

 Vibration impacts can would generally be reduced by vehicle wheel and track 

maintenance efforts. Additional track work and materials such as rail fasteners 

with soft and resilient elements can would provide greater vibration isolation 

than standard fasteners. Ballast mats made of rubber-like material can be 

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

The reduction in ground-borne vibration provided by a ballast mat is strongly 

dependent on the frequency content of the vibration and design and support of 

the mat. 

The appropriateness of these strategies would be determined upon subsequent 

analysis of project improvements components and ground conditions.
Coast Corridor

3.3 Noise and Vibration Final Program EIS/EIR

3.3-30

3.3.6 SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS

Prior to implementing specific elements of the Build Alternative any of the project 

components, additional noise and vibration analysis would be conducted to 

determine existing noise and vibration levels within the areas to be specifically 

affected and to calculate any increases in noise levels and vibration that may result 

from implementing the specific improvement component. If noise and vibration 

levels would increase substantially as a result of the proposed improvement

component and would affect sensitive land uses, the evaluation will identify specific 

mitigation measures to be applied based on those discussed above.
3.3-1

Figure Examples of Typical Outdoor Noise Exposure

Source: FTA, 2006

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS
3.3-2

Figure Typical Ground-Borne Vibration Levels and Criteria

Source: FTA, 2006

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.4 Energy

3.4-1

3.4 ENERGY

This section provides an analysis of the energy effects of the No Build and action

alternatives measured in terms of estimated fuel consumption. The analysis also 

considers and construction period energy usage. The evaluation is based on 

preliminary estimates of projected increases in rail ridership and related potential 

diversions from other modes of transportation, as well as estimates of energy 

consumption during construction based data from similar projects. 

This section describes updates and modifications made in response to comments on 

the Draft Program EIS/EIR. Chapter 5.0, Comments and Coordination, includes all 

comments on the Draft Program EIS/EIR and provides responses to each comment. 

Of all comments received, 2 include reference to the energy analysis of the Draft 

Program EIS/EIR (A-3.21 and A-3.22) but do not warrant any changes to any of the 

Program EIS/EIR analysis (refer to Chapter 5.0 for responses to comments). 

3.4.1 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

3.4.1.1 Federal 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requires vehicle manufacturers to comply 

with the gas mileage, or fuel economy, standards set by the Department of 

Transportation (DOT). CAFE values are obtained using the city and highway fuel 

economy test results and a weighted average of vehicle sales. The EPA administers 

the testing program that generates the fuel economy data. The National Highway 

Traffic and Safety Administration NHTSA, part of DOT, is authorized to assess 

penalties based on the information EPA supplies and to modify the standards.

Executive Order 12185, Conservation of Petroleum and Natural 

Gas

Executive Order 12185 encourages additional conservation of petroleum and 

natural gas by recipients of Federal financial assistance.

1

 

1

December 17, 1979, § 44 F.R.75093
Coast Corridor

3.4 Energy Final Program EIS/EIR

3.4-2

3.4.1.2 State

California Code of Regulations, Title 24, Part 6, Energy Efficiency 

Standards

Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations, Energy Efficiency Standards, 

ensures efficient energy use in new buildings constructed, or for additions and 

alterations to, residential and nonresidential buildings in California. The standards 

regulate energy consumed for heating, cooling, ventilation, water heating, and 

lighting. The standards are updated approximately every three years and are 

enforced through the local building permit process.2 These standards may apply to 

the proposed passenger stations included within the Build action alternatives.

3.4.1.3 Local

Monterey County General Plan

The Monterey County General Plan Conservation/Open Space Element provides 

policies to promote efficient energy use. The use of solar, wind, and other 

renewable resources in new buildings is encouraged, minimization of energy 

expenditure for transportation, and directed development to conserve energy is 

favored.

San Luis Obispo County General Plan

The San Luis Obispo County General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element 

contains policies and implementation strategies related to energy conservation. 

These policies prioritize increased conservation and efficiency in all sectors of 

energy use, development and use of renewable resources, local control of energy 

decisions and sources, decreasing energy consumption, offering incentives for 

energy conservation, and integrating green building practices and incentives.

3.4.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION

This section describes the methods used to estimate the potential energy-related 

impacts and benefits associated with the project components proposed rail 

improvements under study. Impacts resulting from construction and operation are 

identified and evaluated. 

 

2

California Energy Commission, 2014
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.4 Energy

3.4-3

Operational Energy Use 

Energy use from operations is the energy consumed in the actual operation of the 

train as it moves down the track. This energy usage accounts for more than half of 

the total energy used when analyzed in terms of the life of a project.

The analysis of transportation-related energy consumption focuses on the 

estimated fuel consumption relative to the use of existing transportation modes 

(auto, air, etc.). The energy consumption factors for automobiles were obtained 

from the Transportation Energy Data Book: Edition 32, which bases its estimates on 

national averages for road, traffic, and weather conditions and are intended for 

general comparisons.3 The analysis uses ridership findings, diversions from other 

modes of transportation, and any difference in energy usage. Reviewing the 

ridership forecasts from the Coast Daylight SDP provides a quantitative basis for 

calculating the energy consumption from VMT reduction due to increased 

passenger rail ridership.

Construction Energy Usage 

Construction energy usage is the energy needed to construct and maintain a facility, 

and manufacture and maintain vehicles using the facility. The primary construction 

energy consumption for this analysis is the energy that would be used to construct 

and maintain new rail infrastructure. This method uses construction energy 

intensity factors

4

to calculate energy consumption. Table 3.4-1 presents the 

construction energy consumption factors used in this analysis. These estimates are 

appropriate for comparison purposes.

Additional energy resources would be consumed by the manufacturing and 

transportation of materials and equipment to and from any work sites. The amount 

of energy resources cannot be reasonably estimated without detailed construction 

plans and greater certainty about which elements of the Build Alternative action 

alternatives will move forward for further design and potential construction. 

Therefore, energy consumption associated with such uses would be evaluated 

during any subsequent project-level environmental review. 

 

3

USDOE, 2013

4

U.S. Congress, Budget Office 1977; U.S. Congress, Budget Office 1982; California State Department of 

Transportation 1983; ICF International, 2013
Coast Corridor

3.4 Energy Final Program EIS/EIR

3.4-4

Table 3.4-1 Construction-Related Energy Consumption Factors 

Type of Facility Rural Compared to UrbangFactor (billions of BTUs)

Highway – At grade

Rurala17.07/one-way lane mile

Urbanb26.28/one-way lane mile

Highway – Elevated 

Rurala130.38/one-way lane mile

Urbanb327.31/one-way lane mile

Railway – At Grade

Ruralc12.29/one-way trackway mile

Urband19.11/one-way trackway mile

Railway – Elevated 

Ruralc55.46/one-way trackway mile

Urband55.63/one-way trackway mile

Railway – Tunnel NAd99.51/one-way trackway mile

Railway – Station NAe78f/station

a Estimates reflect average roadway construction energy consumption. 

b Estimates reflect range maximum for roadway construction energy consumption. 

c Estimates reflect typical rail system construction energy consumption. 

d Estimates reflect energy consumption for BART system construction as surrogate for rail construction through 

urban area. 

e Discreet (i.e., non-alignment-related facilities) are not differentiated between rural or urban because the data 

used to develop the respective values were not differentiated as such. Some difference between the actual values 

might be expected. 

f Value for construction of freight terminal. Used as proxy for station consumption factors. 

g Differences between the construction-related energy consumption factors for urban and rural settings reflect 

differences in construction methods, demolition requirements, utility accommodation, etc

Source: U.S. Congress, Budget Office 1977; U.S. Congress, Budget Office 1982; California State Department of 

Transportation 1983; ICF International, 2013
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.4 Energy

3.4-5

3.4.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The study area for energy use is the portion of the Coast Corridor between Salinas 

and San Luis Obispo, including the areas inside and outside of the existing railroad 

ROW in which potential physical components improvements would be constructed.

3.4.3.1 Regional Environment

The transportation sector consumes the most energy of all sectors in California, 

making up approximately 38 percent of the total energy budget.5 According to the 

California Energy Commission (CEC), the population in California is expected grow at 

an annual compound average rate of 1.1 percent between 2009 and 2030.6 By 

2020, California’s infrastructure will face increased demands given the estimated 11 

million more people and 98 million added intercity trips. This anticipated 

population growth is expected to result in increased demand for travel in California. 

In general, demand for transportation services (and, therefore, transportationrelated energy use) mirrors growth in population and economic output. In 

California, the CEC used historical trends coupled with current population and 

economic growth and gasoline price projections to estimate that on-road miles 

traveled will increase by 41 percent between 2003 and 2025 statewide—from 314 

billion to 446 billion. Notwithstanding this large increase, the CEC predicts that instate road transportation fuel gasoline usage is anticipated to remain steady at 

about 15 billion gallons of gasoline (315 million barrels of oil-equivalent) per year, as 

a result of the introduction of more fuel-efficient cars.7

3.4.3.2 Electricity Demand

The portion of the Coast Corridor considered in this document is located within the 

70,000 square-mile service area of Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), a large investorowned utility that serves 15 million people throughout northern and central 

California. PG&E produces or buys its energy from a mix of conventional and 

renewable generating sources, which is then delivered via 141,215 circuit miles of 

electric distribution lines and 18,616 circuit miles of interconnected transmission 

lines. 8 

 

5

EIA, 2011

6

CEC, 2010, p. 11

7

CEC, 2005a

8

PG&E, 2013
Coast Corridor

3.4 Energy Final Program EIS/EIR

3.4-6

3.4.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.4.4.1No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative assumes that the only physical rail component

improvement that would be added between Salinas and San Luis Obispo would be 

the implementation of PTC. Construction-period energy use would be assumed

during implementation of such improvements components; operation of PTC would 

also require additional energy usage above existing levels. 

Under the No Build Alternative, enhancement of passenger rail operations between 

Salinas and San Luis Obispo would not occur and existing passenger rail service 

would continue, including the Coast Starlight and Amtrak service to Southern 

California. Therefore, there would be little or no change in operational energy 

consumption related to passenger rail service in the Corridor.

As set forth in Chapter 9 of the SDP, freight rail operations in the Corridor are 

projected to increase. As of 2013, 2 daily long-haul freight trains travel between 

Salinas and San Luis Obispo. By the year 2020, the SDP projects that a total of 4 

daily long-haul freight trains would travel along the Corridor. Accordingly, energy 

consumption related to freight rail would likely increase over existing conditions, 

though new freight rail service would potentially utilize newer, more energy 

efficient locomotive technology.

3.4.4.2 Build Alternative

Construction-Period Energy Usage

The Build Alternative would result in construction energy usage for the manufacture 

of materials, construction activities and equipment associated with implementation 

of the proposed rail improvements Build Alternative components, travel of

construction workers, and potential traffic delays and/or detours (rail and auto) as a 

result of construction. 

Energy-related consumption factors for construction activities are presented in 

Table 3.4-1. Construction-related energy consumption for locomotives varies 

between 12 and 60 million British thermal units (BTU), depending on the location of

construction (i.e., urban/rural and elevated/at-grade). 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.4 Energy

3.4-7

The energy used during construction would be any additional energy consumption 

beyond what is associated with the No Build Alternative. This would constitute 

irretrievable energy expenditure. Specific design and construction plans are needed

to calculate the construction-related energy consumption associated with each

physical improvement Build Alternative component. 

Operational Energy Consumption

The Build Alternative would result in operating 2 additional trains per day, which 

would result in additional energy consumption. 

Implementation of new service would likely result in increased ridership. It is 

expected that some, if not all of the additional passengers would have traveled via 

personal automobile or bus. Reviewing the ridership forecasts from the Coast 

Daylight SDP can provide a quantitative basis for calculating the energy 

consumption from VMT reduction due to increased passenger rail ridership. Table 

3.4-2 below from the Coast Daylight SDP presents annual ridership forecasts for 

2020 and 2040.

Table 3.4-2 2020 and 2040 Annual forecasts for Coast Daylight Service Options

Forecast Year 2020 Forecast Year 2040

Baseline Build Baseline Build

 Annual ridership

Coast Daylight

Markets North of San Luis Obispo 0 87,000 0 217,000

Markets Through San Luis Obispo 0 37,000 0 57,000

Total 0 124,000 0 274,000

Coast Starlight

Markets North of San Luis Obispo 74,000 73,000 103,000 107,000

Markets Through San Luis Obispo 28,000 32,000 37,000 43,000

Total 102,000 105,000 140,000 150,000

Source: Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b

The SDP forecasts increased ridership with the advent of new service, which would 

result in an overall decrease in automobile VMT. As shown in Table 3.4-2, the SDP 

projects that Coast Daylight service would generate about 124,000 annual person 
Coast Corridor

3.4 Energy Final Program EIS/EIR

3.4-8

trips by 2020. This averages to about 300 person trips per day. The SDP roughly 

quantifies the increase in rail ridership into a projected reduction of about 11,000 

daily VMT for the Central Coast/Monterey Bay region as a whole. The projected 

expansion of Coast Daylight service by the year 2040 would further reduce VMT in 

the Central Coast/Monterey Bay region by an additional 15,000 daily miles (26,000 

daily miles total). It is expected that a portion of these passengers would be using 

the rail service in place of vehicle, bus, or air travel, thus reducing transportationrelated energy consumption. These VMT reductions comprise relatively small 

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

reductions in energy consumption.

Table 3.4-3 presents energy use associated with various types of passenger travel

from 2011.

Table 3.4-3 Passenger Travel and Energy Use, 2011

Vehicle 

Miles 

(millions)

Passenger 

Miles 

(millions)

Load 

factor 

(persons/

vehicle

Energy Intensities

Energy Use 

(trillion 

Btu)

(Btu per 

vehicle 

mile)

(Btu per 

passenger 

mile)

Cars 1,561,400 2,420,325 1.55 5,214 3,364 8,140.0

Transit Buses 2,425 21,574 8.9 37,718 4,240 91.5

Air (certified 

route) 5,542 566,622 102.2 269,681 2,638 1,494.7

Intercity Rail 

(Amtrak) 296 6,670 22.5 49,080 2,214 15.5

Source: USDOE, 2013.

As shown in Table 3.4-3, travel by rail is the most energy efficient mode of longdistance, intercity transportation. Intercity rail, such as Amtrak, consumes about

1,000 to 2,000 BTUs per passenger mile less than bus or automobile. This would 

result in substantial BTU savings per passenger mile, which over the life of the 

project would result in notable energy savings relative to the No Build Alternative.

Travel by airplane is also more energy efficient on a mile-by-mile basis when 

compared to automobiles and buses; however, air service is not a viable mode of 

transportation between Salinas and San Luis Obispo. Moreover, intrastate and 

other “short-hop” flights are generally considered less efficient on a fuel-per-mile 

basis, owing to substantial fuel requirements associated with take-off.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.4 Energy

3.4-9

It should be noted that the rail would be more energy efficient only when sufficient 

number of passengers use the train. An empty train would not reduce energy 

consumption. The addition of the Coast Daylight service would have the potential 

to reduce automobile and bus VMT and energy consumption, but it would also 

increase rail VMT and associated energy consumption. The displacement of 

automobile VMT to increased ridership on the railway would result in reduced 

transportation-related energy consumption. However, rail trips would occur 

regardless of whether a person would choose to travel by car or by rail. Thus, there 

would only be a decrease in energy consumption if the traveler chooses to travel by 

rail instead of automobile. 

Physical Improvements

Track Upgrades

Construction-Period Energy Usage

Construction of the track retrofits and upgrades would require manufacturing of 

steel to replace all lumber ties that are currently in place along the alignment. 

Manufacturing the steel and other materials for these track upgrades would 

increase indirect energy use. 

Moderate energy consumption would also result from the use of powered

construction equipment and travel of workers to work sites. Diesel powered trucks

and/or locomotives would be needed to bring equipment and supplies to active 

construction areas. Additional temporary energy consumption would result from 

idling or slowed locomotives due to construction related interruptions to the 

existing railway.

Operational Energy Usage

Upgraded tracks would result in greater efficiencies by reducing friction and 

vibrations. Furthermore, proposed steel rail ties are recognized to require less 

maintenance, thereby resulting in reduced energy consumption from maintenance 

vehicles and equipment.

Signal Upgrades/New Powered Switches

Construction-Period Energy Usage

Construction of the signal upgrades and new powered switches would result in 

minimal indirect energy consumption. Manufacturing the materials needed and 

delivering them to the construction site would require energy use; however, the 

quantity needed is dependent on the number of signals that would be 
Coast Corridor

3.4 Energy Final Program EIS/EIR

3.4-10

replaced/upgraded, which is currently unknown. Some energy consumption would 

occur associated with worker travel to and from the construction sites, but 

extensive use of heavy machinery to install these components improvements is not

anticipated.

Operational Energy Usage

The signal upgrades and new powered switches would improve operational service 

and reliability. Under the current Track Warrant Control (TWC) portions of the 

alignment, train operators must wait for permission from UPRR dispatchers before 

moving from block to block, slowing train speeds and resulting in periods of idling. 

CTC manages this centrally via remotely controlled signals and switches, reducing 

the amount of time trains spend idling, ultimately increasing the efficiency of the 

railway infrastructure.9 These upgrades would likely improve the safety, efficiency, 

and reliability of service, which could result in greater ridership due to improved 

service, as well as allow for denser rail use (more trains on the railroad due to 

greater traffic control and efficiency). This would result in more energy 

consumption with more trains using the rail, but operations would run more

efficiently and, thus, consumption would be offset by increased ridership (less 

individual VMT) and less time spend idling on the rail.

Curve/Track Realignments

Construction-Period Energy Usage

Construction of the curve and track realignments would result in increased indirect 

energy consumption from materials manufacturing. Operation of potential 

construction equipment, construction worker travel, as well as delays and detours 

during construction of the track realignments, would also lead to additional energy 

consumption. Some of this increased energy consumption would be offset by 

improved service efficiency and subsequent increased ridership and related 

reduction in VMT. Given that the curve realignment designs are schematic, specific 

energy reduction resulting from improved service cannot be quantified.

Operational Energy Usage

Operational energy use may increase from improved train speeds along the Corridor 

resulting from track straightening. If one or more curve realignments ultimately 

reduce the length of the railway, this would offset some of the increased energy 

 

9

Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b, p. 9-4
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.4 Energy

3.4-11

consumption related to higher speeds. Furthermore, increased train speeds would 

serve to improve train service, resulting in increased ridership and reduced

consumption from personal automobiles.

Sidings/Siding Extensions and New Second Mainline

Construction-Period Energy Usage

Construction of new sidings, siding extensions, and the new second mainline would 

increase indirect energy consumption from new materials manufacturing. 

Operation of required construction equipment and construction worker travel 

would also lead to additional energy consumption. Some of this increased energy 

consumption would be offset by improved service efficiency and subsequent 

increased ridership and related reduction in VMT.

Operational Energy Usage

Operational efficiency would increase with new and improved siding extensions and 

the new second mainline. There would be fewer passenger train delays as the new 

sidings would accommodate longer freight trains. Increased freight train delays 

could occur, resulting in increased freight rail energy consumption due to idling. 

However, overall less train idling could potentially occur due to more optimal 

locations of siding and increased train speeds. Operation of the new second 

mainline, along with improved signaling, would increase train speeds and result in 

increased locomotive efficiencies (in mpg), and could potentially reduce overall 

operational energy consumption. Personal automobile VMT and associated energy 

consumption would likely be reduced by improving the passenger rail service, and 

result in increased rail ridership.

New Stations 

Construction-Period Energy Usage

Construction of the new passenger stations in Soledad and King City would increase 

indirect energy consumption resulting from manufacturing, operation of required 

construction equipment, and construction worker travel. However, the stations 

themselves would consist of a platform and minimal amenities, thus requiring 

nominal construction materials. Some of this increased energy consumption would

be offset by increased ridership and related reduction in automobile VMT.

Operational Energy Usage

Operation of the new passenger stations would consume some energy, mostly to 

operate ticket stations, restrooms, and other general daily building energy needs. 

Both stations are anticipated to be simple, thus energy requirements will likely be 

low. Additional train stations would introduce new stops along the alignment, and 
Coast Corridor

3.4 Energy Final Program EIS/EIR

3.4-12

could be expected to use more energy to accelerate and decelerate in these 

locations. Increased accessibly to the new stations would likely increase ridership, 

and would offset some of the added energy consumption by reducing personal 

vehicle VMT.

3.4.4.3 Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would include the same service as the Build Alternative 

and would retain all corridor-wide and almost all of the location-specific physical 

components. The only differences are that the Preferred Alternative incorporates 

revised draft plans for the City of King passenger station, includes a modified 

footprint for the King City siding extension, and would exclude each of the four 

curve realignments within San Luis Obispo County. Additionally, the Preferred 

Alternative explicitly includes the aforementioned 27 mile “island” of CTC between 

MP 202 and 229 (McKay to Santa Margarita). 

Accordingly, effects related to energy for the Preferred Alternative would be the 

same as the Build Alternative except for the areas where the modified or excluded 

features are located. The discussion below assesses energy effects relative to such 

modified or excluded features. 

Construction-Period Energy Usage

In the Preferred Alternative, construction activities would be similar to those 

described under the Build Alternative. The Preferred Alternative’s key changes 

include modifications requested by the City of King to a siding extension and station 

area, 27 miles of “island” CTC (signal upgrades), and the removal of four curve 

realignments through the same general area. The Preferred Alternative would 

increase the length of the siding extension in the City of King from 10,000 feet to 

14,800 feet. As a result, this would require more energy to construct than under 

the Build Alternative. However, given the reduced footprint of the new City of King 

passenger station and exclusion of four curve realignments, the Preferred 

Alternative would result in lower energy use compared to the Build Alternative. 

Installation of island CTC would not be expected to require heavy-duty, energy 

intensive machinery for installation. Accordingly, construction-period energy 

expenditures under the Preferred Alternative would be similar to or lower than

under the Build Alternative. 

Operational Energy Consumption

In the Preferred Alternative, Coast Daylight service would operate in the same 

capacity as in the Build Alternative and would, thus, result in similar energy 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.4 Energy

3.4-13

requirements as the Build Alternative with additional service. No new or worsened 

operational energy expenditures would be expected with the Preferred Alternative.

3.4.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION 

STRATEGIES

Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures would be developed and 

implemented as specific improvements are implemented to reduce potential energy 

related impacts. Such strategies may include the following:

The measures listed below are applicable to the action alternatives and have been 

identified at this preliminary stage to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate any 

potentially significant impacts. The identification and implementation of specific 

mitigation measures necessary for each project component will occur as part of 

subsequent project-level environmental review. Additional avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation measures may also be identified during that review.

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

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

construction equipment and materials.

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

provide new passenger service.

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

use public transportation to get to and from active work sites.

MIN-ENG-5. As feasible, minimize grade changes in steep terrain areas to reduce 

the use of diesel fuel.

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

reduce automobile VMT associated with the railway.

3.4.6 SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS

As specific components of the Build Alternative project are further designed, a more 

refined analysis of operation and construction energy usage would be conducted. 

Evaluation and identification of appropriate mitigation measures will be conducted 

during project-level review where the impacts to energy usage would be substantial

appropriate. 
Coast Corridor

3.4 Energy Final Program EIS/EIR

3.4-14

Page intentionally left blank
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.5 Land Use and Planning

3.5-1

3.5 LAND USE AND PLANNING, COMMUNITIES 

AND NEIGHBORHOODS, PROPERTY AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

This section evaluates potential land use and community effects related to the

proposed No Build and action alternatives and includes an assessment of potential

Justice effects impacts to low income and minority populations. 

This section describes updates and modifications made in response to comments on 

the Draft Program EIS/EIR. Chapter 5.0, Comments and Coordination, includes all 

comments on the Draft Program EIS/EIR and provides responses to each comment. 

Of all comments received, six comments (A-3.23 through A-3.28) reference the land 

use/environmental justice section of the Draft Program EIS/EIR. 

The Draft Program EIS/EIR over-reported certain permanent impacts associated with 

new sidings and siding extensions. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 

(FMMP) data was used for analyzing impacts to agricultural resources. FMMP data 

does not account for roads, highways, or railroads. Permanent impacts to FMMP 

categories were thus over-reported due to overlap between existing railroad ROW

(e.g., permanent siding and track/signal upgrade footprints) and FMMP mapping 

data (known as polygons). Therefore, this Final Program EIS/EIR correctly reports 

permanent impacts resulting from the project components as zero since farmland 

does not exist within the railroad ROW.

3.5.1 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

3.5.1.1 Federal

United States Army National Guard

An approximately 7.5 mile long portion of the existing Coast Corridor railroad travels 

through Camp Roberts, a US Army training facility. Within Camp Roberts, the Army 

leases the railroad right of way to UPRR. Easements through this and other Army 

National Guard properties are regulated under 10 USC 2668.

1

 

1

Gardner, Orlando. Realty Officer. Army Corps of Engineers. March 13, 2013 - phone communication. 
Coast Corridor

3.5 Land Use and Planning Final Program EIS/EIR

3.5-2

Los Padres National Forest

About 2 miles of the existing Coast Corridor railroad traverses the Los Padres 

National Forest near the Cuesta Grade north of the City of San Luis Obispo. The 

existing railroad travels through privately held land within the boundaries of the 

National Forest. The Los Padres National Forest, like other national forests, includes 

a mix of public and privately held properties within its boundaries. 

Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition 

Policies Act

The Uniform Act was enacted by Congress to ensure that owners of real property 

that is acquired for federal and federally-assisted projects and persons displaced as 

a direct result of such projects are treated fairly, consistently, and equitably.2 In the 

event any of the proposed improvements use federal assistance towards property 

acquisition, adherence to the Uniform Act is required. 

To comply with the Uniform Act and its implementing regulations, all property 

owners and any persons displaced by a federally funded project must be informed 

in writing of their status and eligibility for any payments or assistance. Such 

payments and assistance may include, but are not necessarily limited to, the 

following:

 Just compensation for property acquired, whether in fee, easement, or other 

form of property rights acquisition. Just compensation will be established by an 

approved appraisal of fair market value or other processes defined in the 

Uniform Act and the regulations.

 An opportunity for the property owner to accompany the appraiser during 

inspection of the property.

 Eligible closing costs and other expenses related to the transfer of property.

 Assistance in finding and relocating to replacement property.

 Eligible expenses for moving personal property to a replacement site.

 Replacement housing payments and related expenses for displaced residential 

owners and tenants.

 Business reestablishment payments to small business and other defined eligible 

entities.

 

2

42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.5 Land Use and Planning

3.5-3

 Written noticed informing property owners and displaced persons of their rights 

and eligibility for assistance.

 A notice that no one will be required to move from the acquired property from 

which they are being displaced for a minimum of 90 days.

Executive Order No. 12898

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

appropriate, any disproportionately high adverse human health and environmental 

effects of their programs, policies, and activities, on minority populations and lowincome populations in the United States.3

 

In summary, the Order directs Federal agencies to conform to existing laws such 

that their actions:

 Do not discriminate on the basis of race, color, or national origin;

 Identify and address disproportionately high and adverse health or 

environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations;

 Provide opportunities for community input in the NEPA process, including input 

on potential effects and mitigation measures.

US DOT Order 5610.2(a) (2012) on environmental justice has defined

“disproportionately high and adverse effect on minority and low-income 

populations” to mean an adverse effect that is predominately borne by a minority 

population and/or a low-income population, or will be suffered by the minority 

population and/or low-income population and is appreciably more severe or greater 

in magnitude than the adverse effect that will be suffered by the non-minority 

population and/or non-low-income population.4 According to CEQ, agencies are 

required to make diligent efforts to involve the public throughout the NEPA process 

and the participation of low-income, minority, and tribal populations are necessary. 

Therefore, adequate outreach to these communities may require adaptive or 

innovative approaches to overcome potential linguistic, cultural, economic barriers 

that would affect their participation.

 

3

Executive Order No. 12898, 1994

4

DOT Order 5610.2, Appendix Definitions, sub.[g]
Coast Corridor

3.5 Land Use and Planning Final Program EIS/EIR

3.5-4

Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Under Title VI, each Federal agency is required to ensure that no person, on the 

ground of race, color, or national origin, is excluded from participation in, denied 

the benefits of, or subjected to discrimination under any program or activity 

receiving Federal financial assistance. 

3.5.1.2 State

California Department of Fish and Wildlife

The existing railroad is immediately adjacent to the Big Sandy Wildlife Area, a nature 

reserve along the Salinas River under the jurisdiction of the California Department 

of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). CDFW has no local area land use plan for Big Sandy 

Wildlife Area.5 Title 14, Section 550 of the California Code of Regulations grants the 

Regional Manager the authority to regulate public use of designated State wildlife 

areas. The southern portion of Big Sandy Wildlife Area is coterminous with a section 

of the Camp Roberts Military Reservation.

3.5.1.3 Local

Local agencies with land use jurisdiction in the study area are the counties of 

Monterey and San Luis Obispo, and the cities of Salinas, Soledad, King, Paso Robles, 

and Atascadero. The existing rail alignment also traverses the incorporated City of 

Gonzales, but no new facilities outside the railroad ROW are proposed there. 

Monterey County General Plan

The Monterey County General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements establish 

policies to guide the maintenance and expansion of rail service in the county. The 

plan protects the potential for future rail transportation and supporting facilities in 

major industrial and commercial centers. The plan includes a general framework to 

encourage growth within or near incorporated cities and designated community 

areas where existing services are available. Transit-oriented development around 

existing and future transportation infrastructure is also encouraged.6

City of Salinas General Plan

The Circulation Element of the City of Salinas General Plan directs the city to work 

with Amtrak to provide commuter rail service to the Silicon Valley and other major 

 

5

Personal Communication with Bob Stafford on March 8, 2013.

6

County of Monterey, 2007, Circulation Element
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.5 Land Use and Planning

3.5-5

destinations. The plan also includes specific policies to support maintenance and 

expanded use of the City’s Intermodal Transportation Center, the local Coast 

Corridor stop. The plan contains broad policies and programs to support an 

integrated transportation network and supportive land use.

City of Soledad 

The City of Soledad General Plan includes a goal to establish a train station in the 

downtown area. The General Plan includes additional goals and policies to promote 

residential and commercial development in close proximity to the station to make 

transit use a convenient and viable alternative transportation mode. 

The General Plan’s goal for a station was furthered through the City’s adoption of a 

Downtown Specific Plan, which calls for the development of an Intermodal Transit 

Station around where the existing railroad travels through Soledad. The Specific 

Plan includes a schematic diagram for the station area, including passenger 

platforms, parking, and ticket kiosks. Prior to adopting the Specific Plan, the City 

certified an accompanying EIR that examined program-level effects of the proposed 

station as part of a larger program of land use and transportation changes in the 

downtown area. 

City of King General Plan

King City has adopted several documents that contain plans and policies supporting 

a downtown passenger rail station along the existing railroad tracks that traverse 

the city. The Historic Corridor Revitalization Plan includes plans for public 

investment and development in the area surrounding the proposed station. The rail 

stop is identified as an important part of the revitalization effort, serving 

commuters, tourists, and downtown businesses. 

Further, the First Street Corridor Master Plan includes conceptual station design 

plans. The plan shows a layout of platforms, parking, and intermodal connection 

points. As described in Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, since publication of the Draft 

Program EIS/EIR the City of King has adopted draft revised plans for the Multi-Modal 

Transportation Center – Conceptual Design [(MMTC) (2014)].

San Luis Obispo County General Plan

The San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element identifies the current rail 

station in San Luis Obispo as an important component of the regional transportation 

network. The plan calls for coordination between different modes of transportation 

to reinforce federal, state, regional, and local agency goals.
Coast Corridor

3.5 Land Use and Planning Final Program EIS/EIR

3.5-6

City of El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) General Plan

The Paso Robles General Plan promotes regional, interstate, and intrastate rail 

service through a broad range of action items, including support of expanding 

Amtrak rail service, and improvements to existing railroad crossings.7 Paso Robles 

has also adopted policies and action items to retain the rural, open space, and 

agricultural areas surrounding the city. The city intends that its designation of a

“Purple Belt” (wine grape belt) will preserve agriculture and open space and limit 

the conversion of lands from viticultural to urban uses.8

City of Atascadero General Plan

The City of Atascadero General Plan recommends improving passenger service on 

the Coast Starlight. The Plan also identifies opportunities to replace existing atgrade crossings with grade separation structures.9, 10

City of San Luis Obispo General Plan

The General Plan for the City of San Luis Obispo includes plans to develop tourism 

services around the existing train station.11 The plan further stipulates that 

residential areas should be separated or screened from the railroad right-of-way.12

3.5.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION

In this analysis, a land use impact is considered significant on the basis of 

compatibility with applicable local land use plans, policies, and regulations adopted 

for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental impact. Proposed 

components improvements are considered significant if determined to conflict with 

any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. 

Additionally, impacts are evaluated for their potential to physically divide an 

established community.

 

7

City of El Paso de Robles, 2011, Circulation Element

8

City of El Paso de Robles, 2003, Open Space Element

9

City of Atascadero, 2002, p. III-5

10 The Coast Corridor project does not propose any changes to the crossings in Atascadero. The project 

presumes leaving these crossing intact. This decision does not, however, preclude the City from 

proceeding with new grade separations in conjunction with Union Pacific. 

11 City of San Luis Obispo, 2010, p. 1-43

12 City of San Luis, 2010, p. 1-29
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.5 Land Use and Planning

3.5-7

The Draft Program EIS/EIR included siding and siding extension in its operational 

impact analysis. As discussed above in Section 3.5.1, operational impacts to 

agricultural and forest resources were over-reported in the Draft Program EIS/EIR,

and included areas within existing ROW. Therefore, permanent impacts due to 

sidings and siding extensions have been revised to report as zero since no protected 

farmland is assumed to exist within the railroad ROW. 

Study Areas

Land Use 

The land use study area includes the existing railroad ROW and surrounding “buffer 

areas” whose sizes are based on the type of proposed physical component 

improvement. The study area distances account for the amount of land that would 

potentially be directly and indirectly disturbed based on the anticipated severity of 

the construction associated with different types of improvements project 

components. 

 Curve Realignments: The study area was comprised of 100 feet on either side of 

proposed realignments for permanent impact areas and 200 feet on either side 

of the proposed alignment for temporary impact areas. 

 Siding Extensions and New Siding: The study area was comprised of the existing 

railroad ROW for permanent impact areas and 50 feet on either side of the 

proposed alignment for temporary impact areas.

 Second Mainline: The study area was comprised of the existing railroad ROW

for permanent impact areas and 100 feet on either side of the ROW for the 

proposed second mainline. 

 Stations: The proposed station impact area is the permanent station footprint 

within the community. Accordingly, these stations footprints are the same as

the station footprints assessed within these local jurisdiction’s planning 

documents.13

To assess potential property acquisition requirements, the study area is 100 feet on 

either side of the alignment centerlines. The study area is intended to represent 

such properties requiring partial or full acquisitions. The study area includes 

 

13 The Draft Program EIS/EIR used the First Street Corridor Master Plan (2013) to assess potential City 

of King station impacts related to geology and soils. In response to comments provided by the City of 

King, the Preferred Alternative uses the conceptual station plans from the Multi-Modal Transportation 

Center – Conceptual Design (2014).
Coast Corridor

3.5 Land Use and Planning Final Program EIS/EIR

3.5-8

portions of several communities and neighborhoods, as discussed further in 

Subsection 3.5.2, Environmental Consequences. 

Environmental Justice

For environmental justice impacts, the study area extends to 1 mile on either side of 

the centerline of proposed alignment changes and 1 mile from the two proposed

new station areas. The breadth of the environmental justice study area provides a 

conservative estimate of the extent to which the Build Alternative action 

alternatives might result in disproportionately high or adverse effects on minority 

and/or low income populations. 

The analysis was conducted using existing U.S. Census 2010 tract and block group 

data compiled in a geographic information systems GIS format. Additionally, aerial 

photos, field observations, review of local general plans or regional plans, and

informal consultation with local planning agencies on current and planned land uses

all informed this analysis. 

Land Use Compatibility

Land use compatibility was determined by comparing the proposed physical 

components improvements with existing land uses. Accordingly, each type of land 

use was assigned a compatibility rating of low, medium, or high based on the 

sensitivity of the existing land use within the proposed improvement study areas. 

For this program-level review, compatibility determinations were based on general 

plan land use designations.14

Table 3.5-1 summarizes the potential compatibility rating of the proposed physical

components improvements with existing land use. A proposed improvement

project component was considered highly compatible if it would be located in areas 

planned for transportation multi-modal centers or corridor development, 

redevelopment, economic revitalization, transit-oriented development, or highintensity employment uses. A proposed improvement project component would 

have medium compatibility if it would require the conversion of land intended for 

multi-family residential, schools, low-intensity industrial, and hospital uses. 

Compatibility would be considered low if an alternative a project component would 

be potentially inconsistent with local or regional planning documents. As the table 

indicates, some land use types can result in varying degrees of compatibility 

 

14 In some instances, local general plans do not designate the existing railroad right-of-way as a 

transportation use, but rather as whatever the adjacent land use may be. Accordingly, potential 

effects to various land use categories may be overstated.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.5 Land Use and Planning

3.5-9

depending on context. Agriculture is one such use; it is also the predominant land 

use throughout the entirety of the corridor. High compatibility is assumed for 

components improvements traveling along agricultural lands, but low compatibility 

is assumed if a improvement component requires the conversion of existing 

agricultural lands to transportation use. As further discussed in Section 3.7, 

Agricultural and Forest Resources, farmland in both Monterey and San Luis Obispo 

counties is highly protected. 

Table 3.5-1 Compatibility of Land Use Types

Low Compatibility Medium Compatibility High Compatibility

Single-family residential, community 

parks, neighborhood park, habitat 

conservation area, elementary/middle 

school (widened or new right-of-way 

needed), agricultural (when widened 

or new right-of-way needed)

Multifamily residential, high 

schools, low-intensity 

industrial, hospitals

Business park/regional commercial, 

multifamily residential, existing or 

planned transit center, high 

intensity industrial park, service 

commercial, commercial recreation, 

college, transportation/utilities, 

high-intensity government facilities, 

airport or train station, agricultural 

(no new right-of-way needed)

Source: Circlepoint, 2013

Property

The analysis assessed existing land uses located adjacent to each proposed 

alignment. Potential property acquisitions were determined based on the potential 

acreage that would be needed for a given physical component improvement and 

whether the land use-type was particularly sensitive to change. Accordingly, 

Table 3.5-2 ranks potential property acquisitions as high, medium, or low based on 

land use-type. Potential impacts include partial or full acquisition of properties, 

displacement and relocation of existing uses, or demolition of properties. 

Table 3.5-2 Rankings of Potential Property Impacts

Urban/ 

Suburban

Industrial Agricultural Open Space

Build Alternative Requirements

No additional right-of-way 

required Low Low Low Low

Widening of existing rightof-way required High Medium High Medium
Coast Corridor

3.5 Land Use and Planning Final Program EIS/EIR

3.5-10

Urban/ 

Suburban

Industrial Agricultural Open Space

New corridor (new right-ofway required) High High High High

Source: Circlepoint, 2013

To identify potential property acquisitions, land uses in the study area were 

characterized by type and cross-referenced against aerial maps to determine 

potential direct impact to structures. 

In Table 3.5-3 below, property acquisitions are assessed as a percentage of private 

property that would need to be acquired to complete each physical component

improvement. This calculation considers the acreage of private land that would be 

required for construction as a percentage of the total acreage required for 

construction.

Communities and Neighborhoods

This section also considers potential impacts on communities and neighborhoods. A 

potential impact to communities and neighborhoods was identified if one of the 

proposed improvements project components would divide an established 

residential community where no division exists under current conditions, potentially 

causing a physical disruption to community cohesion. For the most part, physical 

components improvements to existing transportation corridors would not create 

substantial new community barriers.

Environmental Justice

Environmental justice impacts were determined by comparing the minority and lowincome populations of the study area to the demographics of the nearby cities and 

counties. U.S. Census data was reviewed to determine if such minority or lowincome populations existed within or near the study area using the following 

thresholds.

Communities were considered to be minority or low income if they met at least one 

of the following criteria:

 Whether at least 50 percent of the population in the study area may be minority 

or 25 percent of the population in the study area is low-income;

 Whether the percentage of minority or low-income population in the study area 

may be at least 10 percent greater than the average generally in the county or 

community. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.5 Land Use and Planning

3.5-11

After environmental justice communities were identified, the analysis determined 

whether the proposed physical components improvements would occur within or 

adjacent to an the existing transportation right-of-way railroad ROW or require a 

new alignment potentially encroaching into an environmental justice community.

15

The assessment of potential impacts on minority and low-income populations took 

into consideration the size and type of ROW acquisition that would be necessary for 

the components improvements. For example, if the proposed alignment would be 

within an existing ROW, the potential for impacts would be lower than if the 

alignment would require a new ROW acquisition. 

Nearly all of the proposed components improvements evaluated under the Build 

Alternative action alternatives would be located within or adjacent to existing 

transportation corridors, largely (but not fully) reducing the potential for significant 

adverse impacts generally. This analysis considers the Build Alternative action 

alternatives on a corridor-wide basis. 

3.5.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

A spectrum of different land uses line the corridor. Agricultural uses are 

predominant along the length of the corridor from Salinas to San Luis Obispo, but 

urban and suburban uses are present near city centers. Additional information 

about the location and character of these uses, as well as information about 

property ownership, communities and neighborhoods, and environmental justice 

are provided below. 

3.5.3.1 Existing Land Uses

Urban/Suburban 

Urban/suburban uses can include residential, commercial, and recreational uses and 

are generally concentrated near the cities of San Luis Obispo and Salinas. Smaller 

towns such as Gonzales, Soledad, King City, Paso Robles, and Atascadero also 

support urban uses along the corridor. 

 

15 Census tract data are used here as a reasonable, best-available proxy for the analysis of impacts to 

low-income populations, since as of September 2013, block group level data is not available. Block 

group data for minority populations is available, and is used in this document.
Coast Corridor

3.5 Land Use and Planning Final Program EIS/EIR

3.5-12

Agricultural

Between developed areas, agricultural uses predominate. Agricultural areas are 

most common in the Salinas Valley and inland Central Coast region. Section 3.7, 

Agricultural and Forest Resources, includes information about the agricultural 

character of the study areas. 

Industrial/Public Facilities

Industrial areas border several portions of the right-of-way, comprising large tracts 

near agricultural processing facilities, energy production plants and other facilities. 

In the study area, industrial uses are largely located on the outskirts of urban areas. 

The existing railroad traverses the San Ardo oil and gas field at which occurs drilling 

and processing of crude oil and raw gas products. Public facilities include Camp 

Roberts, an Army National Guard post located north of San Miguel, and state 

prisons in Soledad and near San Luis Obispo. 

Open Spaces/Rural Lands

Open space areas are present in urban and non-urban contexts throughout the

corridor. Big Sandy Wildlife Reserve and Los Padres National Forest are two of the 

largest open space areas adjacent to the corridor; both are located in Monterey 

County. Rural lands are also prevalent in non-urban portions of the project corridor. 

Rural lands can include any other non-developed land not in agricultural use. 

3.5.3.2 Property

The railroad ROW itself is owned by UPRR. The majority of study properties outside 

the ROW are privately owned. One exception is the McKay/Wellsona Curve 

Realignment, where the proposed realignment includes portions of Big Sandy 

Wildlife Area and Camp Roberts.16 Portions of other components improvements

would also cross public roads in some locations.

3.5.3.3 Communities and Neighborhoods

The existing rail alignment traverses several existing communities. The study area 

includes the following incorporated cities: Salinas, Gonzales, Soledad, King City, Paso 

Robles, Atascadero, and San Luis Obispo. Several unincorporated communities are 

 

16 Study area lands along the proposed second mainline in the Los Padres National Forest are privately 

held.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.5 Land Use and Planning

3.5-13

in the study areas, as well. These include: Chualar, San Lucas, San Ardo, Bradley, 

San Miguel, Templeton, and Santa Margarita.

The railroad runs parallel to the freeway that skirts the downtown or central district 

of many of these communities. Communities where the railway does not intersect 

the downtown area include: Chualar, Gonzales, San Lucas, San Ardo, Bradley, San 

Miguel, Templeton, and Atascadero. In other communities, the railroad goes 

through or near the downtown area. These communities include: Salinas, Soledad, 

King City, Paso Robles, Santa Margarita and San Luis Obispo.

There are also long stretches of the existing alignment where the railway passes by 

open space and low-density residential areas. These are not neighborhoods in the 

same sense as the communities identified above; however, communities may form 

around residential areas.

3.5.3.4 Environmental Justice

Communities for which e Environmental justice communities considerations are 

relevant were identified throughout the corridor. As shown in Figure 3.5-1, lowincome environmental justice communities were identified throughout the corridor, 

particularly in urban areas in and outside of San Luis Obispo, near King City, and in 

and outside of Salinas. The majority of the study area within Monterey County 

includes minority environmental justice communities. In San Luis Obispo County, 

demographic data indicates a smaller number of minority environmental justice 

communities. 

Along the entirety of the project corridor, about 46 percent of study area census 

block groups have minority environmental justice communities. About 14 percent 

of census tracts within the study area have populations of people living below the 

poverty line and are, thus, low-income environmental justice communities. 

3.5.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.5.4.1No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative represents the continuation of existing passenger service, 

with some expansion of freight rail traffic. However, the No Build Alternative does 

not include expansion of existing physical components between Salinas and San Luis 

Obispo, with the exception of PTC upgrades. Such PTC signal upgrades would occur 

as part of the No Build Alternative. The PTC improvements would be located 

immediately adjacent to the railroad tracks, within the right-of-way, and would not 

disrupt existing land uses. 
Coast Corridor

3.5 Land Use and Planning Final Program EIS/EIR

3.5-14

Under the No Build Alternative, it is generally assumed, based on local planning 

documents, between today and 2040, there would be no substantial changes in

allowable land uses or to communities in the study area. Moderate changes in land 

use could be expected in urban areas along the right-of-way as a result of growth in 

population, transportation improvement projects, and other economic changes in 

the Coast Corridor region. Additionally, some agricultural lands are anticipated to 

be converted to urban uses, particularly those in proximity to existing communities. 

However, most of the local cities have selectively focused future growth away from 

important agricultural lands. This is particularly true in Monterey County, which has 

adopted strong farmland protection policies, as well as in the Paso Robles 

viticultural region. However, the No Build Alternative would result in little 

perceptible land use change, and no substantial change or effect on land use, 

property ownership, communities, or environmental justice communities. 

3.5.4.2 Build Alternative

Land Use 

Construction-Period Effects

Generally, construction of any of the proposed physical improvements Build 

Alternative components that would be placed within the existing railroad tracks or 

existing railroad ROW (e.g., rail and track upgrades, signal upgrades, and powered

switches) would result in little or no conflict with adjacent or nearby land uses or 

property, as all such work would occur within or immediately adjacent to the 

existing railroad. 

Certain other proposed physical improvements Build Alternative components, such 

as curve realignments and new or extended sidings and the new second mainline

may in some cases diverge substantially from the existing railroad ROW. 

Construction (and as described further below) of such improvements would likely 

require staging areas on adjacent lands that may be in non-transportation related 

uses. Such uses would be temporary, lasting for the duration of construction, after 

which any land use incompatibility would be alleviated. 

During construction, temporary land use impacts could include road closures and 

traffic detours, which could in turn disrupt access to public facilities, emergency 

vehicle access, and pose potential physical barriers to communities and business 

districts. However, these effects would be temporary in duration and upon 

completing construction, the affected areas could would be restored to 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.5 Land Use and Planning

3.5-15

pre-construction conditions. Depending on the design of proposed components

improvements, disruptions in local access or temporary relocation of public facilities 

could would occur, as discussed further in Section 3.1, Traffic and Travel.

Operational Effects 

Land Use Compatibility and Property

Table 3.5-3 summarizes land use compatibility effects by implementation of the 

Build Alternative components. Property acquisitions would be direct effects of the 

proposed action; land use compatibility evaluates for potential indirect effects. 

Certain Build Alternative components would be implemented within or immediately 

adjacent to the ROW (e.g., track and signal upgrades, powered switches, new

sidings, and siding extensions), and would thus have high land use compatibility as 

they would complement the underlying transportation use. 

Land use compatibility is also considered high for the two proposed stations, as the 

receiving cities of Soledad and King City have each adopted land use plans indicating 

conceptual station area plans consistent with the Build Alternative. Both cities also 

support the proposed reinstitution of Coast Daylight service. 

The proposed second mainline also has a generally high compatibility, as it would be 

located immediately adjacent to the existing transportation corridor, likely within 

the existing railroad ROW. To the extent the second mainline requires land outside 

the ROW, compatibility may be lower in areas that would traverse within the

boundaries of the Los Padres National Forest. 

Land use compatibility is generally considered low for components requiring lands 

outside of the ROW. However, as noted in Table 3.5-1, the compatibility 

determination depends on the type of land proposed for conversion. Industrial or 

transportation related properties would be considered compatible, whereas 

conversion of agricultural or residential lands would be considered highly 

incompatible. 

All curve realignments, as well as several sidings and extensions, would require 

acquisition of lands outside the existing railroad ROW and the conversion of such 

lands to railroad use. Acquisition of adjacent agricultural, residential, and open 

space lands would result in an incompatible land use. Particularly, the 

Harlem/Metz, Coburn, and MP 172 curve realignments would require acquisition of 

agricultural land adjacent to the Salinas River. As such, these curve realignments 

would have low land use compatibility.
Coast Corridor

3.5 Land Use and Planning Final Program EIS/EIR

3.5-16

Communities and Neighborhoods

Potential direct impacts to communities and neighborhoods could occur if a 

proposed physical improvement project component would divide an existing 

residential neighborhood where no division exists under existing conditions. 

With few exceptions, the proposed physical improvements within the Build 

Alternative components are within or immediately adjacent to the existing railroad 

ROW. The proposed train controls, track and rail upgrades, new sidings, and siding 

extensions, and power switches would all be placed within the existing railroad 

ROW and, accordingly, would not have any substantial potential to create a new 

division or substantially exacerbate any existing divisions. 

The proposed Build Alternative physical components improvements that would

diverge from the existing railroad ROW (particularly curve realignments, new 

sidings, siding extensions, and the second mainline) are generally located in

proposed for agricultural or open space areas or otherwise would be outside of

intensely developed neighborhoods and existing communities. However, as noted 

in Table 3.5-3, some of the curve realignments would require land currently in 

residential use, which could lead to an adverse effect within affected communities. 

The Wellsona/Paso Robles and Henry/Santa Margarita curve realignments in 

particular, would be are located in residential areas within San Luis Obispo County. 

As such, these curve realignments would likely require partial or full acquisition of 

some residential properties within established communities. However, the existing 

railroad already travels through these communities and, thus, would not create a 

new barrier that would separate neighborhoods.

Environmental Justice

Construction-Period Effects

Figure 3.5-2 depicts the environmental justice communities in proximity to 

proposed components improvements. In general, the majority of environmental 

justice communities are located within Monterey County, particularly near 

proposed components improvements such as the Harlem/Metz curve realignment, 

New Chalone Creek siding, Coburn Curve realignment, and King City siding. 

Environmental justice communities near such proposed improvements project 

components would potentially experience some of the noted construction effects. 

It should be emphasized that the number, timing, and potential phasing of Build 

Alternative improvements components is highly uncertain. Notwithstanding,

construction of any of the individual Build Alternative improvements components

would produce noise levels higher than the ambient conditions, localized air quality 

effects, and changes to the visual character and quality of the surroundings. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.5 Land Use and Planning

3.5-17

Depending on which elements of the Build Alternative are selected for further 

design and eventual construction, environmental justice effects could occur if the 

elements so selected were disproportionately located within identified 

environmental justice communities and elements discarded were outside such

communities. Any further NEPA analysis that may be performed on selected 

improvements components will need to further examine this potential for 

environmental justice effects. 

At the programmatic, Tier 1 level, however, the Build Alternative components

improvements as a whole are widely distributed throughout the Salinas to San Luis 

Obispo corridor and, accordingly, would not result in a concentration of 

construction related effects upon such communities. 

Operational Effects

Similar to the discussion above for construction-related effects, there is 

considerable uncertainty as to which, if any, of the proposed improvements Build 

Alternative components would become operational. Any further NEPA analysis that 

may be performed will need to consider if the range of selected components

improvements is disproportionately are within environmental justice communities 

and if such a selection would constitute an would result in disproportionate impacts 

to those communities environmental justice effect. 

It should also be noted that the aspects of the Build Alternative offer potential 

benefits that would be shared broadly. The potential benefit of increased and 

improved service would have a direct benefit to all communities, including 

environmental-justice qualifying communities through minor improvements to 

regional air quality and traffic. 

As shown in Section 3.2, Air Quality and Greenhouse Gases, the Build Alternative 

has modest potential to reduce air pollutants within the Central Coast region as a 

whole, which includes the environmental justice communities along the Coast 

Corridor between Salinas and San Luis Obispo. The Build Alternative would thus 

result in somewhat improved air quality effects for the area as a whole. 

The analysis below describes the potential operational effects of various elements 

of the Build Alternative components. The factors described would be important to 

carry forward in any future project-level NEPA review that may occur. 

Existing Alignment: All ten segments of the existing alignment between Salinas and 

San Luis Obispo are located within one or more environmental justice communities. 

Once implemented, upgrades to existing tracks along the alignment would allow for 

trains to safely travel at faster speeds, which may result in moderate and 

intermittent increases in noise levels along the much of existing right-of-way. The 
Coast Corridor

3.5 Land Use and Planning Final Program EIS/EIR

3.5-18

greatest increase in operational noise would occur along segments #1, #2, #4, and 

#6 of the existing alignment. 

New Sidings and Siding Extensions: Six out of seven proposed sidings/siding 

extensions would occur within minority environmental justice communities.

However, half of these sidings near environmental justice communities would 

involve the extension of an existing siding (as opposed to construction of a new 

siding), and would therefore be expected to have a less substantial impact on the 

surrounding community. Localized air quality effects could occur in areas of new 

and/or extended sidings. In both such locations, trains may dwell for extended 

periods, resulting in pollution concentrations in specific areas. As a result, there is 

the potential for proposed siding improvements to have an impact on 

environmental justice communities, particularly if sidings were to increase idling, 

noise, and/or pollutant emissions in environmental justice communities. 

New Stations: New stations proposed for Soledad and King City would both be 

constructed within a minority environmental justice community. The King City 

station area is within a low-income environmental justice community as well. If new 

stations are developed and Coast Daylight service created, new trains would travel 

relatively slowly through these communities. Stations introduce the potential that 

trains could dwell for extended periods in the respective communities, thereby 

introducing the possibility of localized air quality impacts. However, new stations 

would provide additional travel options for both Soledad and King City and could 

result in beneficial economic effects. If one or both stations receive seek federal 

funding for construction, potential effects to environmental justice communities 

would be assessed in future project-level environmental documentation, as 

described in subsection 3.5.5, Mitigation Strategies and Subsequent Analysis. 

Curve Realignments: Seven out of eight proposed curve realignments would occur 

within minority or low-income environmental justice communities, as identified in 

Table 3.5-3. Particularly high numbers of environmental justice communities are 

present near the Harlem/Metz curve realignment. Many of these proposed curve 

realignments involve multiple segments of rail proposed for realignment; some of 

these segments are not located near environmental justice communities.

Notwithstanding, there is potential for the proposed curve realignments to have an 

impact on environmental justice communities because curve realignments would 

require land acquisition/conversion of lands to a transportation use. Curve 

realignments could potentially add noise and visual implications by realigning the 

tracks closer to residents. 

As shown in Section 3.3, Noise and Vibration, potential noise effects are most likely 

to occur at the proposed Wellsona/Paso Robles, Templeton/Henry, and 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.5 Land Use and Planning

3.5-19

Henry/Santa Margarita curve realignments. The area surrounding the 

Wellsona/Paso Robles and Henry/Santa Margarita curve realignments includes

environmental justice communities. Areas near the Templeton/Henry curve 

realignment do not include environmental justice communities. Visual changes 

along the corridor are discussed in detail in Section 3.6, Aesthetic and Visual 

Resources. Since the proposed components improvements are primarily located 

along an existing railroad ROW, no fundamental changes are expected to occur in 

the visual character of the study area. However, curve realignments would likely 

occur outside the right-of-way if they are to substantially reduce the degree of 

existing track curvature. 

Second Main Track: There are no environmental justice qualifying communities 

located near the proposed second main track. Therefore, neither construction nor 

operation of the second main track is expected to result in an impact to 

environmental justice communities. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.5 Land Use and Planning

3.5-20

Table 3.5-3 Build Alternative: Potential Impacts to Land Use, Property, and Environmental Justice

Build Alternative 

Components

Land Use 

Compatibility

Percent of Private 

Land Potentially 

Necessary for 

Acquisition

Includes Minority 

Environmental Justice 

Communities?

Includes Low-Income 

Environmental Justice 

Communities?

Salinas Powered Switch Within ROW: High N/A N/A N/A

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #1 Within ROW: High N/A Yes, 31 block groups Yes, 5 tracts

Spence Siding Extension

Agricultural: Low

Industrial: Low

100% Yes, 4 block groups None

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #2 Within ROW: High N/A Yes, 15 block groups Yes, 2 tracts

Gonzales Powered 

Switch Within ROW: High N/A N/A N/A

Soledad Powered Switch Within ROW: High N/A N/A N/A

Soledad New Passenger 

Station

Commercial: High

Public Facilities: High

100% Yes, 6 block groups None

Harlem/Metz Curve 

Realignments

Agricultural: Low

Industrial: Low

100% Yes, 3 block groups None

Chalone Creek New 

Siding 

Agricultural: Low

Industrial: Low

100% Yes, 2 block groups None
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.5 Land Use and Planning

3.5-21

Build Alternative 

Components

Land Use 

Compatibility

Percent of Private 

Land Potentially 

Necessary for 

Acquisition

Includes Minority 

Environmental Justice 

Communities?

Includes Low-Income 

Environmental Justice 

Communities?

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #3 Within ROW: High N/A Yes, 4 block groups None

Coburn Curve 

Realignments Agricultural: Low 100% Yes, 2 block groups No

King City Siding 

Extension

Agricultural: Low

Commercial: Low

Industrial: Low

Residential: Low

100% Yes, 8 block groups Yes, 1 tract

King City New Passenger 

Station Commercial: High 100% Yes, 8 block groups Yes, 1 tract

King City Powered 

Switch Within ROW: High N/A N/A N/A

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #4 Agricultural: High N/A Yes, 5 block groups Yes, 1 tract

MP 165 Curve 

Realignment Agricultural: Low 100% Yes, 2 block groups No

San Lucas New Siding 

Agricultural: Low

Industrial: Low

100% Yes, 3 block groups No
Coast Corridor

3.5 Land Use and Planning Final Program EIS/EIR

3.5-22

Build Alternative 

Components

Land Use 

Compatibility

Percent of Private 

Land Potentially 

Necessary for 

Acquisition

Includes Minority 

Environmental Justice 

Communities?

Includes Low-Income 

Environmental Justice 

Communities?

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #5

Within ROW: High N/A Yes, 3 block groups No

MP 172 Track 

Realignment Agricultural: Low 100% Yes, 1 block group No

San Ardo Powered 

Switch Within ROW: High N/A N/A N/A

Getty/Bradley Curve 

Realignments Agricultural: Low 100% Yes, 1 block group No

Bradley Siding Extension Agricultural: Low 100% Yes, 1 block group No

Bradley Powered Switch Within ROW: High N/A N/A NA

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #6 Within ROW: High N/A Yes, 2 block groups No

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #7

Within ROW: High N/A Yes, 2 block groups No

McKay/Wellsona Curve 

Realignments

Agricultural: Low

Public facilities: Low

53.75% Yes, 2 block groups No

McKay East Powered 

Switches Within ROW: High N/A N/A N/A

Wellsona New Siding Residential: Low 100% Yes, 1 block group No
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.5 Land Use and Planning

3.5-23

Build Alternative 

Components

Land Use 

Compatibility

Percent of Private 

Land Potentially 

Necessary for 

Acquisition

Includes Minority 

Environmental Justice 

Communities?

Includes Low-Income 

Environmental Justice 

Communities?

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #8 Within ROW: High N/A Yes, 3 block groups No

Wellsona/Paso Robles 

Curve Realignments Agricultural: Low 100% Yes, 1 block group No

Templeton Siding

Extension Within ROW: High 98.96% No No

Templeton/Henry Curve 

Realignments Recreation: Low 100% No No

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #9 Within ROW: High N/A Yes, 1 block group Yes, 1 tract

Henry/Santa Margarita 

Curve Realignment

Agricultural: Low

Residential: Low

99.92% Yes, 1 block group Yes, 1 tract

Santa Margarita

Powered Switch Within ROW: High N/A N/A N/A

Cuesta Second Main 

Track Within ROW: High 100% No No

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #10 Within ROW: High N/A Yes, 1 block group Yes, 6 tracts

Source: ICF, 2013
Coast Corridor

3.5 Land Use and Planning Final Program EIS/EIR

3.5-24

3.5.4.3 Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would include the same service as the Build Alternative 

and would retain all corridor-wide and almost all of the same physical components. 

The only differences are that the Preferred Alternative would include modified 

footprints for the City of King siding extension and the City of King station, and 

would exclude each of the four curve realignments within San Luis Obispo County. 

Additionally, the Preferred Alternative includes a 27 mile “island” of CTC between 

MP 202 and 229 (McKay to Santa Margarita). 

Accordingly, effects on land use and planning for the Preferred Alternative would be 

the same as the Build Alternative except for the areas where the modified or 

excluded components are located. The discussions below assess land use and 

planning effects relative to such modified or excluded components.

Land Use 

Construction-Period Effects

Under the Preferred Alternative, construction activities would be similar to those 

described under the Build Alternative. However, because the Preferred Alternative 

excludes four curve realignments within San Luis Obispo County, land use impacts 

during construction would likely be reduced compared to the Build Alternative. 

The footprint of the King City siding extension in the Preferred Alternative has been 

modified to extend exclusively to the north of the existing siding. Although the 

siding extensions would be constructed within railroad ROW, construction of such 

components could require temporary use of land outside of the ROW for staging 

and other construction activities. The vast majority of these lands are in agricultural 

use; other nearby land uses include roads and utility uses. Based on currently 

available conceptual design, construction period impacts would be most likely to 

occur in agricultural or utility areas. 

Construction of the 27 miles of island CTC would occur within and adjacent to the 

existing railway between sections 6 through 9. CTC equipment itself would be 

placed at periodic intervals within the railroad ROW. No heavy construction 

equipment and equipment staging would be required to implement CTC; therefore,

no substantial construction-period effects would be likely to occur. 

Overall, construction impacts to land use would be expected to be lower for the 

Preferred Alternative than for the Build Alternative.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.5 Land Use and Planning

3.5-25

Operational Effects 

In the Preferred Alternative, Coast Daylight service would operate in the same 

capacity as in the Build Alternative and would thus result in similar land use effects 

as the Build Alternative. Given the exclusion of four proposed curve realignments, 

the Preferred Alternative would require fewer permanent property and land 

acquisitions than the Build Alternative. The King City siding extension and island 

CTC would be located within the existing railroad ROW and thus would have no 

substantial effects to land use. The station would be built within a commercial area 

in the City of King, and would be highly compatible with the surrounding land uses.

Overall, operational land use impacts would be expected to be lower for the 

Preferred Alternative than the Build Alternative. 

Environmental Justice

Construction-Period Effects

Under the Preferred Alternative, construction activities would be similar to those 

described under the Build Alternative. In general, the majority of environmental 

justice communities are located within Monterey County, particularly near the 

Harlem/Metz curve realignment, New Chalone Creek siding, Coburn Curve 

realignment, and the King City siding extension. As shown in Table 3.5-4, the 

modified footprint of the King City siding extension in the Preferred Alternative has 

the potential to affect five minority environmental justice block groups, three fewer 

than in the Build Alternative. The number of low income environmental justice 

communities is the same between the Preferred Alternative and the No Build 

Alternative

Additionally, there are environmental justice communities located near three of the 

four curve realignments proposed in the Build Alternative within San Luis Obispo 

County. These curve realignments have been excluded from the Preferred 

Alternative and the potential for impacts in these areas would likely be reduced. 

As previously discussed, implementation of island CTC would not require any heavy 

machinery, thus associated impacts to environmental justice communities would 

likely be low. Accordingly, construction-period impacts to environmental justice 

communities would be expected to be lower for the Preferred Alternative than the 

Build Alternative. 
Coast Corridor

3.5 Land Use and Planning Final Program EIS/EIR

3.5-26

Operational Effects

Under the Preferred Alternative, Coast Daylight service would operate in the same 

capacity as in the Build Alternative and would, thus, result in similar environmental 

justice effects as the Build Alternative. 

The Preferred Alternative excludes the four curve realignments in San Luis Obispo 

County; therefore, operational noise, air quality, visual quality, etc. effects to 

environmental justice communities in these locations would be reduced compared

to the Build Alternative. Additionally, passenger train operations would be 

expanded on the existing rail alignment in this area, thus serving nearby 

communities. 

Furthermore, fewer minority environmental justice communities are located near 

the revised King City siding extension; thus operational impacts to such communities 

would be reduced in this location (see Table 3.5-4). The number of low income 

environmental justice communities is the same between the Preferred Alternative 

and the No Build Alternative.

Lastly, the island CTC would be located within railroad ROW, and once operational, 

would not be expected to have any substantial impacts to nearby communities. 

Accordingly, operational environmental justice impacts would be expected to be 

lower for the Preferred Alternative than the Build Alternative. 

3.5.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION 

STRATEGIES

3.5.5.1 Land Use Compatibility and Property

The measures listed below are applicable to the Build and Preferred Alternatives 

and have been identified at this preliminary stage to avoid, minimize, and/or 

mitigate any potentially significant impacts. The identification and implementation 

of specific mitigation measures necessary for each project component will occur as 

part of subsequent project-level environmental review. Additional avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation measures may also be identified during that review.

Potential mitigation strategies to alleviate or minimize impacts to land use 

associated with the Build Alternative would include, but not be limited to, the 

following:
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.5 Land Use and Planning

3.5-27

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

design that would normally precede construction would avoid or minimize the 

potential for land use displacement and property acquisition, whether temporary 

and/or permanent, residential or non-residential. 

A-LU-2. Design strategies could would be implemented to avoid or minimize the 

temporary or permanent acquisition of properties to the extent feasible. 

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

occurs, relocation assistance procedures in accordance with the Federal Uniform 

Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 would be 

implemented. 
Coast Corridor

3.5 Land Use and Planning Final Program EIS/EIR

3.5-28

Table 3.5-4 Preferred Alternative: Potential Impacts to Land Use, Property, and Environmental Justice

Build Alternative 

Components

Land Use 

Compatibility

Percent of Private 

Land Potentially 

Necessary for 

Acquisition

Includes Minority 

Environmental Justice 

Communities?

Includes Low-Income 

Environmental Justice 

Communities?

King City Siding 

Extension Agricultural: Low 91% Yes, 5block groups Yes, 1 tract

King City New Passenger 

Station Commercial: High 53% Yes, 8 block groups Yes, 1 tract

McKay/Wellsona Curve 

Realignments None. This improvement is not part of the Preferred Alternative.

Wellsona/Paso Robles 

Curve Realignments None. This improvement is not part of the Preferred Alternative.

Templeton/Henry Curve 

Realignments None. This improvement is not part of the Preferred Alternative.

Henry/Santa Margarita 

Curve Realignment None. This improvement is not part of the Preferred Alternative.

Source: ICF, 2013
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.5 Land Use and Planning

3.5-29

3.5.5.2 Communities and Neighborhoods

Although this document found few community/neighborhood effects resulting from 

the Build Preferred Alternative, some of the specific elements of the Preferred

Alternative proposed improvements components of the action alternatives may 

result in property acquisitions that could adversely affect communities and 

neighborhoods along the existing railroad. While one at-grade crossing would be 

created as part of the Preferred Alternative curve realignment at MP 172, the 

crossing is not located within a populated neighborhood that would reduce 

community interactions from existing conditions. The identification and 

implementation of specific mitigation measures necessary for each project 

component would occur as part of subsequent project-level environmental review. 

Additional avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures may also be identified 

during that review.

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

community and neighborhood interaction. 

MIN-LU-5. Consultation with local governments and planning agencies throughout 

the design effort could would be conducted in order to maintain or enhance

neighborhood integrity. 

MIN-LU-6. If the MP 172 curve realignment is constructed and includes a new atgrade crossing at Cattlemen Road, potential strategies to reduce community effects 

could would include additional grade separation of rail lines and streets, new 

pedestrian crossings, new cross-connection points, improved visual quality of 

project facilities, and traffic management plans that maintain access during and 

after construction.

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

communities could would be addressed through site-specific measures. Potential 

strategies to alleviate or minimize impact to community during construction may 

include, but would not be limited to, the following:

 Provide opportunities for community involvement early in future environmental

studies;

 Facilitate design workshops within affected neighborhoods to learn from the 

community which circulation elements (automobile, bicycle, pedestrian) in the 

impacted area are most critical so that those elements can be preserved;

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

the project that reflect the character of adjacent affected neighborhoods;
Coast Corridor

3.5 Land Use and Planning Final Program EIS/EIR

3.5-30

 Ensure that key connections (pedestrian/bicycle and vehicular crossings) across 

the rail corridor are maintained where necessary to maintain neighborhood 

integrity;

 Complete a construction logistics analysis to determine approximate durations, 

impacts and localized mitigation measures to reduce disruption to communities, 

activities, traffic and circulation;

 Develop traffic management plans that reduce barriers during construction;

 Where feasible, maintain connectivity during construction;

 Implement measures to maintain high level of visual quality in the 

neighborhood. Such measures can include visual buffers, trees and other 

landscaping, architectural design and public artwork; and

 Implement procurement specifications and incentives for construction 

contractors designed to reduce the duration and disruption of construction. 

Potential requirements include restrictions on construction vehicle traffic and 

routes, haul routes, hours of permitted construction activity, and advance public 

notification of all closures or expected travel delays.

3.5.5.3 Environmental Justice

The measures listed below are applicable to the action alternatives and have been 

identified at this preliminary stage to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate any 

potentially significant impacts. The identification and implementation of specific 

mitigation measures necessary for each project component would occur as part of 

subsequent project-level environmental review. Additional avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation measures may also be identified during that review. 

Potential strategies to avoid or minimize impacts to land use associated with the 

Preferred Alternative could include, but not be limited to, the following:

 A-LU-8. In selecting components of the action alternatives Build Alternative to 

carry forward for design and potential construction and operation, examine 

whether the selected components improvements are disproportionately located 

within environmental justice communities. Environmental justice effects would 

could potentially be avoided if the components improvements carried forward 

are not disproportionately located within environmental justice communities. 

 MIN-LU-9. EO 12898 requires federal agencies to ensure effective public 

participation and access to information. Compliance with EO 12898 involves 

outreach to the potentially affected minority and/or low-income population to 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.5 Land Use and Planning

3.5-31

identify issues of importance that may not otherwise be considered. Outreach 

to affected communities would be conducted during the decision-making 

process and identification of any necessary mitigation measures.

 MIN-LU-10. DOT Order 5610.2 requires DOT agencies to establish opportunities 

for meaningful public involvement by members of minority populations during 

activities including identification of potential mitigation measures. Minority and 

low-income populations would be provided with access to information about 

health and environmental impacts, measures to avoid, minimize and/or to 

mitigate any disproportionately high and adverse effects and offsetting benefits 

and opportunities to enhance affected communities, neighborhoods, or 

individuals during an outreach program conducted as part of the decisionmaking process.

 MIN-LU-11. As indicated in the Environmental Consequences section above, 

many of the proposed curve realignments associated with the action 

alternatives involve multiple segments, some near and some distant from 

environmental justice communities. A potential avoidance/minimization 

strategy would be to omit portions of multiple segment curve realignments that 

include environmental justice communities or where such impacts could would

be deemed to be disproportionately concentrated. 

 MIN-LU-12. Special attention would be given to any permanent impact 

categories that are commonly of concern for this type of project and to those 

that previously have been identified as being of concern. These include:

 Air quality

 Noise and vibration

 Public health

 Visual resources/aesthetics

 Parklands

 Relocation

3.5.6 SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS

Prior to implementing any proposed improvements components of the action 

alternatives components of the Build Alternative, site specific evaluation should 

would be conducted of the potential for land use compatibility and the need for 

property acquisition, including the potential for displacement of homes or 

businesses or substantial conflict with locally adopted land use policies. Any homes

or businesses with the potential for displacement could would be studied through a 
Coast Corridor

3.5 Land Use and Planning Final Program EIS/EIR

3.5-32

relocation impact analysis. If project-level environmental review under NEPA 

proceeds, anticipated effects to identified environmental justice communities would 

be assessed with best-available information to help determine whether impacts are 

disproportionate on minority or low-income communities. Additional 

environmental assessment and design development to determine alignment options 

during future studies will ensure a more precise evaluation of site-specific impacts 

and mitigation effectiveness. 
Spence Siding

H

EA-2

EA-1 H

H

EA-1

Chualar

Spreckels

Salinas

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Generalized Existing Land Uses

Figure 3.5-1a

Legend

Land Use

Agriculture

City Roads

Commercial

Industrial

Mixed Use

Open Space

Other

Public Facilities

ROW

Recreation

Residential

Rural Lands

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1a ±

±

0 1 2

Miles

1:75,000
Harlem/Metz Harlem/Metz

Harlem/Metz New Chalone Creek

H

EA-3

EA-2 H

Soledad

Gonzales

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Generalized Existing Land Uses

Figure 3.5-1b

Legend

Land Use

Agriculture

City Roads

Commercial

Industrial

Mixed Use

Open Space

Other

Public Facilities

ROW

Recreation

Residential

Rural Lands

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1b ±

±

0 1 2

Miles

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

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Generalized Existing Land Uses

Figure 3.5-1c

Legend

Land Use

Agriculture

City Roads

Commercial

Industrial

Mixed Use

Open Space

Other

Public Facilities

ROW

Recreation

Residential

Rural Lands

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1c ±

±

0 1 2

Miles

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

San Lucas Siding

EA-5

H

EA-4

H

H

EA-4

UV198

San

Lucas

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Generalized Existing Land Uses

Figure 3.5-1d

Legend

Land Use

Agriculture

City Roads

Commercial

Industrial

Mixed Use

Open Space

Other

Public Facilities

ROW

Recreation

Residential

Rural Lands

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1d ±

±

0 1 2

Miles

1:75,000
Getty/Bradley

Getty/Bradley

Getty/Bradley

Bradley Siding

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

Generalized Existing Land Uses

Figure 3.5-1e

Legend

Land Use

Agriculture

City Roads

Commercial

Industrial

Mixed Use

Open Space

Other

Public Facilities

ROW

Recreation

Residential

Rural Lands

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1e ±

±

0 1 2

Miles

1:75,000
Wellsona/Paso Robles

McKay/Wellsona

McKay/Wellsona

McKay/Wellsona

Wellsona Siding

H

EA-8

H

H

EA-7

EA-6 H

EA-7

El Paso de

Robles (Paso

Robles)

San

Miguel

£¤101

£¤101 £¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Generalized Existing Land Uses

Figure 3.5-1f

Legend

Land Use

Agriculture

City Roads

Commercial

Industrial

Mixed Use

Open Space

Other

Public Facilities

ROW

Recreation

Residential

Rural Lands

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1f ±

±

0 1 2

Miles

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

Henry/Santa Margarita

Henry/Santa Margarita

Henry/Santa Margarita

Templeton Siding

Second Main Line

H

EA-10

EA-9 H

H

EA-9

EA-8 H

Atascadero

El Paso de

Robles (Paso

Robles)

Templeton

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Generalized Existing Land Uses

Figure 3.5-1g

Legend

Land Use

Agriculture

City Roads

Commercial

Industrial

Mixed Use

Open Space

Other

Public Facilities

ROW

Recreation

Residential

Rural Lands

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1g ±

±

0 1 2

Miles

1:75,000
H

enry/SantaMargarita

SecondMainLine

E

A

-

1

0

H

H

E

A

-

1

0

E

A

-

9

H

Arroyo

Grande

SanLuis

Obispo

£¤101

CoastCorridorImprovementsEIR/EIS

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

GeneralizedExistingLandUses

Figure

3.5-1h

Legend

LandUse

Agriculture

CityRoads

Commercial

Industrial

MixedUse

OpenSpace

Other

PublicFacilities

ROW

Recreation

Residential

RuralLands

ProjectComponents

ExistingAlignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source:ICFInternational,2013

Page1h

±

±

012

Miles

1:75,000
Spence Siding

H

EA-2

EA-1 H

H

EA-1

Chualar

Spreckels

Salinas

£¤101

Tr ac t 4,

Blo c k G ro up 2

Tr ac t 10 8. 04 ,

Blo c k G ro up 2

Tr ac t 9,

Blo c k G ro up 1

Tr ac t 14 8,

Blo c k G ro up 1

Tr ac t 9,

Blo c k G ro up 2

Tr ac t 6,

Blo c k G ro up 1

Tr ac t 5. 01 ,

Blo c k G ro up 2

Tr ac t 14 8,

Blo c k G ro up 3

Tr ac t 8,

Blo c k G ro up 2

Tr ac t 5. 02 ,

Blo c k G ro up 2

Tr ac t 14 5,

Blo c k G ro up 1

Tr ac t 14 8,

Blo c k G ro up 2

Tr ac t 18 .0 2,

Blo c k G ro up 1

Tr ac t 18 .0 1,

Blo c k G ro up 2

Tr ac t 17 ,

Blo c k G ro up 2

Tr ac t

5. 01

Tra c t 13

Tra ct 6

Tra ct 9

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Environmental Justice 

Figure

3.5-2a

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Environmental Justice

Block Groups (Minority)

Environmental Justice

Tracts (Low-income)

Urban Areas

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 2a ±

1:75,000
Harlem/Metz

Harlem/Metz

Harlem/Metz

New Chalone Creek

H

EA-3

EA-2 H

Soledad

Gonzales

£¤101

£¤101

Tr ac t 10 8. 04 ,

Blo c k G ro up 2

Tr ac t 14 8,

Blo c k G ro up 1

Tra ct 111. 01,

Bloc k Grou p 2

Tra ct 111. 02,

Bloc k Grou p 1

Tra c t 11 2. 04 ,

Bloc k Group 1

Tr ac t 14 8,

Blo c k G ro up 3

Tra ct 111. 01,

Bloc k Grou p 3

Tra ct 111. 02,

Bloc k Grou p 3

Tr ac t 10 8. 04 ,

Blo c k G ro up 1 Tr ac t 10 8. 04 ,

Blo c k G ro up 3

Tra ct 111. 02,

Bloc k Grou p 2

Tract

111.01

Tra c t

109

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Environmental Justice 

Figure

3.5-2b

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Environmental Justice

Block Groups (Minority)

Environmental Justice

Tracts (Low-income)

Urban Areas

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 2b ±

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

Coburn

Coburn

Harlem/Metz

King City Siding

New Chalone Creek

H

E

EA-4

EA-3 H

H

EA-3

EA-2 H

Greenfield

King

City

£¤101

Tra c t 11 2. 04 ,

Bloc k G roup 1

Tra c t 11 3. 04 ,

Bloc k Group 2

Tra c t 11 3. 04 ,

Bloc k Group 1

Tra c t 11 3. 02 ,

Bloc k Group 1

Tra c t 11 3. 02 ,

Bloc k Group 2

Tract

111.01

Trac t

113. 02

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Environmental Justice 

Figure

3.5-2c

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Environmental Justice

Block Groups (Minority)

Environmental Justice

Tracts (Low-income)

Urban Areas

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 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

San

Lucas

UV198

£¤101

£¤101

Tra c t 11 3. 04 ,

Bloc k G roup 1

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Environmental Justice 

Figure

3.5-2d

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Environmental Justice

Block Groups (Minority)

Environmental Justice

Tracts (Low-income)

Urban Areas

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 2d ±

1:75,000
Getty/Bradley

Getty/Bradley

Getty/Bradley

Bradley Siding

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

Environmental Justice 

Figure

3.5-2e

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Environmental Justice

Block Groups (Minority)

Environmental Justice

Tracts (Low-income)

Urban Areas

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 2e ±

1:75,000
Wellsona/Paso Robles

McKay/Wellsona

McKay/Wellsona

McKay/Wellsona

Wellsona Siding

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

Tr ac t 10 0. 16 ,

Blo c k G ro up 2

Tr ac t 10 1. 02 ,

Blo c k G ro up 2

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Environmental Justice 

Figure

3.5-2f

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Environmental Justice

Block Groups (Minority)

Environmental Justice

Tracts (Low-income)

Urban Areas

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 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

H

EA-10

EA-9 H

H

EA-9

EA-8 H

Atascadero

El Paso de

Robles (Paso

Robles)

Templeton

UV46

£¤101

£¤101

Tr ac t 10 1. 02 ,

Blo c k G ro up 3

Tr ac t 12 8,

Blo c k G ro up 1

Tra c t

128

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Environmental Justice 

Figure

3.5-2g

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Environmental Justice

Block Groups (Minority)

Environmental Justice

Tracts (Low-income)

Urban Areas

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 2g ±

1:75,000
Henry/Santa Margarita

Second Main Line

EA-10 H

H

EA-10

EA-9 H

Arroyo

Grande

San Luis

Obispo

UV1

UV227

£¤101

£¤101

Tra c t 11 4,

Bloc k Gr oup 1

Tract

111.01

Tract 111. 02

Tr ac t

109 . 01

Tract

11 2

Tr ac t

109 . 02

Trac t

110. 02

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Environmental Justice 

Figure

3.5-2h

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Environmental Justice

Block Groups (Minority)

Environmental Justice

Tracts (Low-income)

Urban Areas

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 2h ±

1:75,000
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.6 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

3.6-1

3.6 AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES

Visual resources include both natural and man-made features of the landscape. 

Intrinsic visual qualities and composition of a landscape together define the visual 

character of an area. This section describes the existing visual setting of the study 

area and assesses potential changes to the visual environment as a result of the No 

Build and Build Alternatives action alternatives.

This section describes updates and modifications made in response to comments on 

the Draft Program EIS/EIR. 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 regarding Build Alternative components 

discussed in the aesthetics and visual resources section (see comments A-3.5, 

A-3.29, A-3.30, A-3.31, A-3.34, and A-3.35). None of the comments required 

changes to the Program EIS/EIR text but several are pertinent to the analysis of the 

Preferred Alternative (see Section 3.6.4.3 below). 

3.6.1 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

There are no federal or state laws that specifically define or protect visual resources; 

however, several federal, state and local regulations provide protection for scenic 

views and other visual resources. Most local jurisdictions have provisions for design 

review of all commercial, industrial, or public buildings, facilities or other major 

infrastructure. 

3.6.1.1 State

State Scenic Highway Program 

The Caltrans Scenic Highway Program is intended to protect and enhance the 

natural scenic beauty of California’s highways and adjacent corridors, through 

special conservation treatment. The program protects against encroachment of 

incompatible land uses, mitigates and minimizes development activities along the 

corridor, prohibits billboards, regulates grading activity, etc.1 

 

1

Caltrans, 2012
Coast Corridor

3.6 Aesthetics and Visual Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.6-2

3.6.1.2 Local

Monterey County General Plan

The County has adopted, through its General Plan goals and policies, to retain and 

enhance the visual character, either directly or indirectly. Development and 

construction must use design guidelines to ensure the development is compatible 

with visual values of the area.2

City of Salinas General Plan

The City of Salinas has a number of natural and historical resources that contribute 

to the visual character of the city. The city is mostly built-up with distinctive 

architectural styles, surrounded by agricultural edges that distinguish the aesthetic 

quality of the area. Salinas has historically been an agricultural community, thus 

maintaining visual open space and the rural aesthetic character of the community is 

an important value. Additionally, the city has defined several view corridors along 

US 101.3 The city has adopted goals and policies to protect and preserve the 

community’s image and identity.4

City of Soledad General Plan

Points within the city have scenic views of the Salinas valley and the Sierra de 

Salinas Range. The General Plan has adopted goals and policies to protect both 

natural and manmade scenic resources. New development must comply with the 

city design standards to ensure best practices are used and are compatible with 

character of the city.

The City of Soledad set forth goals to revitalize its downtown in its 2012 Downtown 

Specific Plan. The Specific Plan identifies a proposed passenger rail station site 

(consistent with that included here as part of the Build Alternative) and also 

encourages increased infill development, enhanced streetscapes and lighting, and 

improved sidewalks.5 

The Soledad Downtown Specific Plan also includes conceptual plans for a proposed 

passenger rail station, discussed in more detail below. 

 

2

County of Monterey, 2007

3

City of Salinas, 2002

4

City of Salinas, 2006. General Plan 

5

City of Soledad, 2012
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.6 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

3.6-3

City of King (King City) General Plan

King City adopted goals and policies to help ensure new development is compatible 

with the City’s visual character and surrounding environment.6 The King City First 

Street Corridor Master Plan includes conceptual plans for a proposed passenger rail 

station (this station is included as an element of the action alternatives Build

Alternative). Additionally, as described in Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, since 

publication of the Draft EIS/EIR the City of King has adopted draft revised plans for 

the Multi-Modal Transportation Center – Conceptual Design [(MMTC) (2014)].

San Luis Obispo County General Plan

San Luis Obispo County has open space areas, scenic corridors, and urban 

landscapes that contribute to its visual character. The County General Plan has 

designated several scenic resources along the US 101 corridor (identified below). 

These resources are subject to scenic protection standards indicated in the San Luis 

Obispo County General Plan. Projects proposed in rural areas and/or designated 

scenic corridors are subject to design guidelines and standards.7 

City of El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) General Plan

Paso Robles has adopted policies and action items intended to retain the rural, open 

space, and agricultural areas surrounding the city. The city intends that its 

designation of a “Purple Belt” (wine grape belt) will preserve agriculture and open 

space and limit the conversion of lands from viticultural to urban uses.8

3.6.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION

The visual resources analysis focuses on the existing visual conditions of the railroad 

corridor and how it would change under each alternative. The analysis focuses on 

how existing visually dominant features would change and to what extent. Four 

generalized visual environments characterize the existing visual conditions for the 

railroad corridor: 1) Agricultural, 2) Urban/Suburban, 3) Industrial/Institutional, and 

4) Open Space/Undeveloped. These landscape types are described in Subsection 

3.6.3, Affected Environment below and summarize the existing visual baseline 

against which the potential effects of proposed improvements components will be 

evaluated. 

 

6

City of King, 1998, Conservation, Open Space, and Safety Elements

7

County of San Luis Obispo, 2010, Conservation and Open Space Element

8

City of El Paso de Robles, 2003, Open Space Element
Coast Corridor

3.6 Aesthetics and Visual Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.6-4

The components of the Build Alternative improvements action alternatives have 

varying levels of potential visual impacts depending upon on the type of physical 

improvement and proposed location. For this evaluation, potential visual impacts 

are grouped accordingly:

 High visual impact: The project improvement components would be dominant 

in the existing landscape and represent a significant change (degradation) of 

visual character and quality. 

 Medium visual impact: The proposed improvement project components would 

be readily discernible but does not dominate the existing landscape and have a 

moderately adverse effect on existing visual character and quality. 

 Low visual impact: The proposed improvement project components would be 

generally consistent with and/or blends with the visual attributes of the existing 

landscape; little or no degradation of visual character and quality results. 

 No visual impact: No proposed improvement project components would occur 

within a particular area or the physical improvement would not be readily 

discernible by the general public. 

3.6.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The visual setting of the study area encompasses a spectrum of landscape types, as 

the rail corridor travels through many physiographic and ecological regions. The 

range in landscape type depends on the landform and land cover of the study area. 

Landform describes the shape of the landscape (e.g., valleys, plains, mountains) and 

land cover describes what overlays the landform (e.g., grassland, residential, 

agricultural). 

The study area consists of the existing railroad between Salinas and San Luis Obispo. 

Immediately adjacent to the existing railroad, four landscape types predominate 1) 

Agricultural, 2) Urban/Suburban, 3) Industrial/Institutional, and 4) Open 

Space/Undeveloped. These landscape types, as described in more detail below, 

provide the baseline to evaluate the level of visual change that might occur with the 

alternatives. 

3.6.3.1 Landscape Types

Agricultural

As shown in Figure 3.6-1, an agricultural landscape is often flat, but in this region 

can also include rolling hills with parallel straight lines of crops and developed 

monoculture that stretch to form the near horizon. The continuous texture ranges 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.6 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

3.6-5

from various shades of green, where crops are growing for harvest, and brown 

where crops were recently planted and much of the soil is exposed. In viticultural 

areas, yellow and red colors can predominate in the autumn. Fences, farm 

equipment, rural dirt roads, electrical distribution lines, barns, and crop processing 

buildings are common features in an agricultural area and contribute to the visual 

character. Agricultural areas are very common in the Salinas Valley and inland 

Central Coast region. 

Urban/Suburban

Urban/suburban areas have a man-made land cover of residential and commercial 

buildings, parking lots, and landscaping along streets and sidewalks, as shown in 

Figure 3.6-2. Buildings vary in size and shape. Residential areas are often 

surrounded by walls or fences. Electrical transmission and distribution lines, 

roadways, street lighting and signs are typical visual features in an urban/suburban 

area and contribute to the visual character. The railroad corridor travels through 

several urbanized areas that range in density and intensity and visual dominance of 

the immediate landscape. 

Industrial/Institutional

Industrial/institutional areas are generally characterized by developed land cover 

that can appear similar to urban/suburban areas, with warehouses and buildings 

varying in size and shape that dominate the vista in comparison to its surrounding 

environment, as shown in Figure 3.6-3. Industrial areas typically include utility lines, 

equipment, machinery, freight tracks, and factories that contribute to the visual 

character. Notably, the existing railroad corridor traverses the San Ardo oil and gas 

field, which includes diverse man-made textures of drilling equipment as well as 

infrastructure buildings to process and transport crude oil and raw gas products. 

The railway corridor travels through several institutional areas as well with similar 

types of landscape patterns and elements. Institutional areas include Camp 

Roberts, an Army National Guard post located north of San Miguel, and state 

prisons in Soledad and near San Luis Obispo. 

Open Space/Undeveloped

Open space and undeveloped areas have natural land cover with very limited manmade visual intrusions and high intactness, as shown in Figure 3.6-4. Throughout 

the inland central coast region, open space and undeveloped areas include gently 

rolling hills varying in shades of green and neutral colors. Views to distant mountain 
Coast Corridor

3.6 Aesthetics and Visual Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.6-6

ranges are generally unimpeded except by intermittent and infrequent stands of 

large trees. The Salinas River, the Los Padres National Forest, and the Big Sandy 

Wildlife Area are key visual resources of this type located along the existing rail 

corridor. 

3.6.3.2 Identified Scenic Resources

Varied topography, agricultural areas, and downtown developments comprise the 

visual character of Monterey County. The County also contains 95 miles of officially 

designated State Scenic Highways. Moving traffic is the most substantial source of 

light and glare. Monterey County identifies sensitive visual areas and scenic 

corridors in its General Plan EIR.9 Scenic visual resources include views of several 

mountain ranges, including the Santa Lucias, the Gabilan (which includes the 

Pinnacles of the eponymous National Park), and others lining the Salinas and Carmel 

Valleys. The General Plan does not identify any sensitive visual areas or scenic 

corridors located within the immediate study area, but some distant views of the 

identified mountain ranges are visible from the railway corridor. 

San Luis Obispo County also identifies protected scenic resources in its General Plan. 

The existing railroad corridor passes through the Los Padres National Forest near 

Cuesta Grade; in this area, tree cover is dense and the landscape has substantial 

topography. The General Plan identifies several scenic corridors located in San Luis 

Obispo County, but none of these are located within the immediate study area. One 

such corridor is Highway 1, which is a designated State Scenic Highway and National 

Scenic Byway from San Luis Obispo to the Monterey County line. Along this 57-mile 

stretch of Highway 1 are four major scenic sections: Morros, Estero Bay, Harmony 

Valley, and the Big Sur Gateway.10 The railway parallels Highway 1 as it travels the 

south slope of Cuesta Grade and into the City of San Luis Obispo; however, none of 

the previously mentioned major scenic sections are within the study area.

Salinas and Soledad have designated scenic corridors and views within each city’s 

jurisdiction, but none are located within the immediate study area. King City has 

designated riparian areas along the Salinas River and San Lorenzo Creek as scenic 

resources and has also adopted goals to improve the visual quality of several roads 

in the city, including First Street, relatively near the proposed passenger station site. 

Identified scenic Resources for Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties are depicted 

on Figure 3.6-5 and 3.6-6.

 

9

County of Monterey, 2006, figure 4.14-1

10 County of San Luis Obispo, 2010, Visual Resources Element
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.6 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

3.6-7

3.6.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.6.4.1No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative represents the continuation of existing operations and 

physical components, and assumes the perpetuation of existing freight and 

passenger service with no physical components improvements. As a result, the No 

Build Alternative would result in no substantial visual impacts because the existing 

landscape character of the study area would not be changed substantially. 

Implementation of PTC improvements could require installation of antennas and 

signaling equipment within or immediately adjacent to the railroad ROW, but no 

specific equipment for the Coast Corridor has been selected.

3.6.4.2 Build Alternative 

This section analyzes potential visual impacts of the Build Alternative The analysis 

compares the Build Alternative and its components compared to the existing visual 

setting. 

Construction-Period Effects

In general, construction impacts include the visual presence of construction 

equipment, light and glare impacts from any nighttime construction work, and 

newly disturbed natural land cover that would recover to its original undisturbed 

form. Such effects would be somewhat more pronounced in high population areas 

or areas seen by substantial numbers of passing motorists, pedestrians, bicyclists, 

and rail passengers. It is reasonable to assume that construction outside of the 

railroad ROW would have a more noticeable visual effect because these

improvements Build Alternative components (e.g., curve realignments and new 

passenger stations) would involve more earth-moving and excavation activities on 

land that has not necessarily been in a railroad transportation use. Physical

components improvements within the railroad ROW (e.g., signal upgrades, powered 

switches, and sidings) would occur on land already used by the railroad; therefore, 

these physical components improvements would be more harmonious with the 

existing land cover. 

Operational Effects

Visual Effects of Proposed Physical Components Improvements under the Build 

Alternative

Potential visual impacts of each of the proposed physical improvements Build 

Alternative components are described in segments below.
Coast Corridor

3.6 Aesthetics and Visual Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.6-8

The Build Alternative proposes reinstitution of the Coast Daylight passenger rail 

service along the existing active rail corridor. The Build Alternative would expand 

service initially by 2 passenger trains per day, increasing to 4 trains per day by 2040. 

While additional trains traveling on the tracks would be apparent, the visual 

presence of additional trains would be intermittent, with trains generally passing 

from view in one minute or less. Therefore, reinstitution of the Coast Daylight

passenger rail service would have a low visual effect.

Implementation of CTC improvements would require installation of railway signaling 

poles of approximately 10-12 feet in height at periodic intervals along one or more 

sections of the existing railroad. The portions of the existing railroad currently 

under CTC already feature such signal poles. Exact locations of new signal poles

have yet to be defined, but would be within the existing ROW and would be visually 

consistent with existing elements and features of the railroad. Additionally, the 

installation of new powered switches and rail upgrades would all occur in the 

immediate track bed and would not exceed the height of the existing track. 

Accordingly, such features would be difficult to discern against the existing visual

landscape and thus would be highly unlikely to result in any significant visual impact. 

Consequently, visual effects from track/signal upgrades and powered switches 

would not substantial and are not discussed further.

Salinas

Track upgrades and new powered switches are proposed to the existing railroad 

tracks within urban/suburban landscape types within the City of Salinas. Adjacent 

areas include residential, commercial, and industrial buildings. Proposed Physical 

components improvements in this area would be largely imperceptible to viewer 

groups in the greater urbanized context as they would be implemented directly into 

the tracks. These components improvements would not be out of context or 

substantially change the overall visual character of the area; therefore, the visual 

impact would be low.

Salinas to Chualar

The new Spence siding is proposed within agricultural landscape types of this 

segment. A new siding entails construction of an additional track immediately 

alongside the existing railroad, generally within the existing railroad ROW. Adding a 

segment of additional track along the existing railroad would not pose a substantial 

visual contrast with the existing visual environment and the visual impacts would be 

low. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.6 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

3.6-9

Chualar to Soledad

The landscape type within this segment is predominantly agricultural, with some 

urban/suburban areas near the City of Gonzales and Soledad. There are no

proposed physical components improvements proposed between Chualar and

Soledad beyond rail upgrades that would be embedded into existing railroad tracks

and corridor-wide signaling improvements. Such features These components would 

be difficult to discern against the existing visual landscape and the visual impacts 

would be low. 

Soledad Passenger Station

A new passenger rail station is proposed for the City of Soledad. Soledad has an 

urban/suburban landscape type, surrounded by agricultural areas. Soledad’s 

Downtown Specific Plan, includes a potential layout view of station along Front 

Street. The development plans for this station are conceptual in nature, but 

propose a ticket building, an overhead pedestrian overpass on eastern side of the 

tracks, and a parking area on the western side of the tracks. According to the 

Downtown Soledad Specific Plan EIR, the proposed railroad parcels are undeveloped 

and a new one/two story structure may potentially block the view of potentially 

historic structures and existing development on Front Street for viewers traveling on

US 101. The addition of a new passenger station would generally blend into the 

existing urbanized visual character of Soledad and would not disrupt views of the 

mountains to the east. The Downtown Soledad Specific Plan EIR concluded there 

would be moderate viewer sensitivity to a new station.11 While previously 

undeveloped parcels would be converted to accommodate new passenger station 

plans and may potentially alter the existing visual character, the proposed station 

footprint would be generally consistent with the existing urbanized visual character. 

Therefore, there would be a medium visual impact for a new passenger station in 

Soledad. 

Soledad to King City

The Harlem/Metz curve realignments and the Coburn curve realignments are

proposed in this segment predominantly in agricultural and open 

space/undeveloped landscapes. These curve realignments would cut through 

agricultural land up to about 600 feet beyond the existing railroad ROW. The curve 

realignments would disrupt and permanently alter existing agricultural land cover

where the new train tracks would be located. However, relatively few sensitive 

viewers are located near the physical component proposed improvement areas,

 

11 City of Soledad, 2012, pp. 4.1-7-4.1-14
Coast Corridor

3.6 Aesthetics and Visual Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.6-10

since the areas are predominantly rural, and the curve realignments would 

introduce railroad elements that already exist in the nearby viewshed. The

proposed curve realignments would become part of the landscape and contrast 

would lessen over time. Notwithstanding, these curve realignments would directly 

convert existing land and have a readily discernible effect on the visual landscape. 

As a result, the visual impact would be medium to high.

The new siding at Chalone Creek and the King City siding extension are also 

proposed in this segment. Each would add or extend a siding railroad track within 

the railroad ROW, parallel to the existing alignment. The visual impact would be low 

because the new track would be consistent with the existing visual setting. The King 

City siding travels through an urban area that is more populated, but would also 

have a low visual impact because extending the track along the existing corridor 

would not visually contrast with the existing viewshed.

King City Passenger Station

A new passenger rail station is proposed in King City. King City has an urban/

suburban landscape type, surrounded by agricultural areas and ringed by hills. King 

City’s First Street Corridor Master Plan includes a schematic diagram of the

proposed passenger station along the existing tracks that parallel First Street. The 

city envisions a station platform about 12 feet wide and 800 feet long, along with a 

small parking lot.12 

Given the nature and the visual setting of the proposed site, the proposed station 

would not adversely affect scenic resources or corridors. Furthermore, the 

proposed stations would not visually contrast with the urban, developed visual 

setting. The proposed station would in fact be consistent with the existing 

urbanized visual character of King City. Therefore, there would be a low medium 

visual impact for the proposed station. 

King City to San Ardo

Curve realignments are proposed at MP 165 and MP 172 in agricultural and open 

space/undeveloped landscape types. The proposed MP 165 curve realignment 

location would be east and at a higher elevation than the existing train tracks as the 

Coast Corridor travels against a hillside to the east. The new tracks would traverse 

an agricultural area and require conversion of existing land cover where the new 

train tracks would be located. Because of the natural topography and placement of

 

12 City of King, 2013, p. 10.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.6 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

3.6-11

new tracks, the resultant railroad would be somewhat more visible. Therefore, the 

proposed MP 165 curve realignment would have a readily discernible effect on the 

visual landscape and a medium visual impact.

Agricultural landscape types are apparent to the west of where the curve 

realignment is proposed at MP 172. The existing railroad corridor is located on the 

east side of the adjacent frontage road. The proposed realignment would move the 

train tracks to the east side of the frontage road, potentially creating a new at-grade 

crossing in this location. An at-grade crossing in a rural area may would entail signs 

and signaling for safety purposes. While proposed curve realignments would not 

sharply contrast with the existing visual character once construction is complete, 

implementation of curve realignments would directly convert existing land cover 

and have a readily discernible effect on the visual landscape. As a result, the visual 

impact would be medium.

The proposed new San Lucas siding would extend through agricultural landscape 

types until entering the unincorporated community of San Lucas. The San Lucas 

community is comprised of one and two story residential buildings and industrial 

areas. A second track would have a low visual impact because adding a track along 

the existing corridor would not present a significant visual contrast with the existing 

viewshed.

San Ardo to Bradley

There are no proposed components improvements within the San Ardo oil and gas 

fields except corridor-wide rail upgrades and signaling improvements within the 

railroad ROW. As discussed, such features These components would be difficult to 

discern against the existing industrial/institutional landscape; therefore, would be 

highly unlikely to result in any significant visual impact there would be no visual 

impact. 

The Getty/Bradley curve realignments are located just south of the San Ardo area

with few nearby viewers. The landscape type for this portion of the segment is 

open space/undeveloped. Implementation of curve realignments would directly 

convert existing land cover and have a readily discernible effect on the visual 

landscape. As a result, the visual impact would be medium. 

The Bradley siding extension is also proposed in this segment. The landscape type is 

also open space/undeveloped. Further south, the Bradley siding passes through 

Bradley, an unincorporated city in Monterey County. Bradley is a small residential 

community that is adjacent to the Coast Corridor. An extended siding track would 

have a low visual impact because it would be harmonious with the existing corridor 

and would not pose a strong visual contrast with the existing viewshed.
Coast Corridor

3.6 Aesthetics and Visual Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.6-12

Bradley to San Miguel

South of Bradley, the Coast Corridor passes the Big Sandy Wildlife Area and Camp 

Roberts. The Big Sandy Wildlife Area is an open space/undeveloped landscape type

characterized by open grasslands and stream habitat. The Camp Roberts landscape

is marked by out-of-use, decaying military barracks buildings and signage. 

The McKay/Wellsona curve realignment is proposed in this segment with Big Sandy 

Wildlife Area on the East and Camp Roberts on the west. This proposed

realignment would traverse the Big Sandy Wildlife Area, in doing so, extending the

and extend the visual reach of the railroad from an industrial area adjacent to US 

101 to a designated open space area - whose very openness is an important 

element of its existing visual character. If this curve realignment is selected for 

construction and design practices cannot avoid or minimize its footprint within the 

Big Sandy Wildlife Area, the resulting adverse visual effects could be high. 

San Miguel to Paso Robles

Within San Miguel, the predominant landscape type is urban/suburban with 

residential areas, buildings, paved roadways, and development. San Miguel is

comprised of one and two story residential buildings and industrial areas. South of 

San Miguel, the landscape type is mostly open space/undeveloped and agricultural, 

with occasional homes scattered on both sides of the railroad corridor. The Coast 

Corridor is east of US 101 within this segment. 

A leg of the proposed McKay/Wellsona and all portions of the Wellsona/Paso Robles 

curve realignments are proposed in this segment. Each would cut through 

agricultural land outside the railroad ROW. Implementation of curve realignments 

would directly convert existing land cover and have a readily discernible effect on 

the visual landscape. As a result, the visual impact would be medium. 

The proposed Wellsona siding would add a new siding track, adjacent to the existing 

track and within the ROW. A second track would have a low visual impact because 

adding a track along the existing corridor would not visually contrast with the 

existing viewshed. 

Paso Robles to Santa Margarita

South of Paso Robles, the landscape type is predominantly urban/suburban with 

residential areas surrounding both sides of the Coast Corridor alignment, with both 

rural and agricultural farming areas scattered nearby as well. Several physical 

components improvements are proposed within this segment. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.6 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

3.6-13

The proposed Templeton siding would add a second track, adjacent to the existing 

track and within the railroad ROW. A second track would have a low visual impact 

because adding a track along the existing corridor would not visually contrast with 

the existing viewshed. 

The proposed Templeton/Henry curve realignment and the Henry/Santa Margarita 

curve realignments would occur outside the railroad ROW. The proposed curve 

realignments would permanently alter existing land cover and require tree removal 

in areas where new tracks would be located. The Templeton/Henry curve 

realignment would be noticeable to the local road and nearby residential 

neighborhoods west of the rail alignment. 

The portions of the Henry/Santa Margarita curve realignment near Salinas Road and 

Asuncion Road, if constructed, would potentially cut through residential and farming 

properties approximately 100-150 feet from the existing railroad ROW, likely 

entailing the removal of several existing buildings. New tracks would be placed 

closer to nearby residents and viewer groups, which would sharply lower the visual 

character and quality of the landscape for these residents. The proposed 

Henry/Santa Margarita curve realignments would be dominant in the existing 

landscape and would permanently convert existing land cover. As a result, the 

visual impact could be high. 

Santa Margarita to San Luis Obispo

The landscape type between Santa Margarita and San Luis Obispo is primarily open 

space/undeveloped. Dense vegetation and trees surround the Coast Corridor on 

both sides in some areas and the topography of the landscape becomes more 

pronounced as the railroad and US 101 pass through a portion of the Los Padres 

National Forest. 

A second mainline is proposed within this segment, the second mainline which

would be constructed within the existing railroad ROW. The size and reach of the 

Los Padres National Forest make it an important visual resource within San Luis 

Obispo County and the larger Central Coast region. Views of the existing rail 

corridor from US 101 are somewhat limited through this area due to intervening 

trees between the highway and the railroad. Furthermore, the hilly topography 

through this area also limits visibility of the railroad from passing vehicles. Dense 

trees somewhat limit views of the freeway and the railroad from adjacent portions 

of the National Forest itself. In summary Therefore, a second track would have a 

low to moderate visual impact because adding a track along the existing corridor 

would not strongly contrast with the existing visual setting. 
Coast Corridor

3.6 Aesthetics and Visual Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.6-14

3.6.4.3 Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would include the same service as the Build Alternative 

and would retain all corridor-wide and almost all of the same physical components. 

The only differences are that the Preferred Alternative would include modified 

footprints for the King City siding extension and passenger station, and would 

exclude each of the four curve realignments within San Luis Obispo County. 

Additionally, the Preferred Alternative includes a 27 mile “island” of CTC between 

MP 202 and 229 (McKay to Santa Margarita). 

Accordingly, visual effects for the Preferred Alternative would be the same as the 

Build Alternative except for the areas where the modified or excluded components 

are located. The discussions below assess visual effects relative to such modified or 

excluded components. 

Soledad to King City (King City siding extension)

In the Preferred Alternative, the section between Soledad and King City would 

retain all Build Alternative components without modification, with the exception of

the King City siding extension relocation. The relocated siding extension would start

at the north end of the existing siding (MP 159.19) and extend north to MP 156.38 

immediately adjacent to the existing railroad and within the railroad ROW. 

The visual environment for the area of relocation is heavily influenced by 

agricultural uses. Crops observed in the area include primarily low-growing 

vegetable crops. Few buildings or structures are in the visual proximity, so fewer 

viewer groups would be affected by the relocated siding extension than the Build 

Alternative, which would have extended the siding to the developed area south of 

the City of King. Therefore, the visual impact of the relocated siding extension 

would be low because extending the track along the existing rail corridor would not 

result in a new strong visual contrast with the existing viewshed.

City of King Passenger Station

The Preferred Alternative incorporates revised draft plans for the City of King

passenger station. These revised draft plans place the station in the same urbanized 

visual environment as the Build Alternative. The station would be located within the 

First Street Corridor area, which is mostly surrounded by industrial buildings and 

adjacent to existing railroad tracks. As a result, man-made features dominate the 

visual character in this area. Accordingly, the station would not visually contrast 

with the surrounding urbanized visual character and would not interfere with any

scenic corridor or other scenic resource. Therefore, the visual impact of the 

proposed King City station would be low. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.6 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

3.6-15

San Miguel to Paso Robles and Santa Margarita (Curve realignments 

and Island CTC)

In the approximately 32 miles of railroad between San Miguel and Santa Margarita, 

the Preferred Alternative would retain all of the corridor-wide components of the 

Build Alternative, the same extensions of existing sidings at Wellsona and 

Templeton as in the Build Alternative, and the same powered switches as the Build 

Alternative. However, the Preferred Alternative would exclude four curve 

realignments included with the Build Alternative (McKay/Wellsona, Wellsona/Paso 

Robles, Templeton/Henry, and Henry/Santa Margarita). Moreover, the Preferred 

Alternative would include the installation of a 27 mile “island” CTC between McKay 

and Santa Margarita. 

As noted for the Build Alternative, the four curve realignments would have resulted 

in medium to high visual impacts as the realigned tracks would have become new 

dominant features in the area, reducing localized visual character and quality. Since 

the Preferred Alternative does not include the curve realignments, visual conditions 

in the four areas proposed for curve realignments would not change substantially 

from existing conditions, except for visual effects associated with the installation of 

“island” CTC from McKay (MP 202) to Santa Margarita (MP 229). As described for 

the Build Alternative, CTC requires the installation of railway signaling poles of 

about 10-12 feet in height at periodic intervals. Portions of the Coast Corridor have 

CTC features in place, as illustrated in Figure 3.6-7 from MP 233 in Southern Santa 

Margarita. As noted for the Build Alternative, the exact locations of new signal 

poles have yet to be defined, but would be within the existing railroad ROW and 

would be visually consistent with existing elements and features of the railroad. 

Accordingly, CTC features would not contrast strongly with the existing visual 

landscape and as such, would not result in any substantial adverse visual impact. 

Table 3.6-1 Potential Visual Impacts

Project Components Landscape Type 

Visual Impacts

No Build 

Alternative

Build 

Alternative

Preferred 

Alternative

Salinas Powered Switch Urban/Suburban N/A None None

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #1 

Urban/Suburban;

Agricultural Low Low Low

Spence Siding Extension Agricultural N/A Low Low
Coast Corridor

3.6 Aesthetics and Visual Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.6-16

Project Components Landscape Type 

Visual Impacts

No Build 

Alternative

Build 

Alternative

Preferred 

Alternative

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #2 Agricultural Low Low Low

Gonzales Powered Switch Urban/Suburban N/A None None

Soledad Powered Switch Urban/Suburban N/A None None

Soledad New Passenger Station Urban/Suburban N/A Medium Medium

Harlem/Metz Curve Realignments

Agricultural;

Open Space/ 

Undeveloped

N/A Medium Medium

Chalone Creek New Siding Agricultural; Open 

Space/ Undeveloped N/A Low Low

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #3

Agricultural;

Urban/Suburban Low Low Low

Coburn Curve Realignments Agricultural; Open 

Space/ Undeveloped N/A Medium Medium

King City Siding Extension Agricultural; Open 

Space/ Undeveloped N/A Low Low

King City New Passenger Station Urban/Suburban N/A Low Medium Low

King City Powered Switch Urban/Suburban N/A None None

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #4 Agricultural Low Low Low

MP 165 Curve Realignment Agricultural N/A Medium Medium

San Lucas New Siding Agricultural; Open 

Space/ Undeveloped N/A Low Low

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #5

Agricultural; Open 

Space/ Undeveloped;

Industrial/Institution

al

Low Low Low

MP 172 Track Realignment Agricultural; Open 

Space/ Undeveloped N/A Medium Medium
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.6 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

3.6-17

Project Components Landscape Type 

Visual Impacts

No Build 

Alternative

Build 

Alternative

Preferred 

Alternative

San Ardo Powered Switch N/A N/A None None

Getty/Bradley Curve 

Realignments

Open Space/ 

Undeveloped N/A Medium Medium

Bradley Siding Extension Open Space/ 

Undeveloped N/A Low Low

Bradley Powered Switch Open Space/ 

Undeveloped N/A None None

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #6

Industrial/ 

Institutional; Open 

Space/ Undeveloped

Low Low Low

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #7

Industrial/ 

Institutional; Open 

Space/ Undeveloped;

Urban/Suburban

Low Low Low

McKay/Wellsona Curve 

Realignments

Industrial/ 

Institutional; Open 

Space/ Undeveloped

N/A High NA - Not 

Included

McKay East Powered Switches

Industrial/ 

Institutional; Open 

Space/ Undeveloped

N/A None None

Wellsona New Siding Urban/Suburban N/A Low Low

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #8 Urban/Suburban Low Low Low

Wellsona/Paso Robles Curve 

Realignments Urban/Suburban N/A Medium NA - Not Included

Templeton Siding Urban/Suburban N/A Low Low

Templeton/ Henry Curve 

Realignments Urban/Suburban N/A Medium NA - Not Included

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #9 Urban/Suburban Low Low Low
Coast Corridor

3.6 Aesthetics and Visual Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.6-18

Project Components Landscape Type 

Visual Impacts

No Build 

Alternative

Build 

Alternative

Preferred 

Alternative

Henry/Santa Margarita Curve 

Realignment

Urban/Suburban; 

Agricultural; Open 

Space

N/A High NA - Not 

Included

Santa Margarita Powered Switch Urban/Suburban N/A None None

Cuesta Second Main Track Open Space/ 

Undeveloped N/A

Low to 

Medium

Low to 

Medium

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #10

Open Space/ 

Undeveloped Low Low Low

Source: Circlepoint, 2013

3.6.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION 

STRATEGIES

Mitigation strategies could include design features and techniques to integrate new 

rail improvements into the existing landscapes. During project-level review, design 

measures should be reviewed with local jurisdictions, resource agencies, and the 

public to determine site-specific effectiveness and acceptability. The measures 

listed below are applicable to the Build and Preferred Alternatives and have been 

identified at this preliminary stage to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate any 

potentially significant impacts. The identification and implementation of specific 

mitigation measures necessary for each project component will occur as part of 

subsequent project-level environmental review. Additional avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation measures would also be identified during that review.

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

light and glare screening measure would be used at construction staging areas, 

including the use of downward cast lighting.

MIN-VIS-2. Where physical components improvements pass through or along the 

edge of residential or heavily traveled roadways, landscape treatments such as trees 

and shrubs, would be installed and continuously maintained along the edge of the 

railroad ROW to provide partial screening of visual changes.

MIN-VIS-3. While new sidings/siding extensions can have low visual impacts as 

noted above, use of sidings for long-term “parking” of train cars can have visual 

consequences. Mitigation strategies would include limits on the use of sidings for 

longer-term train car storage, with potential priority to areas of greater visual 

sensitivity.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.6 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

3.6-19

MIN-VIS-4. Night lighting at stations would be the minimum required for operations 

and safety. All lights would be hooded and directed to the area where the lighting is 

required to be on all the time, sensors and timers would be specified. 

MM-VIS-5. Natural land cover removed or disturbed to implement physical 

components improvements would be replaced, as feasible.

These mitigation strategies would help reduce the level of visual impact of the 

proposed physical improvements. Future evaluation prior to implementing an 

improvement would determine specific mitigation suitable for each proposed 

improvement and specific location. 

3.6.6 SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS

Future project-level environmental review will be necessary if any of the Build or 

Preferred Alternative components improvements are to be carried forward. The 

visual analysis will specifically evaluate the visual character and quality of the study 

area and assess potential effects to existing conditions based on proposed project 

components. At that time, a detailed assessment of construction and operationrelated activities will occur. The amount of introduced man-made development 

features and encroachment will be the criteria to determine the overall changes to 

visual quality. The evaluation will focus on changes to the integrity and continuity of 

the physical environment, as well as the viewer responses to physical changes. 
Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

3.6-1

Figure Existing Landscape Type: Agricultural

Source: Google Earth, 2013

Note: South of Salinas

Note: South of Salinas
Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

3.6-2

Figure Existing Landscape Type: Urban/Suburban

Source: Google Earth, 2013

Note: King City

Note: Soledad
Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

3.6-3

Figure Existing Landscape Type: Industrial/Institutional

Source: Google Earth, 2013

Note: San Ardo Oil & Gas Fields

Note: Camp Roberts
Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

3.6-4

Figure Existing Landscape Type: Open Space/Undeveloped

Source: Google Earth, 2013

Note: Highway 101 within Los Padres National Forest

Note: North of Paso Robles
Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

3.6-5

Figure Monterey County Visual Resource Areas

Source: Monterey County, 2004

Existing Rail Alignment

Legend
Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

3.6-6

Figure San Luis Obispo County Visual Resource Areas

Source: San Luis Obispo County, 2010 9.5

FIGURE VR-1 

PROTECTED SCENIC RESOURCES 

Existing Rail Alignment

Areas Subject to Scenic Protection Standards
Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

3.6-7

Figure Centralized Traffic Control

Source: Circlepoint, 2015
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.7 Agricultural and Forest Resources

3.7-1

3.7 AGRICULTURAL AND FOREST RESOURCES

This section describes agricultural and forest lands in the study area, and estimates 

the potential for the No Build and action alternatives to result in the conversion of 

such lands into non-agricultural and forest uses. 

This section describes updates and changes made in response to comments on the 

Draft Program EIS/EIR. 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 regarding project elements that have 

been incorporated into the Preferred Alternative (see comments A-3.36 through 

A-3.38). Section 3.7.4.3 below provides analysis of the Preferred Alternative. None 

of the City of King’s comments resulted in text revisions to the Program EIS/EIR. 

3.7.1 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

3.7.1.1 Federal 

Farmland Protection Policy Act 

The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FFPA) was implemented to minimize the extent 

to which federal activities contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion 

of farmland to non-agricultural use. Federal agencies are required under the FPPA1

and its regulations,2to coordinate with the National Resource Conservation Service 

(NRCS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) prior to taking or 

approving any federal action that may irreversibly convert farmland to 

nonagricultural use. 

In accordance with the NRCS and per section 1541(b) of the FPPA,3federal agencies 

are required to examine potential direct and indirect effects to farmland of a 

proposed action and its alternatives before approving any activity that would 

convert farmland to non-agricultural use. To the extent practicable, policies and 

 

1

FPPA, 7 USC § 4201 et seq.

2

7 CFR Part 658

3

7 USC 4202(b)
Coast Corridor

3.7 Agricultural and Forest Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.7-2

plans must be made compatible with state, local, and private policies and programs 

that have been established to protect farmland.4

Protected farmland is usually divided into three classifications: prime farmland, 

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

standards may differ across state lines; each state may set its own criteria for 

classification in each category. 

The following types of land are exempted from the FPPA and its associated 

procedures:

 Soil types determined not suitable for crops, such as rocky terrain or sand dunes 

(although some such federally-owned lands may be eligible for a grazing 

agreement from the Bureau of Land Management);

 Sites where the right-of-way for a project is located entirely within a delineated 

urban area and the project requires no prime or unique farmland, nor any 

farmland of statewide or local importance; and 

 Farmland that has already been converted to industrial, residential, commercial 

or is used for recreational activity.

United States Forest Service (USFS)

The existing railroad right of way travels through a portion of the Los Padres 

National Forest north of the Cuesta Grade. The right-of-way is on land within the 

boundary of the National Forest, but the land is not owned by the USFS. The Forest 

and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act (RPA) as amended by the 

National Forest Management Act (NFMA), establishes a process for developing, 

amending, and revising land management plans for National Forests. 

3.7.1.2 State

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program

The California Department of Conservation maintains the Farmland Mapping and 

Monitoring Program FMMP, a statewide inventory of California’s agricultural 

resources. The FMMP produces maps and statistical data that rate land according 

to soil quality and irrigation status. The FMMP also tracks changes in the use and 

designation of agricultural lands.

 

4

7 CFR Section 658.1
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.7 Agricultural and Forest Resources

3.7-3

The FMMP classifies farmland according to categories established by the USDA, but 

based on California criteria: prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, 

unique farmland, and farmland of local importance.5

Prime farmland refers to land with the best combination of physical and chemical 

properties to sustain long-term production of agricultural crops. This land has the 

soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high

yields. Land with this designation must have been used for production of irrigated 

crops at some point during the four years prior to the mapping date. Land must 

meet a set of criteria set by the NRCS.

Farmland of statewide importance is similar to prime farmland but exhibits minor 

shortcomings, such as steeper slopes or less ability to store moisture in the soil. 

Farmland of statewide importance also must have been used for production of 

irrigated crops at some time during the four years prior to the mapping date. 

Unique farmland is composed of lesser quality soil than prime farmland or farmland 

of statewide importance. Unique farmland is used for the production of the state’s 

leading agricultural crops. This land is usually irrigated but may include nonirrigated orchards or vineyards found in some climatic zones of California. Unique 

farmland must have been used for production of crops at some time during the four 

years prior to the mapping date. 

Farmland of local importance is defined by each county government. Monterey 

County has chosen not to implement such a definition, so there is no farmland of 

local importance in Monterey County. In San Luis Obispo County, lands that meet 

all of the characteristics of prime or statewide importance, with the exception of 

irrigation, are simultaneously designated as farmland of local importance. 

The FMMP also maintains a database of lands suitable for grazing. California 

Government Code §65570(b)(3) defines grazing land as "...land on which the 

existing vegetation, whether grown naturally or through management, is suitable 

for grazing or browsing of livestock." Whereas the designations of prime, unique, 

and locally/statewide important farmland are contingent upon the active or recent 

use of lands in agricultural activities, lands identified by FMMP as suitable for 

grazing need not be actively grazed. Grazing land is not specifically protected at the 

state level; however, local governments can choose to protect such lands in their 

land use planning documents. Both Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties include 

 

5

Cities and counties within the study area may identify additional categories of farmland, but these are 

not indexed within the FMMP.
Coast Corridor

3.7 Agricultural and Forest Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.7-4

grazing lands in their definitions of agricultural lands; however, they are not 

afforded the same protection as Important Farmlands, described above.

Williamson Act

The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, also known as the Williamson Act, 

established a tax incentive for the voluntary enrollment of agricultural and open 

space lands in contracts between local government and landowners.6 The 

agreement ensures the land will be maintained for agriculture and open space and 

other compatible uses, as defined by state law and local ordinances. In areas where 

agricultural lands interface with growing suburban or urban development, 

Williamson Act contracts are a means of ensuring the long term financial viability of

agricultural uses. Without a Williamson Act contract, the taxable basis of 

agricultural lands on the urban fringe can increase to such an extent that 

agricultural operations become economically infeasible for the landowner. 

Williamson Act contracts remain valid for a period of ten years. By default, the 

contract is renewed each year for the next ten years, unless the landowner or local 

government files to initiate nonrenewal. After ten years, the contract terminates 

with the filing of a notice of nonrenewal. Under limited circumstances and 

conditions, Williamson Act contracts may also be terminated upon petition of the 

landowner.7 Termination proceedings require the approval of the local government 

legislative body, such as the City Council or County Board of Supervisors. 

The State of California has an additional regulation to guide the public acquisition of 

and/or location of public improvements on lands under Williamson Act contracts.8 

These policies discourage the use of such lands for public improvements and require 

due consideration before any such lands can be acquired for any public purpose. 

It should be noted that cancellation or non-renewal of a Williamson Act contract (or 

portion thereof) is not considered a physical environmental impact under either 

CEQA or NEPA. Rather, the use of land under Williamson Act contracts for 

implementation of proposed project improvements would pose a potential conflict 

with State of California policy. California Government Code § 51290-51295 

discourages the conversion of land under an agricultural preserve to 

non-agricultural public use. 

 

6

California Government Code Sections 51200 to 51295

7

Government Code §51280 et seq.

8

GC § 51290-51295
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.7 Agricultural and Forest Resources

3.7-5

3.7.1.3 Local

Monterey County General Plan

The Agricultural Element of the Monterey County General Plan contains policies to 

enhance and support long-term productivity and commercial viability of the 

County’s agricultural industry. It provides guidance for the treatment of agricultural 

land to ensure that land use policies do not inappropriately limit or constrain 

“routine and ongoing agricultural activities.” The plan also includes measures 

designed to strength the County’s Right-to-Farm Ordinance, which is designed to 

protect farmers from the pressure of urban development.

The Monterey County Agricultural and Historical Land Conservancy manages more 

than 15,000 acres in the County, acquiring agricultural easements by gift or through 

direct purchase from landowners. 

San Luis Obispo County General Plan

The Agriculture element of the San Luis Obispo County General Plan provides a 

description of the main types and uses of agricultural land in the county, as well as a 

set of policies, goals, and objectives for each land-type. The element comprises 

numerous protective policies for supporting production and maintaining diverse and 

abundant agricultural lands in San Luis Obispo County.

3.7.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION

For the purposes of this analysis, an adverse impact to farmland or forestland 

resources would occur if an action alternative would directly or indirectly: 

 Convert to nonagricultural use any prime farmland, farmland of statewide 

importance, or unique farmland, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to 

the FMMP of the California Resources Agency.

 Sever farmland by the placement of barriers that impede farmland access which 

could result in the creation of non-economic remnant parcels and/or conversion 

of farmland to a nonagricultural use.

 Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.

 Convert to nonagricultural use any land under a Williamson Act Contract.

This analysis used GIS to compute acreage of various protected farmland 

classifications involved with the physical components proposed improvements. To 

determine the quantity of protected farmland in the Corridor, California 
Coast Corridor

3.7 Agricultural and Forest Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.7-6

Department of Conservation’s FMMP was used. United States Forest Service Land 

Ownership was also used to determine acreages of National Forest lands within the 

Corridor. The study area for both agricultural and forest resources includes all 

permanent and temporary footprints for each proposed realignment, siding, 

track/signal, and second mainline upgrade. Permanent and temporary impact 

footprints were defined in GIS as discussed below. 

The acreage of lands that would be affected under a Williamson Act Contract was 

not calculated for this program-level analysis. Williamson Act Contracts change over 

time and should be evaluated in detail when, and if any, elements of the Build 

Alternative components of the action alternatives are carried forward for further 

design and potential construction. 

Construction-Period Effects

Construction of the physical components improvements contemplated under the

Build and Preferred Alternatives would involve the use of temporary construction 

areas to park construction equipment, store supplies, and otherwise serve as 

construction staging areas. If any such areas are located on farmland or forest land 

resources, the use of such lands for construction staging could temporarily alter the 

land use to a nonagricultural use. These areas would eventually be 

returned/restored to pre-construction conditions. 

Given that detailed engineering designs are not available at this time, the 

construction period impacts associated with new sidings and siding extensions was 

assumed to include a 50 foot buffer on either side of the existing ROW. 

Construction-period impacts associated with the second mainline include a footprint 

of 100 feet on either side of the existing ROW, and for curve realignments the 

temporary impact footprint includes 200 feet on either side of the existing ROW. 

These buffers are intended to capture indirect effects of any potential construction.

As further described in Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, 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. 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 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 on the east side of the mainline track. Because of the availability of 

detailed design plans for the City of King siding extension, potential 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.7 Agricultural and Forest Resources

3.7-7

construction-period impacts on agricultural resources were analyzed exclusively on 

the east side of the alignment within the 50 foot buffer to more accurately 

represent the effects of siding extension construction work. 

Operational Effects

Permanent impacts to farmland or forest resources would occur with the conversion 

of these resources to non-agricultural uses, such as conversion to a new station, rail 

realignment, siding, track/signal upgrade, or second mainline. Given that detailed 

engineering design is not available at this time, Potential permanent impacts 

associated with curve realignments are assumed to occur in an area up to 100 feet 

beyond the potential new realigned rail centerline.

The Draft Program EIS/EIR included siding and siding extension impacts in its

operational impact analysis. Operational impacts to agricultural and forest 

resources were over reported due to overlap between existing railroad ROW and 

FMMP polygons. Therefore, permanent impacts due sidings and siding extensions 

are now reported as zero since no protected farmland is assumed to exist within the 

railroad ROW.

3.7.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The existing Coast Corridor railroad between Salinas and San Luis Obispo traverses 

extensive areas of land in agricultural use. Agriculture and viticulture are 

economically important industries in both Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties. 

Agriculture is the largest land use by acreage in Monterey County. The northern 

end of the study area between Salinas and King City is bordered on both sides by 

agricultural lands. Major crops include salad greens, broccoli, artichokes, spinach, 

and strawberries.9 The agricultural lands in this region are classified as 

predominately Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique 

Farmland. 

South of King City agricultural uses transition to vineyards and grazing land, 

including areas of the Santa Lucia Mountains to the west and the Cholame Hills and 

Diablo range to the east. Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and 

Unique Farmland are also present in this region to San Ardo. Grazing land 

dominates from San Ardo south to the San Luis Obispo County line.

 

9

City of Salinas, 2002, Section 5.9
Coast Corridor

3.7 Agricultural and Forest Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.7-8

San Luis Obispo County also has rich agriculture and extensive viticulture. The top 

value crops in 2011 included strawberries, wine grapes, cattle and calves, and 

broccoli.10 Agricultural uses along the study area are mixed and concentrated 

around Paso Robles. They include Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide 

Importance, Unique Farmland, Grazing Land, Farmland of Local Importance, and 

Farmland of Local Potential. Agricultural lands in this area run adjacent to US 101 

and the railroad for approximately 20 miles. Wine grapes dominate the agricultural 

landscape both in greater Paso Robles and adjacent areas. Other crops, such as 

barley, oats, wheat, apples, walnuts, pistachios, and almonds are also cultivated in 

the area.11 

South of Paso Robles, agricultural uses decline in their abundance and density 

particularly through suburban communities like Atascadero. Some grazing lands dot 

the landscape. South-facing slopes surrounding Atascadero are home to chaparral 

vegetation, willows, sycamores, bay laurel, and cottonwoods.12 

South of Atascadero the existing Coast Corridor railroad traverses approximately a 2 

mile portion of the Los Padres National Forest near the Cuesta Grade area of San 

Luis Obispo County. This portion of the National Forest is comprised largely of oak 

woodlands and is the only densely forested area through which the 130 mile rail line 

travels between Salinas and San Luis Obispo. The Los Padres National Forest 

Strategic Plan indicates that the mountains and the US 101 corridor in this region 

are particularly suited for special uses, including the existing railroad line and 

adjacent agricultural/ranching uses.13 Exiting Los Padres National Forest, the 

railroad the railroad negotiates the sharp hillside with a few sharp turns until 

entering the city of San Luis Obispo. Figures 3.7-1 and 3.7-2 depict farmlands within 

the study area.

3.7.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.7.4.1No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative represents the continuation of existing freight and 

passenger rail operations along existing physical components between Salinas and 

 

10 County of San Luis Obispo Department of Agriculture Weights and Measures, 2011 

11 City of El Paso de Robles, 2003, Open Space Element

12 City of Atascadero, 2002

13 USDA, 2005 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.7 Agricultural and Forest Resources

3.7-9

San Luis Obispo. The only physical component improvement expected under the No 

Build Alternative would be the installation of PTC. No specific plans have been 

identified, but anticipated PTC improvements outside train-based equipment would 

most likely take the form of communications apparatus (e.g., antennas, signal 

upgrades). Such components improvements are anticipated to be placed within the 

existing railroad ROW and, therefore, would be assumed to have minimal or no 

effect upon agricultural uses adjacent to the railroad ROW. 

Between today and 2040, agricultural lands in the project corridor could be 

converted to other uses as a result of proposed population growth, transportation 

improvement projects, and other economic changes in the Coast Corridor region. 

The Monterey County General Plan EIR projects that buildout of the General Plan 

could result in the conversion to non-agricultural uses of almost 5,500 acres of 

Important Farmland and about 6,800 acres of land under Williamson Act contracts.

14

 

Some farmland conversion is also anticipated in San Luis Obispo County, but very 

little Prime Farmland conversion is expected in either county, owing to strong 

farmland protection measures each county has adopted. 

3.7.4.2 Build Alternative

Construction-Period Effects 

During construction, lands adjacent to areas of physical components proposed 

improvements could be used for construction access. Consequently, some 

disruption of agricultural uses could occur. Such disruption would be most likely to 

occur due to grading and other ground disturbing activities that could result in 

increased dust levels, which could in turn hinder successful farming activities. 

Construction may also require temporary staging areas outside the railroad ROW, 

including on lands in agricultural use. 

Table 3.7-1 below shows potential temporary impacts to farmland resulting from 

the Build Alternative improvements components.

 

14 County of Monterey, 2006, p. 4.2-1
Coast Corridor

3.7 Agricultural and Forest Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.7-10

Table 3.7-1 Build Alternative: Construction-Period Effects of Project 

Improvements Components to Farmlands (in acres)

Build 

Alternative 

Components

Prime 

Farmland

Unique 

Farmland

Farmland of 

Statewide 

Importance

Farmland of 

Local Potential 

and/or 

Importance

Grazing 

Land

Salinas Powered 

Switch 0 0 0 0 0

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #1 

0 0 0 0 0

Spence Siding 

Extension 5 2 14 0 0

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #2 

0 0 0 0 0

Gonzales Powered 

Switch 0 0 0 0 0

Soledad Powered 

Switch 0 0 0 0 0

Soledad New 

Passenger Station 0 0 0 0 0

Harlem/Metz Curve 

Realignments 96 9 14 0 40

Chalone Creek New 

Siding 7 0 4 0 10

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #3

0 0 0 0 0

Coburn Curve 

Realignments 67 11 10 0 21

King City Siding 

Extension 6 0 0 0 3

King City New 

Passenger Station 0 0 0 0 0

King City Powered 

Switch 0 0 0 0 0
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.7 Agricultural and Forest Resources

3.7-11

Build 

Alternative 

Components

Prime 

Farmland

Unique 

Farmland

Farmland of 

Statewide 

Importance

Farmland of 

Local Potential 

and/or 

Importance

Grazing 

Land

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #4

0 0 0 0 0

MP 165 Curve 

Realignment 23 5 0 0 15

San Lucas New 

Siding 1 0 0 0 18

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #5

0 0 0 0 0

MP 172 Track 

Realignment 79 3 0 0 14

San Ardo Powered 

Switch 0 0 0 0 0

Getty/Bradley 

Curve Realignments 0 0 0 0 73

Bradley Siding 

Extension 0 0 0.5 0 29

Bradley Powered 

Switch 0 0 0 0 0

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #6

0 0 0 0 0

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #7

0 0 0 0 0

McKay/ Wellsona 

Curve Realignments 0 0 0 69 24

McKay East 

Powered Switches

0 0 0 0 0

Wellsona New 

Siding 3 0 0.5 5 6
Coast Corridor

3.7 Agricultural and Forest Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.7-12

Build 

Alternative 

Components

Prime 

Farmland

Unique 

Farmland

Farmland of 

Statewide 

Importance

Farmland of 

Local Potential 

and/or 

Importance

Grazing 

Land

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #8

0 0 0 0 0

Wellsona/ Paso 

Robles Curve 

Realignments

4 0 7 8 0

Templeton Siding 0 0 0 12 5

Templeton/ Henry 

Curve Realignments 0 0 0 0 0

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #9

0 0 0 0 0

Henry/Santa 

Margarita Curve 

Realignment

0 0 0 95 8

Santa Margarita

Powered Switch 0 0 0 0 0

Cuesta Second 

Main Track 0 0 0 5 20

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #10

0 0 0 0 0

Totals 290 31 51 194 286

Source: ICF, 2013.

The only forest lands in the Salinas to San Luis Obispo corridor occur near the Cuesta 

Grade area immediately north of the City of San Luis Obispo. The only proposed 

physical component improvement in this area is the second mainline, which is 

proposed from southern Santa Margarita towards the Cuesta Grade. Review of 

aerial mapping indicates that the area of the proposed second mainline is along 

private inholdings within the boundaries of the Los Padres National Forest. These 

inholdings are in a variety of uses, including public utilities (the Santa Margarita 

Booster Station), and the railroad ROW. The railroad passes through a forested area 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.7 Agricultural and Forest Resources

3.7-13

here as it climbs the Cuesta Grade. The precise location of the second mainline has 

not yet been determined but the conservative buffer area assumed herein indicates 

the potential for construction of the second mainline to potentially require tree 

removal/clearance of forest lands.15

Operational Effects

Operational effects would result from the conversion of farmland to some other use 

in perpetuity. In this case, it would result from the footprint of the proposed

physical components improvements requiring the acquisition of farmland. 

Many of the components envisioned under the Build Alternative would be 

constructed within existing railroad ROW, such as rail/track upgrades, signal 

upgrades, powered switches, and new sidings and siding extensions. Therefore, no 

land outside the existing railroad ROW would be permanently converted. Some 

permanent impacts associated with new sidings and siding extensions were overreported in the Draft Program EIS/EIR. FMMP data was used for analyzing potential 

impacts to agricultural resources. FMMP data does not account for roads, 

highways, or railroads. Potential Permanent impacts to FMMP categories were 

over-reported due to overlap between existing railroad ROW (e.g., permanent 

siding and track/signal upgrade footprints) and FMMP data sets (polygons). 

Therefore, permanent impacts associated with new sidings and siding extensions 

are now reported as zero since no protected farmland is assumed to exist within the 

railroad ROW.

Similarly, no permanent impacts to agricultural or forest resources are expected to 

occur from the proposed new passenger stations, as both station sites are within 

the urbanized downtown areas of Soledad and King City. 

For those components requiring land outside of the existing railroad ROW, such as 

curve realignments, new sidings and the second mainline, Table 3.7-2 below 

quantifies potential permanent impacts to farmland.

 

15 Construction-period impacts associated with the second mainline include a footprint of 100 feet on 

either side of the existing railroad right-of-way.
Coast Corridor

3.7 Agricultural and Forest Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.7-14

Table 3.7-2 Build Alternative: Operational Effects of Project Improvements

Components to Farmlands (in acres)

Build 

Alternative 

Components

Prime 

Farmland

Unique 

Farmland

Farmland of 

Statewide 

Importance

Farmland of 

Local Potential 

and/or 

Importance

Grazing 

Land

Salinas Powered 

Switch 0 0 0 0 0

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #1 

0 0 0 0 0

Spence Siding 

Extension 4 0 0.5 0 13 0 0 0

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #2 

0 0 0 0 0

Gonzales Powered 

Switch 0 0 0 0 0

Soledad Powered 

Switch 0 0 0 0 0

Soledad New 

Passenger Station 0 0 0 0 0

Harlem/Metz Curve 

Realignments 28 2 4 0 6

Chalone Creek New 

Siding 2 0 0 3 0 0 8 0

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #3

0 0 0 0 0

Coburn Curve 

Realignments 22 1 4 0 1

King City Siding 

Extension 4 0 0 0 0 2 0

King City New 

Passenger Station 0 0 0 0 0

King City Powered 

Switch 0 0 0 0 0
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.7 Agricultural and Forest Resources

3.7-15

Build 

Alternative 

Components

Prime 

Farmland

Unique 

Farmland

Farmland of 

Statewide 

Importance

Farmland of 

Local Potential 

and/or 

Importance

Grazing 

Land

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #4

0 0 0 0 0

MP 165 Curve 

Realignment 7 1 0 0 2

San Lucas New 

Siding 0 0 0 0 18 0

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #5

0 0 0 0 0

MP 172 Track 

Realignment 20 1 0 0 4

San Ardo Powered 

Switch 0 0 0 0 0

Getty/Bradley 

Curve Realignments 0 0 0 0 18

Bradley Siding 

Extension 0 0 0.1 0 0 50 0

Bradley Powered 

Switch 0 0 0 0 0

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #6

0 0 0 0 0

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #7

0 0 0 0 0

McKay/ Wellsona 

Curve Realignments 0 0 0 20 5

McKay East 

Powered Switches 0 0 0 0 0

Wellsona New 

Siding 3 0 0 0.1 0 4 0 6 0
Coast Corridor

3.7 Agricultural and Forest Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.7-16

Build 

Alternative 

Components

Prime 

Farmland

Unique 

Farmland

Farmland of 

Statewide 

Importance

Farmland of 

Local Potential 

and/or 

Importance

Grazing 

Land

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #8

0 0 0 0 0

Wellsona/ Paso 

Robles Curve 

Realignments

1 0 2 2 0

Templeton Siding 0 0 0 13 0 4 0

Templeton/ Henry 

Curve Realignments 0 0 0 0 0

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #9

0 0 0 0 0

Henry/Santa 

Margarita Curve 

Realignment

0 0 0 12 1

Santa Margarita

Powered Switch 0 0 0 0 0

Cuesta Second 

Main Track 0 0 0 3 11

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #10

0 0 0 0 0

Total 91 78 6 26 10 57 37 136 48

Note: Permanent impacts were over reported for new sidings and siding extensions due to overlap between 

existing railroad ROW and FMMP polygons. Therefore, permanent impacts due to these proposed upgrades have 

been revised to zero since it is highly unlikely that farmland exists within the railroad ROW.

Source: ICF, 2013.

As noted above, construction of the second mainline could require clearance of 

forest lands north of the Cuesta Grade. Effects to forest lands would be 

concentrated at the construction phase, which could require tree removal to 

construct the second mainline particularly if the final alignment is identified for an 

area beyond the existing railroad ROW. Indirect operational effects to forest land 

could occur through rail operations being extended further into forested areas 

depending on the final alignment of the second mainline. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.7 Agricultural and Forest Resources

3.7-17

3.7.4.3 Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would include the same service as the Build Alternative 

and would retain all corridor-wide and almost all of the same physical components. 

The only differences are that the Preferred Alternative would include modified 

footprints for the King City siding extension and passenger station, and would 

exclude each of the four curve realignments within San Luis Obispo County. 

Additionally, the Preferred Alternative includes a 27 mile “island” of CTC between 

MP 202 and 229 (McKay to Santa Margarita). 

Accordingly, effects on agricultural and forest resources for the Preferred 

Alternative would be the same as the Build Alternative except for the areas where 

the modified or excluded components are located. The discussions below assess 

agricultural and forest resource effects as a result of modified or excluded

components.

Construction-Period Effects 

Construction of any of the physical components under the Preferred Alternative 

would have similar potential as the Build Alternative to impact agricultural and 

forest resources, but these effects would be temporary. Some of the physical 

components are more substantial than others (such as track realignments, siding 

extensions, and the second mainline). The proposed station would be located 

within an urbanized portion of the City of King. Construction activities and staging 

areas would occur near the proposed station footprint, and would not result in any 

substantial impacts to agricultural or forest resources. Island CTC would be 

implemented within existing railroad ROW. Construction of the CTC would not 

require any heavy machinery or construction activity, and thus would not be 

expected to adversely impact agricultural or forest resources.

The Preferred Alternative excludes four curve realignments in San Luis Obispo 

County; therefore, construction-period impacts to agricultural and forest resources 

would be reduced in these locations. 

As shown in Table 3.7-3, the City of King siding extension could potentially affect 17 

acres of Prime farmland during construction. In the aggregate, construction-period 

impacts to Prime farmland of the Build and Preferred Alternatives are very similar. 

Additionally, the avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies identified below 

would eliminate or reduce these potential temporary impacts.
Coast Corridor

3.7 Agricultural and Forest Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.7-18

Operational Effects

As previously discussed, potential operational and permanent impacts would occur 

for those components requiring land outside of the existing railroad ROW, such as 

curve realignments and the second mainline. The Preferred Alternative excluded 

the four curve realignments in San Luis Obispo County; therefore, effects to 

agricultural and forest resources in these locations would be reduced. 

The revised City of King siding extension and the island CTC would not have any 

operational effects to agricultural or forest resources as they would be located 

within existing railroad ROW. 

Additionally, the revised City of King passenger station would be located on 

urban/commercial land and would therefore not have any direct or indirect effects 

on agricultural or forest resources. Thus, the Preferred Alternative would have 

reduced operational effects compared to the Build Alternative.

Table 3.7-3 Preferred Alternative: Construction-Period Effects of Project 

Components to Farmlands (in acres)

Preferred 

Alternative 

Components

Prime 

Farmland

Unique 

Farmland

Farmland of 

Statewide 

Importance

Farmland of 

Local Potential 

and/or 

Importance

Grazing 

Land

King City Siding 

Extension 17 0 0 0 0.5

King City New 

Passenger Station 0 0 0 0 0

McKay/ Wellsona

Curve Realignments None. This improvement is not part of the Preferred Alternative.

Wellsona/ Paso 

Robles Curve 

Realignments

None. This improvement is not part of the Preferred Alternative.

Templeton/ Henry 

Curve Realignments None. This improvement is not part of the Preferred Alternative.

Henry/Santa 

Margarita Curve 

Realignment

None. This improvement is not part of the Preferred Alternative.

Source: ICF, 2013
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.7 Agricultural and Forest Resources

3.7-19

3.7.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION 

STRATEGIES

As previously stated, this analysis used a conservative approach to identifying 

potential impacts by defining a generous “buffer area” in determining whether the 

Build Alternative has the potential to result in impacts to for agricultural or forest 

land resources. Specific impact areas will be calculated as some or all proposed 

physical improvements project components are carried forward for further design. 

Avoiding or minimizing use of farmland or forestland can be achieved through 

careful design selection of Build Alternatives improvements project components.

If such use cannot be avoided, some farmland conversion cannot be mitigated to a 

less-than-significant level under CEQA. Generally, the conversion of Prime Farmland 

to a non-agricultural use is considered to be a significant and unavoidable impact. 

Mitigation measures (such as placing other lands in conservation easements) can 

lessen but not fully avoid significant impacts. This is based on the principle that 

there is a finite amount of Prime Farmland; it is not possible to create or otherwise 

replace Prime Farmland when some such land it is permanently converted to a nonagricultural use. 

The following strategies have been identified at this preliminary stage to avoid, 

minimize, and/or mitigate any potentially significant impacts and will be further 

refined during the project-level environmental analysis.

A-AG-1. Careful design practices, such as constructing the second mainline to be 

completely within existing railroad ROW, would avoid potential impacts to 

agricultural and forest resources along the Corridor, as feasible. Other Build 

Preferred Alternative improvements components would be designed to avoid or 

minimize farmland effects through similar design approaches. 

MM-AG-1. All Farmland impacts would be at least partially offset through purchase 

of conservation easements that would permanently maintain lands in agricultural 

use. These conservation easements would be acquired over agricultural lands of 

equal quality to those affected.

With regard to Williamson Act contracts, specific conflicts with Williamson Act 

contracts would need to be identified prior to implementation of any Preferred

Alternative component project elements under the Build Alternative. 

MIN-AG-2. When there is a need to acquire and convert land enrolled in a 

Williamson Act contract, the Department of Conservation would be notified and 

requirements of Government Code Section 51290-51295 and 51296.6 would be 

met.
Coast Corridor

3.7 Agricultural and Forest Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.7-20

To the extent the second mainline would require either temporary or permanent 

use of land outside the existing railroad ROW that traverses the Los Padres National 

Forest, the Forest Service would be consulted to identify appropriate and feasible 

means to avoid, minimize, or compensate for any forest land impacts. 

MM-AG-3. To the extent forest land use could not be fully avoided, potentially 

feasible mitigation measures include land swaps, fee mitigation, or other similar 

measures that would compensate for loss of forest lands. 

The incorporation of mitigation measures would minimize effects related to

construction and operation of the physical improvements comprising the Preferred

Alternative, but even with mitigation, the Preferred Alternative could result in the 

permanent conversion of farmland to rail corridor uses. Mitigation strategies would 

be further refined at project-level analysis.

3.7.6 SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS

Prior to implementation of any elements of the Build Preferred Alternative, 

additional analysis will be needed completed to determine precise impacts of 

agricultural and forest resources. As discussed in Subsection 3.7.3, Affected 

Environment, the existing right-of-way as well as a 100 foot wide corridor (for curve 

realignments) was used to evaluate permanent impacts, while up to 500 foot 

buffers were used to evaluate construction-period impacts. Conflicts with 

Williamson Act contracts will also be evaluated in detail prior to implementing any 

elements of the Build Preferred Alternative.
Spence Siding

H

EA-2

EA-1 H

H

EA-1

Chualar

Spreckels

£¤101

Salinas

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

San Luis

Obispo

Monterey

c

d

e

f

a

b

Important Farmland in Monterey County

Figure 3.7-1a

Legend

Important Farmland

Unique Farmland

Farmland of Statewide Importance

Prime Farmland

Grazing Land

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

±

±

0 1 2

Miles

1:75,000

Page 1a
Harlem/Metz Harlem/Metz

Harlem/Metz New Chalone Creek

H

EA-3

EA-2 H

Gonzales

Soledad

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

San Luis

Obispo

Monterey

c

d

e

f

a

b

Important Farmland in Monterey County

Figure 3.7-1b

Legend

Important Farmland

Unique Farmland

Farmland of Statewide Importance

Prime Farmland

Grazing Land

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

±

±

0 1 2

Miles

1:75,000

Page 1b
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

San Luis

Obispo

Monterey

c

d

e

f

a

b

Important Farmland in Monterey County

Figure 3.7-1c

Legend

Important Farmland

Unique Farmland

Farmland of Statewide Importance

Prime Farmland

Grazing Land

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

±

±

0 1 2

Miles

1:75,000

Page 1c
Realign Tracks at MP 165 Realign Tracks at MP 172

San Lucas Siding

EA-5

H

EA-4

H

H

EA-4

UV198

San

Lucas

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

San Luis

Obispo

Monterey

c

d

e

f

a

b

Important Farmland in Monterey County

Figure 3.7-1d

Legend

Important Farmland

Unique Farmland

Farmland of Statewide Importance

Prime Farmland

Grazing Land

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

±

±

0 1 2

Miles

1:75,000

Page 1d
Getty/Bradley

Getty/Bradley

Getty/Bradley

Bradley Siding

EA-6 H

H

EA-6

H

EA-5

Bradley

San Ardo

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

San Luis

Obispo

Monterey

c

d

e

f

a

b

Important Farmland in Monterey County

Figure 3.7-1e

Legend

Important Farmland

Unique Farmland

Farmland of Statewide Importance

Prime Farmland

Grazing Land

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

±

±

0 1 2

Miles

1:75,000

Page 1e
Wellsona/Paso Robles

McKay/Wellsona

McKay/Wellsona

McKay/Wellsona

Wellsona Siding

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

San Luis

Obispo

Monterey

c

d

e

f

a

b

Important Farmland in Monterey County

Figure 3.7-1f

Legend

Important Farmland

Unique Farmland

Farmland of Statewide Importance

Prime Farmland

Grazing Land

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

±

±

0 1 2

Miles

1:75,000

Page 1f
Wellsona/Paso Robles

McKay/Wellsona

McKay/Wellsona

McKay/Wellsona

Wellsona Siding

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

c

a

b

Important Farmland in San Luis Obispo County

Figure 3.7-2a

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Important Farmland

Unique Farmland

Farmland of Local Importance

Farmland of Statewide Importance

Local Potential Farmland

Prime Farmland

Grazing Land

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

±

1:75,000

Page 2a
Henry/Santa Margarita Templeton/Henry

Henry/Santa Margarita

Henry/Santa Margarita

Henry/Santa Margarita

Templeton Siding

Second Main Line

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

c

a

b

Important Farmland in San Luis Obispo County

Figure 3.7-2b

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Important Farmland

Unique Farmland

Farmland of Local Importance

Farmland of Statewide Importance

Local Potential Farmland

Prime Farmland

Grazing Land

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

±

1:75,000

Page 2b
Henry/Santa Margarita

Second Main Line

EA-10 H

H

EA-10

EA-9 H

UV1

UV227

Arroyo

Grande

San Luis

Obispo

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

c

a

b

Important Farmland in San Luis Obispo County

Figure 3.7-2c

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Important Farmland

Unique Farmland

Farmland of Local Importance

Farmland of Statewide Importance

Local Potential Farmland

Prime Farmland

Grazing Land

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

±

1:75,000

Page 2c
This page intentionally left blank.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.8 Public Utilities

3.8-1

3.8 PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES

This section describes existing potential impacts to public utilities and services 

associated with the No Build and action alternatives preferred in comparison with 

the No Build and Build Alternatives. Utilities evaluated in this section include 

electricity and gas, water, wastewater and telecommunications. Emergency 

services evaluated in this section include police, fire, and emergency response. 

This section describes updates and changes made in response to comments on the 

Draft Program EIS/EIR. Chapter 5.0, Comments and Coordination, includes all 

substantive comments on the Draft Program EIS/EIR and provides responses to each 

comment. The City of King provided several comments regarding Build Alternative 

components discussed in the Public Utilities and Services section (see comments 

A.3-2 and A-3.43). Comment A.3-2 resulted in clarifying text revisions to the 

Affected Environment discussion of the Program EIS/EIR. These changes are shown 

in strikethrough and underline format.

3.8.1 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

3.8.1.1 Federal 

Federal Communications Commission

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulates interstate and 

international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable in all 50 

states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. The FCC is an independent U.S. 

government agency overseen by Congress, and is the primary authority for 

communications law, regulation, and technological innovation. The FCC’s rules and 

regulations are located in Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).1

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)

A number of pipelines transmitting petroleum products cross the study area. The 

Office of Pipeline Safety of the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety 

Administration (PHMSA), an agency within the U.S. Department of Transportation, is 

charged with regulating pipeline safety under 49 CFR § 190.1. Pipeline owners and 

 

1

Federal Communications Commission, 2014
Coast Corridor

3.8 Public Utilities Final Program EIS/EIR

3.8-2

operators are required to meet particular standards of qualification to operate 

pipelines, uphold established safety standards, and participate in public safety 

programs that “notify an operator of proposed demolition, excavation, tunneling, or 

construction near or affecting a pipeline,” identify pipelines that may be affected by 

such activities, and identify any hazard that may affect a pipeline. 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) was established in 1977 to 

determine whether wholesale electricity prices were reasonable, and proceeded to 

deregulate the electricity market. Currently, this independent federal agency 

regulates the interstate transmission of natural gas, oil, and electricity. Additionally, 

FERC regulates the wholesale electricity rates, oil pipelines, hydroelectric 

infrastructure, and the natural gas industry. FERC also authorizes the installation or 

abandonment of natural gas infrastructure, and surveys electric transmission 

project applications, as well as overseeing environmental affairs related to the 

natural gas or hydroelectric industries.2 

3.8.1.2 State

California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC)

The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) primarily regulates the provision 

of privately owned utilities in California. These utilities include privately owned 

telecommunications, electric, natural gas, water, railroad, rail transit, and passenger 

transportation companies. The CPUC does not regulate projects that would cross 

utility lines, these are typically controlled by the utility company themselves; 

however, the CPUC does regulate the creation of new at-grade rail crossings. 

Office of the State Fire Marshal, Pipeline Safety Division (The 

Division)

The Division regulates intrastate hazardous liquid pipelines pursuant to the 

Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act of 1981. The Division investigates all spills, 

ruptures, fires, and pipeline incidents and currently regulates the safety of 

approximately 4,500 miles of intrastate hazardous liquid transportation pipelines.3

 

2

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 2014

3

California Office of the State Fire Marshal, 2013.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.8 Public Utilities

3.8-3

3.8.1.3 Local

Monterey County General Plan

The Monterey County General Plan Public Services Element includes policies related 

to providing adequate public services and facilities (APSF). Ensuring that APSF are 

available to support new development, and that they are provided concurrently 

with new development is required, new development is required to connect to 

existing water service providers whenever possible, and all projects are required to 

be designed to minimize runoff and absorb rainfall using a variety of mitigation 

techniques. There are also policies ensuring that new development is guaranteed a 

long-term sustainable water supply, adequate wastewater treatment, and requiring 

developers to construct or contribute their fair share to the funding of new or 

expanded water and/or wastewater treatment facilities if needed to serve their 

development. 

City of Salinas General Plan

The City’s General Plan provides policies regarding providing effective and 

responsive fire and police protection, and emergency response system. A safe and 

adequate supply of water is encouraged, as well as creating a safer community 

through the use of design techniques for new development. There are also policies 

aimed at protecting the community from hazards related to ground transportation, 

such as rail, truck, and roadway systems.

City of Soledad General Plan

The City’s General Plan provides policies requiring adequate public services during 

new development, fair share contributions from developers for additional public 

services such as fire and police protection, water-conserving design and equipment 

in new construction and landscaping, and new development compliance with the 

Monterey County Integrated Waste Management Plan.

City of King (King City) General Plan

The City’s General Plan includes policies requiring new development to assure that 

adequate services and facilities are, or will be, available within a reasonable time, to 

provide coordinated, ongoing planning for public service facilities, and requiring that 

all new development proposals be referred to the Police and Fire Departments for 

law-enforcement and safety evaluation. There are also policies assuring adequate 

water service, supply, wastewater service, and drainage throughout the city, and 

requiring the extension of new power transmission lines to be placed underground.
Coast Corridor

3.8 Public Utilities Final Program EIS/EIR

3.8-4

San Luis Obispo County General Plan

The San Luis Obispo County General Plan provides policies encouraging new 

development to be carefully located, especially when development involves fuel in 

higher fire risk areas. Policies also require that adequate facilities, equipment and 

personnel are available to meet the demands of fire fighting in San Luis Obispo 

County. The amount, location, and rate of growth allowed by the Land Use Element 

is restricted by the sustainable capacity of resources, public services, and facilities 

and the General Plan requires additional public resources, services, and facilities to 

be provided preemptively to avoid over burdening existing resources.

3.8.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION

Utilities

To better understand the potential for proposed physical components

improvements to result in impacts to utilities, the analysis in this section is built 

upon a review of available data for all known utilities (pipelines, transmission lines, 

and related facilities) within or adjacent to the project corridor. The purpose of this 

review is to determine if any of the proposed physical components improvements

would cross or pass in close proximity to existing utilities. To the extent potential 

conflicts have been identified, this document proposes appropriate strategies to 

avoid or minimize the effects of such conflicts. 

A secondary potential impact is whether would occur if any of the proposed 

components improvements could would result in expanded utility demand that 

could not be met without the construction of new facilities. 

Public Services

Potential public services impacts could occur if there is an identified need to expand 

or build new facilities for police, fire, or emergency services, or if construction of any 

proposed physical components improvements could potentially result in the 

temporary disruption of such these services because of detours or other temporary 

barriers.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.8 Public Utilities

3.8-5

3.8.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Public Utilities

The utility service providers in the study area are summarized below.

Natural Gas Facilities

Natural gas facilities and pipelines are provided by Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) and 

Southern California Gas Company (SCG). The service area covered by PG&E includes 

northern and central California. SCG provides service to most of southern 

California. There are currently about 3.4 miles (18,000 linear feet) of pipeline 

immediately adjacent to the 130 mile rail corridor.4 

Electrical Transmission Lines

Electrical transmission lines in the area are provided by PG&E. PG&Es service area 

spans much of California, from Shasta Lake area to just south of Lompoc. About 1.1 

miles (roughly 5,700 linear feet) of electrical transmission lines are in place 

immediately adjacent to the existing rail 130 mile rail corridor.5

Telecommunications

Telecommunication, through optical fiber, is the backbone for broadband 

communications. Fiber-optic communication has many advantages over traditional 

copper-wire and wireless communications; it is non-corrosive, immune to weather 

and electrical noise, is made from renewable sources, it has more bandwidth, and 

offers the best return on investment for networks.

Fiber-optic transmission lines are in place along the rail corridor, traveling directly 

alongside the existing rail. alignment for approximately 30 miles from Paso Robles 

to San Luis Obispo.6 Railroad tracks are generally considered good paths for 

telecommunications cable because they offer unobstructed, linear routes.

Solid Waste

Between Salinas and San Luis Obispo, solid waste disposal is provided by multiple 

service providers. The Salinas Valley Solid Waste Authority (SVSWA) serves the 

eastern inland portions of Monterey County, including Salinas, Soledad, and King 

City. The SVSWA operates two landfills; the Johnson Canyon Sanitary Landfill in 

 

4

ICF, 2013

5

ICF, 2013
Coast Corridor

3.8 Public Utilities Final Program EIS/EIR

3.8-6

Gonzales, and the Jolon Road Sanitary Landfill in King City. They each have available 

capacity to receive solid waste, with 5.9 million cubic yards and 826,500 cubic yards 

remaining capacities, respectively. The SVSWA also has plans to expand all of its 

landfills, as well as site a new landfill.7

The City of Paso Robles owns a landfill and franchises for solid waste collection 

within the city limits. Paso Robles Waste Disposal is the sole franchise collection 

company, and Pacific Waste Services operates the city-owned landfill. As of July 

2009, the landfill had over 3 million tons of remaining capacity to receive solid 

waste.8

Solid waste in San Luis Obispo is managed by San Luis Garbage, and is received by 

the Cold Canyon landfill just outside of the city. The landfill currently accepts up to 

1,200 tons per day of disposal material, and is currently waiting for approval to 

expand the facility, which would increase disposal capacity and extend the life of the 

landfill by 25 years, to year 2040.9

Wastewater

Wastewater services are provided by several utilities along the Corridor. The new 

and existing train stations are the only facilities that would require wastewater 

services within the vicinity of the alignment. Further analysis will primarily focus on 

the utilities in the jurisdictions with proposed or existing stations.

 Salinas: Salinas is served by the Monterey County Regional Water Pollution 

Control Agency (MRWPCA) which provides wastewater conveyance, treatment, 

disposal, and recycling services. The MRWPCA plant is rated at 29.6 million 

gallons per day (mgd) and currently flows are 21 mgd resulting in capacity to 

treat additional wastewater flows. MRWPCA uses connection fees to fund 

future expansions, and while specific improvement projects have not been 

identified to meet future needs generated by development, they do not 

anticipate problems in funding future expansions when they become 

necessary.10

 

7 Monterey County, 2006, pp. 4.11-27-4.11-28

8

City of El Paso de Robles, 2010, Table 5-11 and 

http://www.prcity.com/GOVERNMENT/departments/publicworks/trash-recycling/index.asp

9

County of San Luis Obispo, 2009, pp. 3-1-3-2.

10 City of Salinas, 2002, pp. 5.13-36-5.13-37
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.8 Public Utilities

3.8-7

 Soledad: Soledad operates one wastewater treatment plant with a treatment 

capacity of 5.5 mgd; however, the current capacity is effectively limited to 4.3 

mgd due to disposal capacity limitations. The city currently processes 

approximately 1.5 mgd, just over 35 percent of the plant’s effective capacity.11 

The treated water meets Title 22 Recycled Water Standards. The wastewater 

treatment plant serves the city and the Salinas Valley State Prison. The plant 

was upgraded in 2010 to meet the tertiary treatment requirements of the 

Regional Water Quality Control Board Order WRR R3-2008-0042.12

 King City: The King City Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) is located along 

the Salinas River northwest of the city. The facility provides collection, 

treatment, and disposal of both domestic and industrial wastes. Flow capacity 

at the facility is approximately 1.2 mgd, and daily flows are estimated to be 0.87 

mgd. The city adopted a Wastewater Facilities Plan (WFP) in 2004 which 

includes improvements that are expected to increase the treatment capacity of 

the facility. The city has commenced the first phase of improvements to 

implement the adopted WFP, which will effectively increase the treatment 

capacity to 1.53 mgd. A second phase of improvements is scheduled for design, 

bringing capacity to 1.92 mgd.13

 Paso Robles: The City of Paso Robles operates its own Wastewater Treatment 

Plant WWTP located along the Salinas River at the north end of town. The 

existing treatment process fails to meet Federal and State water quality 

regulations, and the city is occasionally fined for violations of its National 

Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. The city is planning a 

major WWTP upgrade to address these problems and prepare for the future 

production of recycled water.14

 San Luis Obispo: San Luis Obispo provides its own wastewater treatment within 

the city and serves California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) and the 

County of San Luis Obispo Airport. The WWTP provides for collection and 

treatment for residential, commercial, and industrial users. Over the past nine 

 

11 City of Soledad, 2012, p. 3-17

12 City of Soledad, 2012, pp. 4.6-6-4.6-7

13 City of King 2011, pp. 4-3-4-4

14 City of Paso Robles, Wastewater Division website. 

http://www.prcity.com/government/departments/publicworks/wastewater/. Accessed 8/22/13
Coast Corridor

3.8 Public Utilities Final Program EIS/EIR

3.8-8

years, dry-weather flow to the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) has ranged 

from 4.08 mgd to 5.12 mgd, and is designed to accommodate an average dryweather flow of 5.2 mgd. Improvements are planned that will provide capacity 

for up to 5.8 mgd to accommodate General Plan buildout.15

Water

A variety of service providers deliver water within the vicinity of the Corridor. Given 

that the existing and proposed new train stations are the only components of the 

physical improvements that would require any permanent water supply, and that 

construction –related period water use would be temporary and likely trucked in on 

an as-needed basis, further discussion will focus on providers that would supply the 

proposed stations.

 Salinas: Both California Water Service Corporation (Cal Water) and Alco Water 

Service (Alco) provide water to the City of Salinas. Alco serves the east and 

southeast portions of the city, totaling approximately one third of the city. The 

majority of the urbanized area is served by Cal Water. 

 Alco’s services are regulated by the CPUC and currently meet the level of 

service standards set forth in General Order 103, as well as State of California 

Department of Health Services, and Federal Environmental Protection Agency 

standards and requirements. Water is provided for irrigation, industrial, and 

commercial purposes through nine wells and one storage tank. Total well 

capacity is approximately 13,560 million gallons per year (mgy), and pump 

capacity is about 7,525 mgy. Alco also uses approximately 1,550 million 

gallons of groundwater per year. Additional storage facilities and wells were 

planned and discussed in the Salinas General Plan (2002) that would 

approximately double groundwater source capacity.16

 Cal Water is a private investor-owned utility, also regulated by the CPUC, 

providing service to approximately 100,000 residents. All of the water is 

groundwater sourced through 27 privately-owned deep wells, producing 

approximately 4,700 mgy. Groundwater capacity in the city is rated at 16,900 

gallons per minute. Both purveyors face complexities associated with 

seawater intrusion and high nitrate levels, and Cal Water is working closely 

with the MCWRA to address these issues. 17

 

15 City of San Luis Obispo, 2010, p. 8-24

16 City of Salinas, 2002, pp. 5.13-27/29

17 City of Salinas, 2002, pp. 5.13-27/29
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.8 Public Utilities

3.8-9

 Soledad: Soledad provides its own municipal water, supplied solely from 

groundwater retrieved from the Salinas Valley Groundwater Basin. The city 

currently has four wells providing 5.9 mgd, or 4,100 gallons per minute (gpm)

distributed mostly to residential and agricultural uses. Two additional wells are 

planned to be operational by 2016.18 The Urban Water Management Plan notes 

that there are currently no restrictions in place directing how much water the 

city can extract from the Basin, and the Basin is currently overtapped by 

approximately four percent per year. Conservation efforts and reduced 

agricultural water use are expected to remedy the imbalance.19

 King City: Cal Water serves King City with six wells, providing approximately 2.4 

mgd of local ground water to more than 3,100 service connections.20 The Cal 

Water system has a maximum production capacity of 3 mgd and is currently 

adequate to meet the needs of the city. Water demand is expected to increase 

as the population grows in the city, drilling of additional wells as well as 

implementing conservation efforts are anticipated to help offset water demand 

and accommodate additional demand.21

 Paso Robles: The Paso Robles Water Division is responsible for providing the 

City with water. There are 19 wells serving approximately 9,200 residential, 800 

commercial, and 400 irrigation customers within the city. Water is drawn from 

the Paso Robles Basin and the Salinas River Underflow, and over 50 percent of 

the city’s water is supplied by seven wells along the Salinas River Corridor. The 

city is also a participant in the Lake Nacimiento Water Project (NWP) and has 

secured a 4,000 AFY water entitlement. The design of a new surface-water 

treatment plant in under design and should be operational by 2015. The water 

from Lake Nacimiento will supplement water drawn from the Paso Robles Basin 

and help to ensure a long-term and reliable water supply for the city.22

 San Luis Obispo: The City of San Luis Obispo provides its own municipal water 

and draws water from five different sources – the Salinas Reservoir (Santa 

Margarita Lake), Whale Rock Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, recycled water 

from the City’s WRF, and groundwater.

 

18 City of Soledad, 2012, p. 4.6-1

19 City of Soledad, 2012, p. 3-19

20 City of King, 2011, pg. 4-1

21 City of King, 1998, pp. S-19-S-20

22 City of Paso Robles, 2014b
Coast Corridor

3.8 Public Utilities Final Program EIS/EIR

3.8-10

Public Services

The cities of Salinas, Soledad, King City, Paso Robles, and San Luis Obispo each have 

their own police departments. Fire protection services are provided by several 

different organizations. Within Monterey County, Salinas, Soledad, and King City 

each have their own fire departments. The Department of Forestry and Fire

Protection (CAL FIRE) operates fire stations in Paso Robles and San Luis Obispo. 

Paso Robles Emergency Services and the San Luis Obispo Fire Department also 

operate fire stations within each of their respective cities. 

Section 3.14, Growth Inducement, includes descriptions of existing public park and 

recreational facilities between Salinas and San Luis Obispo within 500 feet of the 

existing rail alignment and/or proposed rail improvements project components.

3.8.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.8.4.1No 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 

components improvements expected under the No Build Alternative would be the 

installation of PTC along the Corridor, which would provide increased safety for 

freight and passenger trains. Such a system PTC, when installed, will require 

electrical connections at signals but would otherwise not represent any substantial 

new draw on utility resources. The intention of PTC is to improve rail safety; o Once 

implemented, demand for rail-related emergency services (already at low levels) 

would be expected to decrease further. 

Construction activities under the No Build Alternative may create some electrical 

demand, but given that many construction sites use generators and thus do not

require connection to the electrical power grid or require natural gas, it can be 

assumed that demands for such these resources will would be negligible.

It is common practice to coordinate with utility representatives during construction 

in the vicinity of critical infrastructure, such as high-voltage overhead/underground 

transmission lines, high-pressure gas pipelines, or aqueduct canals. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.8 Public Utilities

3.8-11

3.8.4.2 Build Alternative

For the purposes of this analysis, the existing conditions are treated as 

representative of the No Build Alternative, and the analysis summarizes the relative 

differences between the existing conditions and the Build Alternative.

Utility Conflicts

Utility conflicts are expected to be low in areas where rail improvements project 

components would occur within the existing railroad ROW because utilities have 

already been sited to minimize conflicts with the rail corridor. Curve realignments 

and the second mainline, since they have the greatest likelihood of departing from 

the railroad ROW, have the greatest potential for conflicts with both above- and 

below-ground utilities. 

Table 3.8-1 below illustrates the extent of potential temporary and permanent 

conflicts with transmission lines and pipelines associated with implementation of

the Build Alternative components.

Natural Gas Pipelines

Construction and operation of the Build Alternative could result in potential 

proximity impacts to natural gas pipelines. New sidings and siding extensions, as 

well as the second main track, have the potential to intersect and conflict with 

existing pipelines adjacent to the railway railroad ROW.

Construction-Period Effects

Approximately 1 mile (4,629 linear feet (lf)) of pipeline could experience temporary

potential proximity impacts during construction activities. The Cuesta second main 

track would be responsible for the majority of this potential impact. Constructionrelated period impacts to natural gas pipelines could result in service disruptions 

and possibly damage to the pipeline from construction vehicle ingress/egress and 

construction equipment.

Operational Effects

Implementation of the Build Alternative could conflict with approximately 2.5 miles 

(13,376 lf) of natural gas pipelines. The Spence Siding extension accounts for a 

significant amount the potential proximity impacts to pipelines, affecting 

approximately 1.9 miles (10,002 linear feet lf) of natural gas pipelines if constructed. 

Elements Components of the Build Alternative are expected to cross existing natural 

gas pipelines on a total of 6 occasions throughout the alignment, 3 of which would

occur along the King City Siding extension improvement. This could cause damage 

to the pipeline, and potentially cause some degree of service disruption. 
Coast Corridor

3.8 Public Utilities Final Program EIS/EIR

3.8-12

Potentially impacted pipelines can either be protected in place so no damage during 

construction or subsequent operations would occur, or it can would be relocated if 

protecting in place would not be feasible, nor is relocating the improvement causing 

the conflict. Prior to implementing specific improvements detailed plans will be 

developed and allow more specific determination as to the location, duration, and

severity of proximity impacts to natural gas pipelines. 

Electrical Transmission Lines

Existing electrical transmission lines could be intersected during construction and 

operation of the Build Alternative. 

Construction-Period Effects

During construction, temporary proximity impacts could occur to about 0.9 miles 

(4,806 lf) of electrical transmission lines. The King City Siding extension would 

account for the majority of potential proximity impacts, intersecting with 

approximately 0.8 miles (4,244 lf) of electrical transmission lines during construction 

activities. Resulting impacts would be minor, or result in temporary service 

disruptions and some degree of damage to the transmission line.

Operational Effects

Implementation of elements of the Build Alternative components could would

conflict with less than 0.25 miles (906 lf) of existing transmission lines. The King City 

Siding extension could conflict with up to 0.1 miles (372 lf) of electrical transmission 

lines once operational. Elements Components of the Build Alternative are expected 

to cross transmission lines in 3 locations along the alignment.

Similar to natural gas pipelines, transmission lines can either be protected in place 

so no damage during construction or subsequent operations would occur, or it can 

be the lines can be relocated if neither protecting them in place, nor relocating the 

improvement causing the intersection would be feasible. Prior to implementing 

specific improvements detailed plans will be developed and allow more specific 

determination as to the location, duration, and severity of proximity impacts to 

electrical transmission lines.

Water Transmission Lines: Construction and Operational Effects

The NWP regional raw water transmission facility delivers water from Lake 

Nacimiento to communities in San Luis Obispo County via a 45 mile water pipeline 

ranging between 12 and 36 inches in diameter.23 This pipeline roughly tracks the 

 

23 Atascadero Mutual Water Company, 2014
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.8 Public Utilities

3.8-13

existing railroad alignment from north of Paso Robles south to San Luis Obispo. The 

following elements components of the Build Alternative are proposed to occur in 

this area: Wellsona New Siding, Templeton/Henry Curve Realignments, 

Wellsona/Paso Robles Curve Realignments, Templeton New Siding, Henry/Santa 

Margarita Curve Realignment, Santa Margarita Powered Switch, and the Second 

Main Track. Construction and operation of the aforementioned improvements

project components could result in potential proximity impacts to the water 

transmission line. 

Telecommunications: Construction and Operational Effects

Fiber-optic transmission lines are in place along the Corridor, traveling directly 

alongside most of the existing alignment in both Monterey and San Luis Obispo 

counties. from Paso Robles to San Luis Obispo. The following elements of the Build 

Alternative are proposed to occur in this section of the alignment: Templeton/Henry 

Curve Realignments, Henry/Santa Margarita Curve Realignment, Santa Margarita 

Powered Switch, and the Second Main Track. Potential proximity Impacts to 

telecommunication transmission lines could occur during construction and 

operation of elements of the Build Alternative components because of their 

proximity to the existing alignment and proposed improvements.

Utility Usage

Construction-Period Effects

Many of the elements of the Build Alternative components would be developed 

with heavy equipment, including diesel powered trucks and other machinery. 

Construction activities would require minimal direct usage of local utilities, like

including electricity and water. Often construction activities provide for any 

required electricity using onsite generators, eliminating the need to connect to the 

electrical power grid. Some water would likely be required during construction as 

part of standard construction best practices to help control dust and other

emissions. The quantity of water needed is anticipated to be relatively low, given 

the low levels of minimal earthwork, grading, and other dust creating activities that 

would take place. Additionally, given the likely low quantity of water needed during 

construction activities, water would be trucked in on an as-needed basis. 

Operational Effects

Operation of certain features of the Build Alternative components would require 

some electricity, specifically new powered switches, signal upgrades, and new 

stations. New stations would also require some water use and wastewater service

for restroom facilities. Other features, such as sidings, curve realignments, etc. 

would have little or no perceptible use of public electric and gas utilities.
Coast Corridor

3.8 Public Utilities Final Program EIS/EIR

3.8-14

The general impacts associated with the Station elements components of the Build 

Alternative have been assessed in the planning documents of the two receiving 

cities - Soledad and King City. The stations would be located in developed city 

centers, so requiring minimal or no utility extension would be needed. A variety of

service providers deliver water within the vicinity of the Corridor as described above 

in Section 3.8.2, Affected Environment. Given that the existing and proposed train 

stations are the only components of the physical improvements that would require 

any permanent water supply, new demand for water resources would not be 

significant. No potential proximity impacts to utilities were identified related to for

the station areas.

Signal upgrades would require some electricity to operate. New signal towers may 

be required to operate CTC. Where CTC equipment would be located adjacent to 

utilities, direct connections could would be made; this would prove difficult through 

more remote areas along the Corridor. 

Public Services

Construction-Period Effects

The vast majority of proposed improvements project components would be 

constructed within the existing railroad ROW or in new ROW proposed to be 

created (particularly curve realignments), typically avoiding existing roads. 

Therefore, the potential for roads to be blocked or diverted by construction periodrelated temporary emergency service and/or public facility disruptions would be 

low. Where construction work or construction vehicles would make extensive use 

of existing roads, a situation likely limited to the construction of components 

improvements across such roads, temporary access disruptions could be expected 

similar to other types of roadway improvement work. 

Operational Effects

It is unlikely that implementation of the Build Alternative would require any 

significant increase in public services or facilities because the proposed physical 

improvements components would not encourage substantial population growth. 

Individual rail components improvements, such as curve realignments, the second 

mainline, and other trackway improvements, have no foreseeable connection or 

linkage to increased demand for public services. New or expanded station areas 

could would incrementally contribute to increased demand for certain public 

services (police response, emergency services, etc.). However, the anticipated 

increase in station area activity would be modest, even in the two communities 

where new stations are planned. Neither of the environmental documents for the 

Soledad or King City station area nor downtown plans indicate any significant effect 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.8 Public Utilities

3.8-15

to public services as a result of plan implementation. Anticipated increases in 

passenger activity at the Salinas and San Luis Obispo stations are would not be at 

such high levels that substantial public services impacts could would occur. 

3.8.4.3 Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would include the same service as the Build Alternative 

and would retain all corridor-wide and almost all of the same physical components. 

The only differences are that the Preferred Alternative would include modified 

footprints for the King City siding extension and passenger station, and would 

exclude each of the four curve realignments within San Luis Obispo County. 

Additionally, the Preferred Alternative includes a 27 mile “island” of CTC between 

MP 202 and 229 (McKay to Santa Margarita). 

Accordingly, impacts to Public Utilities and Services for the Preferred Alternative 

would be the same as the Build Alternative except for the areas where the modified 

or excluded components are located. 

King City Siding Extension and Passenger Station

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. 

However, in response to comments, the Preferred Alternative is more specific with 

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

The King City siding extension considered as part of the Build Alternative would 

potentially result in permanent and temporary impacts to nearby/adjacent 

transmission lines based on an assumed potential impact area that encompassed 

the entire railroad alignment plus buffers on either side. Electric transmission lines 

generally parallel the outside of the existing railroad alignment. The modified siding 

extension included as part of the Preferred Alternative is longer than what was 

evaluated for the Build Alternative. The revised siding extension would continue to 

potentially result in permanent and temporary effects to nearby/adjacent 

transmission lines, but owing to its longer length, the revised siding would 

potentially affect more linear feet (see Table 3.8-1 below). Assuming that the siding 

extension can be constructed entirely within the railroad ROW, some or all of the 

proximity effects to transmission lines would be avoided. 

No potential pipeline conflicts would occur for the revised King City siding extension. 

The analysis of the Preferred Alternative confirms that the revised proposal for the 

King City station would have no impacts to transmission lines or pipelines. 
Coast Corridor

3.8 Public Utilities Final Program EIS/EIR

3.8-16

While operation of the Build Alternative would require some water, wastewater, 

and electricity, the impact would not be significant because that the existing and 

proposed stations would be the only components that would require any 

permanent supply. The same conclusion is true for the Preferred Alternative 

because the Preferred Alternative only slightly modifies the location of the 

proposed station, and the types of anticipated uses are the same as for the Build 

Alternative. Therefore, resulting impacts would be similar and neither adverse nor 

significant. 

Curve Realignments and Island CTC

As described above, the four curve realignments within San Luis Obispo County and 

included in the Build Alternative would have no potential conflicts with electric

transmission lines or pipelines. Therefore, excluding these four curve realignments 

from the Preferred Alternative would result in the same conclusion of no potential 

impacts to these utilities. However, the Templeton/Henry, Wellsona/Paso Robles, 

and Henry/Santa Margarita curve realignments would potentially result in impacts 

to water transmission lines and telecommunication lines. Because the Preferred 

Alternative excludes these four curve realignments, it would avoid these potential 

impacts to water and telecommunication facilities. 

Under the Build Alternative, the potential for utility conflicts was generally 

considered to be low where rail components would occur within the existing 

railroad ROW because utilities have already been sited to minimize conflicts with 

the rail corridor. Although implementation of island CTC would consist of 

constructing new signals within the railroad ROW, potential conflicts could result. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.8 Public Utilities

3.8-17

Table 3.8-1 Potential Utility Impacts - No Build, Build, and Preferred Alternatives

No Build Alternative Build Alternative Preferred Alternative

Proposed 

Components

Potential 

Transmission 

Line Impacts 

(linear feet

Potential Pipeline 

Impacts (linear 

feet)

Potential 

Transmission Line 

Impacts (linear feet)

Potential Pipeline 

Impacts (linear feet)

Potential 

Transmission Line 

Impacts (linear 

feet)

Potential Pipeline 

Impacts (linear feet)

Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm

Salinas Powered 

Switch N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upgrades to 

Existing 

Alignment Section 

#1 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spence Siding 

Extension N/A 0 0 0 10,002 0 0 0 10,002

Upgrades to 

Existing 

Alignment Section 

#2 

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gonzales Powered 

Switch N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Soledad Powered 

Switch N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Soledad New 

Passenger Station N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Coast Corridor

3.8 Public Utilities Final Program EIS/EIR

3.8-18

No Build Alternative Build Alternative Preferred Alternative

Proposed 

Components

Potential 

Transmission 

Line Impacts 

(linear feet

Potential Pipeline 

Impacts (linear 

feet)

Potential 

Transmission Line 

Impacts (linear feet)

Potential Pipeline 

Impacts (linear feet)

Potential 

Transmission Line 

Impacts (linear 

feet)

Potential Pipeline 

Impacts (linear feet)

Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm

Harlem/Metz 

Curve 

Realignments

N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chalone Creek 

New Siding N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upgrades to 

Existing 

Alignment Section 

#3

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Coburn Curve 

Realignments N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

King City Siding 

Extension N/A 4,244 372 0 0 14,192 372 0 0

King City New

Passenger Station N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

King City Powered 

Switch N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.8 Public Utilities

3.8-19

No Build Alternative Build Alternative Preferred Alternative

Proposed 

Components

Potential 

Transmission 

Line Impacts 

(linear feet

Potential Pipeline 

Impacts (linear 

feet)

Potential 

Transmission Line 

Impacts (linear feet)

Potential Pipeline 

Impacts (linear feet)

Potential 

Transmission Line 

Impacts (linear 

feet)

Potential Pipeline 

Impacts (linear feet)

Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm

Upgrades to 

Existing 

Alignment Section 

#4

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MP 165 Curve 

Realignment N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

San Lucas New 

Siding N/A 109 133 0 0 109 133 0 0

Upgrades to 

Existing 

Alignment Section 

#5

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

MP 172 Track 

Realignment N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

San Ardo Powered 

Switch N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Getty/Bradley 

Curve 

Realignments

N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Coast Corridor

3.8 Public Utilities Final Program EIS/EIR

3.8-20

No Build Alternative Build Alternative Preferred Alternative

Proposed 

Components

Potential 

Transmission 

Line Impacts 

(linear feet

Potential Pipeline 

Impacts (linear 

feet)

Potential 

Transmission Line 

Impacts (linear feet)

Potential Pipeline 

Impacts (linear feet)

Potential 

Transmission Line 

Impacts (linear 

feet)

Potential Pipeline 

Impacts (linear feet)

Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm

Bradley Siding 

Extension N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bradley Powered 

Switch N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upgrades to 

Existing 

Alignment Section 

#6

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upgrades to 

Existing 

Alignment Section 

#7

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

McKay/ Wellsona 

Curve 

Realignments

N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

McKay East 

Powered Switches N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wellsona New 

Siding N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.8 Public Utilities

3.8-21

No Build Alternative Build Alternative Preferred Alternative

Proposed 

Components

Potential 

Transmission 

Line Impacts 

(linear feet

Potential Pipeline 

Impacts (linear 

feet)

Potential 

Transmission Line 

Impacts (linear feet)

Potential Pipeline 

Impacts (linear feet)

Potential 

Transmission Line 

Impacts (linear 

feet)

Potential Pipeline 

Impacts (linear feet)

Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm

Upgrades to 

Existing 

Alignment Section 

#8

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Wellsona/ Paso 

Robles Curve 

Realignments N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Templeton Siding

N/A 237 309 1,166 0 237 309 1,166 0

Templeton/ Henry 

Curve 

Realignments N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upgrades to 

Existing 

Alignment Section 

#9

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Coast Corridor

3.8 Public Utilities Final Program EIS/EIR

3.8-22

No Build Alternative Build Alternative Preferred Alternative

Proposed 

Components

Potential 

Transmission 

Line Impacts 

(linear feet

Potential Pipeline 

Impacts (linear 

feet)

Potential 

Transmission Line 

Impacts (linear feet)

Potential Pipeline 

Impacts (linear feet)

Potential 

Transmission Line 

Impacts (linear 

feet)

Potential Pipeline 

Impacts (linear feet)

Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm

Henry/Santa 

Margarita Curve 

Realignment N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Santa Margarita 

Powered Switch

N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cuesta Second 

Main Track

N/A 215 91 3,463 3,374 215 91 3,463 3,374

Upgrades to 

Existing 

Alignment Section 

#10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.8 Public Utilities

3.8-23

No Build Alternative Build Alternative Preferred Alternative

Proposed 

Components

Potential 

Transmission 

Line Impacts 

(linear feet

Potential Pipeline 

Impacts (linear 

feet)

Potential 

Transmission Line 

Impacts (linear feet)

Potential Pipeline 

Impacts (linear feet)

Potential 

Transmission Line 

Impacts (linear 

feet)

Potential Pipeline 

Impacts (linear feet)

Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm

Totals

0 0 0 0 4,806 906 4,629 13,376 14,754 906 4,629 13,376

Source: ICF, 2015
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.8 Public Utilities

3.8-24

3.8.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION 

STRATEGIES

Where appropriate, mitigation strategies should consider relocating, reconstructing, 

or restoring affected utilities in close coordination with the utility owner. During 

utility relocation planning several design strategies should be considered, including 

consolidating numerous utilities into one single conduit corridor. 

The following strategies have been identified at this preliminary stage to avoid, 

minimize, and/or mitigate any potential utility conflicts.

The following measures are applicable to the Build and Preferred Alternatives and 

were identified to minimize, avoid or mitigation potential impacts from the 

proposed components. The identification and implementation of specific mitigation

measures necessary for each project component will occur as part of subsequent 

project-level environmental review. Additional avoidance, minimization, and 

mitigation measures may also be identified during that review.

A-PS-1. Adapt rail components improvements to accommodate existing utility 

facilities and transmission lines.

A-PS-2. During project-level planning and design, refer to each utility 

owner/provider to best avoid potential impacts on existing and planned utilities 

through adjustments to design features. 

MIN-PS-3. Where avoidance is infeasible, utility transmission lines and facilities 

would be relocated or protected in place throughout all phases of construction and 

operation, and in compliance with the involved utility owners/providers.

MIN-PS-4. Implement solar powered CTC in remote areas where utility connections 

would be difficult.

3.8.6 SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS

Subsequent analysis will include more detailed information on the following public 

services and utilities:

 The specific locations of and potential impacts to public facilities and emergency 

services (such as schools, parks, fire and police stations, hospitals, and medical 

clinics).

 Fiber optic lines.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.8 Public Utilities

3.8-25

 Telecommunication lines.

 Storm drains.

 Wastewater and water pump stations.

 Wastewater conveyance lines.

 Water supply lines.

 Other utilities and/or pipelines likely to be crossed or conflict with the various 

alignment options, including liquid petroleum, crude oil, renewable energy 

facilities, etc.

Future project-level analysis will consider all utilities and public service providers

once the physical improvements are finalized based on the project components.
Coast Corridor

3.8 Public Utilities Final Program EIS/EIR

3.8-26

Page intentionally left blank
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.9 Hazardous Materials and Wastes

3.9-1

3.9 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS AND WASTES

The section identifies known hazardous material sites within the study area and 

analyzes any hazard-related impacts that could occur as a result of the No Build and 

action alternatives. 

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 regarding the City of King siding extension discussed in 

the Build Alternative, and one related to potential building demolition impacts (see 

comments A-3.44 through A-3.47). The discussion of the Preferred Alternative 

below addresses all of the comments provided. None of the comments result in the 

need for any revisions to the hazardous materials and wastes analysis.

EPA also provided one comment (A-7.4) on the transportation of hazardous 

materials. The specific recommendation letters cited by the commenter are 

targeted at rail carriers of oil products or other hazardous materials; they do not 

include any specific recommendations regarding the physical components of the rail 

system. Nothing in the recommendations provided in the comment suggests any 

need for any change to any of the components of the No Build, Build, or Preferred 

Alternatives.

3.9.1 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

The regulatory requirements discussion outlines the federal and state policies that 

are relevant to hazardous materials. 

3.9.1.1 Federal 

Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

RCRA governs the disposal of solid and hazardous waste. Congress passed RCRA in 

1976 as an amendment to the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1965. RCRA was intended 

to address the growing volume of municipal and industrial waste and set national 

goals for protecting human health and the environment from the potential hazards 

of waste disposal. RCRA sets forth measures to conserve energy and natural 

resources. RCRA Subtitle C establishes a hazardous waste program intended to 

regulate such wastes from their creation to their disposal – a framework sometimes 

called “cradle to grave.” RCRA Subtitle I sets forth an underground storage tank 
Coast Corridor

3.9 Hazardous Materials and Wastes Final Program EIS/EIR

3.9-2

(UST) program to regulate such storage of hazardous substances, including 

petroleum products. EPA has primary responsibility for implementing RCRA, but 

some states, including California and Nevada, have received authorization to 

implement RCRA and issue permits. 

Comprehensive Environmental Response and Liability Act 

(CERCLA)

CERCLA, also known as Superfund, was enacted in December 1980 and amended in 

1986. CERCLA provides a basis for taxing chemical and petroleum manufacturers 

and provides federal authority to respond directly to releases or threatened 

releases of hazardous substances that may endanger public health or the 

environment. CERCLA sets forth requirements concerning closed and/or abandoned 

hazardous waste sites, determines liability of the persons responsible for releases of 

hazardous waste at these sites, and administers a trust fund using collected taxes to 

provide for cleanup when no responsible party can be identified. 

Occupational Safety and Health Standards

Title 29 under the Code of Federal Regulations focuses on worker health and safety 

as it relates to worker exposure to hazards. The Occupational, Safety, and Health 

Administration (OSHA), born out of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, 

is the primary agency responsible for setting and enforcing standards to assure safe 

and healthful working conditions for working men and women and provide training, 

outreach, education, and assistance.

3.9.1.2 State

California Health and Safety Code

Hazardous waste management in California is regulated under the authority of the 

California Health and Safety Code. The Health and Safety Code ensures 

employment of proper technology and management practices, safe handling, 

treatment, recycling, and destruction of hazardous waste. The California 

Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) carries out many related programs 

and measures to protect the public health and environment from potential threats 

of hazardous substances and wastes.

The California State Fire Marshal (CSFM) participates in the Certified Unified 

Program Agency (CUPA), which consolidates and coordinates activities and 

programs related to hazardous wastes generators and treatments, storage tanks, 

hazardous material releases, and hazardous material management plans required 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.9 Hazardous Materials and Wastes

3.9-3

by chapter 6.11 of the California Health and Safety Code. The CSFM provides 

regulatory oversight, CUPA certifications, evaluations of the approved CUPAs, and 

training and education.1

According to Title 22 §66261.20 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), waste is 

considered hazardous if it includes one of the following four characteristics; 1) 

ignitability, 2) corrosivity, 3) reactivity, and 4) toxicity. CCR Title 22, Division 4.5 

contains environmental health standards for the management of hazardous waste. 

Title 22 requires hazardous waste is managed according to applicable regulations 

with regard to handling, transport, exposure requirements, and disposal 

requirements under a uniform hazardous waste manifest, with the specific 

procedures identified in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations. 

3.9.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION

Construction of one or more of the elements of the Build Alternative action 

alternatives would have varying potential to result in environmental effects to

hazardous materials and wastes. The study area for hazardous materials and waste

is defined as the existing railroad ROW, the temporary and permanent footprints for 

each of the physical components improvements. Temporary impact areas are 

locations that would be needed during construction and would be restored to their 

original conditions post construction (i.e., staging areas, ingress/egress). Permanent 

impact areas include all components and associated facilities and affected resources 

that would not be restored back to their original conditions (e.g., new track 

locations, stations, etc.). 

Analysis for this program-level document Program EIS/EIR consisted of consulting 

various databases to identify potentially hazardous sites that overlap with the 

temporary and permanent impact footprints of all potential improvements. The 

hazardous materials analysis included a qualitative comparison of potential impacts 

on humans and the natural environment based on possible exposure to hazardous 

materials near the study area during construction and/or operation of proposed 

improvements project components. 

 

1

California Office of the State Fire Marshal, 2013
Coast Corridor

3.9 Hazardous Materials and Wastes Final Program EIS/EIR

3.9-4

The following databases were consulted:

 Envirofact Database – EPA: this database searches toxic chemical releases, 

water discharge permit compliance, hazardous waste handling processes, 

Superfund status, and air emission estimates for particular geographic 

locations.2

 Envirostor Cleanup/Hazardous Waste Databases – DTSC: EnviroStor's site 

database contains a list of contaminated sites, as well as lists of facilities that 

process or transfer toxic waste. It also contains permit type, cleanup status, and 

location.

 Solid Waste Information System (SWIS) Database - California Department of 

Resources Recycling and Recovery: The SWIS database contains information on 

solid waste facilities, operations, and disposal sites throughout the State of 

California. The types of facilities found in this database include landfills, transfer 

stations, material recovery facilities, composting sites, transformation facilities, 

waste tire sites, and closed disposal sites.3

 Underground Storage Tanks (UST) - State Water Resources Control Board: An 

UST is defined by law as "any one or combination of tanks, including pipes 

connected thereto, that is used for the storage of hazardous substances and 

that is substantially or totally beneath the surface of the ground."

4

3.9.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Hazardous materials can pose a potential threat to human health or the 

environment if improperly stored, transferred, or disposed. Remediation of any 

hazardous material sites located within the study area can dramatically increase the 

capital cost of a project, thus understanding potentially hazardous sites early in the 

design process can influence future planning efforts.

Hazardous materials can be released through airborne fumes, vapors, or dust. 

Negative implications of hazardous materials include risks to soil or groundwater 

quality. In general, concentrations of hazardous materials that are higher than 

regulatory standards necessitate specific requirements for handling, primarily 

during excavation and other earth moving activities.

 

2

US EPA, 2014a

3

CalRecycle, 2013

4

California EPA, 2013
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.9 Hazardous Materials and Wastes

3.9-5

This program-level document Program EIS/EIR identifies potentially hazardous sites 

that are known near the existing Coast Corridor alignment and in proposed 

component improvement areas. According to the Monterey County General Plan 

EIR, agricultural producers are common users of hazardous materials in the county 

along with commercial, industrial, and institutional industries. 5According to the San 

Luis Obispo County General Plan Safety Element, many hazardous materials are 

shipped through the county on US 101, UPRR, and other state highways; therefore, 

past vehicle spills or accidental releases of unknown contaminants are possible 

risks.6 Additionally, mobile sources, including trucks, trains, and farm equipment 

are significant sources of diesel emissions. As a result, exhaust from engines on 

major transportation corridors includes high concentrations of particulate matter 

that is deposited nearby.7 According to Caltrans, aerially deposited lead is often 

deposited along and near highways from past leaded fuel vehicle emissions.8 

Furthermore, industrial, agricultural, and commercial establishments also release 

hazardous materials into the environment, especially where pesticides are 

commonly used.9 

Several historic hazardous sites and hazardous sites were identified within the study 

area. Historic sites generally refer to a hazardous site that has had past 

enforcement actions to remediate the area. Three historic-status sites were 

identified near the proposed Soledad Station. Hazardous sites were also identified 

near the proposed King City siding, and in several portions of the existing alignment. 

Hazardous historic sites were identified within section #1 and section #8 of the 

existing alignment. These sites have had enforcement actions in place to remediate 

or contain identified contamination. The study area does not contain any Superfund 

sites or landfills. 

 

5

County of Monterey, 2006, p. 4.13-1

6

County of San Luis Obispo, 1999a, p. 24

7

County of Monterey, 2006, p. 4.1-6

8

Caltrans, 2014

9

County of San Luis Obispo, 1999b, pp. 101-107
Coast Corridor

3.9 Hazardous Materials and Wastes Final Program EIS/EIR

3.9-6

3.9.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.9.4.1No 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 without any physical components improvements south 

of Salinas and San Luis Obispo. The only physical component improvement

expected under the No Build Alternative would be the installation of PTC along the 

Corridor, which would provide increased safety for freight and passenger trains. 

PTC equipment would likely be installed within the existing railroad ROW or would 

modify existing signaling equipment, and train operations would continue as it 

currently does. 

Both Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties have identified all major 

transportation corridors (including railroads) as containing deposited particulate 

matter and lead. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that areas immediately 

surrounding the railroad ROW could contain concentrations of aerially deposited 

lead from former lead-based fuels, as well as pesticides and herbicides to control 

growth near railway and roadway infrastructure. As a result, hazardous materials 

are likely to be present under the No Build Alternative. Installation of PTC would 

require excavation in the railroad ROW and may result in hazardous materials 

related effects. If required by law, separate environmental review of these projects 

as they are implemented would establish as appropriate any additional mitigation 

necessary beyond adherence to all applicable federal and state regulations 

regarding the handling and disposal of hazardous materials. 

3.9.4.2 Build Alternative

Corridor-Wide Hazardous Materials and Wastes

Overall, there is potential risk to uncover hazardous materials near roadways and 

agricultural areas within the entire Coast Corridor study area, owing to aerially 

deposited lead and particulate matter deposited from vehicles as well as pesticide 

use. Most of the study area roughly traces US 101 and/or borders agricultural landuse types; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that there would be a potential high 

risk associated with physical components improvements across the corridor. 

Generally, all of the Build Alternative components improvements would result in 

varying levels of ground disturbance during construction through excavation and 

other construction activities. As a result, construction activities may likely 

encounter contaminated soil containing pesticide or herbicide residue, aerially 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.9 Hazardous Materials and Wastes

3.9-7

deposited lead, or other soil or groundwater contaminants. If physical components 

improvements require the demolition of existing facilities or structures, 

construction activities may likely encounter asbestos or lead-based paint materials. 

In turn, construction activities could potentially expose construction workers and 

surrounding residents to hazardous materials if the materials are not properly 

managed and remediated. 

Subsequent environmental analysis would determine the level of risk and 

appropriate management and remediation efforts associated with each Build 

Alternative improvement.

Site-Specific Hazardous Materials and Wastes

Table 3.9-1 below summarizes the findings from records and database searches of 

both active- and closed-status hazardous sites along the study area. Active-status 

refers to recorded hazardous sites that are currently open and awaiting remediation 

or enforcement efforts. Closed-status refers to recorded hazardous sites that have 

already undergone remediation or enforcement efforts, and are considered 

“historic.” 

Potential hazardous risk ratings were not assigned to active sites within the study 

area. Database searches provide a broad-level understanding of hazardous sites 

near physical components improvements for planning purposes, but do not provide 

adequate detail to determine the severity of each site in relation to the proposed 

work involved or the cleanup schedule. Therefore, potential cleanup intensity could 

vary from site to site.

The database searches found several hazardous sites within the permanent and 

temporary impact areas of the physical components improvements; however, no 

superfund sites or solid waste landfills were identified in the study area.

Existing Alignment Upgrades

A hazardous site on the criteria and hazardous air pollutant inventory is located 

within existing alignment section #1. Proposed upgrades Components in this area 

include replacement of rail ties, tracks, and potentially also ballasts. These 

components and areas may be covered in pesticide/herbicide residues (a potential 

corridor-wide hazard) and may be considered hazardous waste requiring special 

handling and disposal. 
Coast Corridor

3.9 Hazardous Materials and Wastes Final Program EIS/EIR

3.9-8

Passenger Stations

Three historic hazardous sites were identified near the proposed Soledad Station. 

These sites were classified as leaking USTs, but are no longer active because of past 

remediation efforts.

Siding Extensions

The database searches identified three hazardous sites within the temporary impact 

areas associated with for the proposed King City siding extension. Two sites are 

facilities under the Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule, which 

includes requirements for oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response to 

prevent oil discharges to navigable waters and adjoining shorelines.10 Another site 

is a cleanup program site that is still active in status. Given that the hazardous site is 

located within a temporary impact area, impacts would only occur over the duration 

of construction activities. There is the potential for the siding extension to be 

designed to avoid these areas, but if such areas are included, further mitigation may 

be required to minimize hazards to workers and people in the area.

Curve Realignments, New Powered Switches, and New Sidings

No hazardous sites were identified near any of the proposed curve realignments, 

new powered switches, or new sidings. However, construction of selected 

components elements of the Build Alternative may require the removal of buildings, 

structures, soils, and/or paving materials to accommodate new construction. In 

particular, one portion of the Henry/Santa Margarita curve realignment could 

require acquisition of agricultural and residential properties and demolition of 

existing buildings on site. Demolition activities may encounter lead-based paint and 

asbestos-containing building materials. These materials would have to be removed 

prior to demolition and transported to a certified disposal facility. Construction 

activities may also encounter contaminated soils and/or groundwater, 

aerially-deposited lead or particulate matter, or other previously identified 

hazardous materials that must be removed, disposed of, and remediated.

 

10 US EPA, 2014b
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.9 Hazardous Materials and Wastes

3.9-9

Table 3.9-1 Hazardous Sites and Materials in the Coast Corridor

Build Alternative 

Components

Recorded “ActiveStatus” Hazardous 

Sites

Recorded “ClosedStatus” Hazardous 

Sites

Likelihood of 

Encountering 

Corridor-Wide 

Hazardous Materials

Salinas Powered Switch 0 0 Moderate

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #1 

1 0 Moderate

Spence Siding Extension 0 0 Moderate

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #2 

0 0 Moderate

Gonzales Powered 

Switch

0 0 Moderate

Soledad Powered Switch 0 0 Moderate

Soledad New Passenger 

Station

0 3 Moderate

Harlem/Metz Curve 

Realignments

0 0 Moderate

Chalone Creek New 

Siding 

0 0 Moderate

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #3

0 0 Moderate

Coburn Curve 

Realignments

0 0 Moderate

King City Siding 

Extension

3 0 Moderate

King City New Passenger 

Station

0 0 Moderate

King City Powered 

Switch

0 0 Moderate

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #4

0 0 Moderate

MP 165 Curve 

Realignment

0 0 Moderate
Coast Corridor

3.9 Hazardous Materials and Wastes Final Program EIS/EIR

3.9-10

Build Alternative 

Components

Recorded “ActiveStatus” Hazardous 

Sites

Recorded “ClosedStatus” Hazardous 

Sites

Likelihood of 

Encountering 

Corridor-Wide 

Hazardous Materials

San Lucas New Siding 0 0 Moderate

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #5

0 0 Moderate

MP 172 Track 

Realignment

0 0 Moderate

San Ardo Powered 

Switch

0 0 Moderate

Getty/Bradley Curve 

Realignments

0 0 Moderate

Bradley Siding Extension 0 0 Moderate

Bradley Powered Switch 0 0 Moderate

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #6

0 0 Moderate

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #7

0 0 Moderate

McKay/ Wellsona Curve 

Realignments

0 0 Moderate

McKay East Powered 

Switches

0 0 Moderate

Wellsona New Siding 0 0 Moderate

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #8

0 1 Moderate

Wellsona/Paso Robles 

Curve Realignments

0 0 Moderate

Templeton Siding 0 0 Moderate

Templeton/Henry Curve 

Realignments

0 0 Moderate

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #9

0 0 Moderate
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.9 Hazardous Materials and Wastes

3.9-11

Build Alternative 

Components

Recorded “ActiveStatus” Hazardous 

Sites

Recorded “ClosedStatus” Hazardous 

Sites

Likelihood of 

Encountering 

Corridor-Wide 

Hazardous Materials

Henry/Santa Margarita 

Curve Realignment

0 0 Moderate

Santa Margarita

Powered Switch

0 0 Moderate

Cuesta Second Main 

Track

0 0 Moderate

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #10

0 0 Moderate

Source: ICF, 2013

Note: The risk of encountering corridor-wide hazardous materials and wastes (including aerially-deposited lead 

and pesticide/herbicide residues) are not identified on a site-specific basis, as they do not derive from a single 

point source in a particular location.

3.9.4.3 Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would include the same service as the Build Alternative 

and would retain all corridor-wide and almost all of the same physical components. 

The only differences are that the Preferred Alternative would include modified 

footprints for the King City siding extension and passenger station, and would 

exclude each of the four curve realignments within San Luis Obispo County. 

Additionally, the Preferred Alternative includes a 27 mile “island” of CTC between 

MP 202 and 229 (McKay to Santa Margarita). 

Accordingly, effects of hazardous materials and wastes for the Preferred Alternative 

would be the same as the Build Alternative except for the areas where the modified 

or excluded components are located. The discussions below assess hazardous 

materials and wastes effects from the modified or excluded components.

Site-Specific Hazardous Materials and Wastes

City of King Passenger Station

Under the Preferred Alternative, the City of King passenger station has been revised 

from the footprint that was assessed under the Build Alternative and now would 

occupy a smaller footprint in the same general area as in the Build Alternative. No 

hazardous materials sites have been recorded in the footprint of the City of King 

passenger station proposed under the Build Alternative, and the likelihood of 

encountering corridor-wide hazardous materials is moderate. Given that the 
Coast Corridor

3.9 Hazardous Materials and Wastes Final Program EIS/EIR

3.9-12

revised City of King passenger station under the Preferred Alternative would occupy 

a smaller footprint in the same area as that proposed under the Build Alternative, 

the Preferred Alternative would have no new substantial hazardous materials and 

waste impacts compared to the Build Alternative.

Siding Extensions

Under the Preferred Alternative, the proposed City of King siding extension has 

been revised from what was assumed under the Build Alternative and now is 

proposed to extend exclusively on the north side of the existing siding. There are 

three hazardous sites within the temporary impact areas for the City of King siding

extension. The location of the revised siding extension does not include any 

recorded hazardous waste sites. Therefore, the revised City of King siding extension 

location under the Preferred Alternative would reduce potential impacts on 

hazardous materials and wastes compared to the Build Alternative.

Curve Realignments

The Preferred Alternative excludes four curve realignments in San Luis Obispo 

County. One of the excluded curve realignments (Henry/Santa Margarita) would 

have required the demolition of existing buildings, resulting in hazards from leadbased paint and asbestos-containing materials. Because of this exclusion, the 

Preferred Alternative would have reduced impacts from lead based paint and 

asbestos containing material compared to the Build Alternative. 

Island CTC

In the Preferred Alternative, 27 miles of island CTC would be installed between 

McKay and Santa Margarita (existing railway sections 6 through 9). Only one 

hazardous materials site was recorded in this segment of the corridor near existing 

alignment section 8 and has since been closed. Additionally, CTC would be installed 

at various locations within the existing railroad ROW and would not require 

extensive excavations. Implementation of the avoidance, minimization, and 

mitigation strategies below would help ensure that the minimal excavation required 

to install CTC would not result in any substantial adverse effects. Therefore, the 

Preferred Alternative would have no new substantial hazardous materials and waste

impacts compared to the Build Alternative, and would result in reduced impacts.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.9 Hazardous Materials and Wastes

3.9-13

3.9.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION 

STRATEGIES

The Build Alternative will be designed to minimize impacts related to hazardous 

materials and wastes along the Corridor. The following strategies The measures 

listed below are applicable to the Build and Preferred Alternatives and have been 

identified at this preliminary stage to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate any 

potentially significant impacts. The identification and implementation of specific 

mitigation measures necessary for each project component will occur as part of 

subsequent project-level environmental review. Additional avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation measures may also be identified during that review.

MIN-HAZ-1. As one or more components of the Preferred Alternative are selected 

for further design and potential development, Detailed investigation of soils for 

contamination as part of an environmental site assessment (ESA), and if appropriate

a Phase II ESA, for each component prior to implementation would be conducted. 

Where conditions warrant a Phase II ESA, such ESAs shall include the following:

 A work plan that includes the numbers and locations of proposed soil 

borings/monitoring wells, sampling intervals, drilling and sampling methods, 

analytical methods, sampling rationale, site geohydrology, field screening 

methods, quality control/quality assurance, and reporting methods. 

 A site-specific Health and Safety Plan (HSP) signed by a Certified Industrial 

Hygienist.

 Necessary permits for encroachment, boring completion, and well installation.

 A traffic safety plan.

 Sampling program (fieldwork) in accordance with the work plan and HSP. 

Fieldwork shall be completed under the supervision of a geologist registered in 

the State of California, as appropriate.

 Hazardous materials testing through a certified laboratory.

 Documentation to include field procedures, boring logs/well diagrams, tables of 

analytical results, cross-sections, an evaluation of the levels and extent of 

contaminants found, and conclusions and recommendation regarding the 

environmental condition of the site and the need for further assessment. 

Recommendations may include additional assessment or handling of the 

contaminants found though the contaminated soil contingency plan. If the 
Coast Corridor

3.9 Hazardous Materials and Wastes Final Program EIS/EIR

3.9-14

contaminated soil contingency plan is inadequate for the contamination found, 

a remedial action plan shall be developed. Contaminated groundwater shall 

generally be handled though the NPDES/dewatering process.

 Disposal process including transport by a state-certified hazardous material 

hauler to a state-certified disposal /recycling facility licensed to accept/treat the 

identified waste.

Where contaminated groundwater is encountered, the project sponsor shall obtain 

a NPDES permit prior to the issuance of a permit to construct. The NPDES permit 

shall specify site-specific testing and monitoring requirements and discharge 

limitations. 

Additionally, available agency files for moderate and high risk properties should be 

reviewed prior to demolition, grading, or construction. If the file review indicates a 

low likelihood of contaminants being present beneath or adjacent to a project 

feature (rail alignment, station, etc.), additional assessment/mitigation may not be 

recommended and the property could be reclassified as low risk.

MIN-HAZ-2. Surveys for lead-based paint and asbestos containing materials would 

be required prior to demolition of any buildings or structures. 

MIN-HAZ-3. A Site Management Program/Contingency Plan would be required prior 

to construction to address known or potential hazardous material issues such as 

contaminated soil or groundwater, health and safety plan for construction workers 

and the public, and procedures to protect workers and the public if buried 

contaminants are encountered. 

MIN-HAZ-4. Construction contractors would dispose of all hazardous or solid wastes 

and debris encountered or generated during construction and demolition activities 

in accordance with all applicable Federal regulations.

MM-HAZ-5. A Hazardous Materials Management Plan for all facilities that use, 

store, or dispose of hazardous materials should would be prepared. Facilities 

emitting toxic air emissions shall submit inventories and plans to the appropriate air 

quality management district and be subject to permitting and monitoring 

regulations of the district. All necessary local, state and federal permits for the 

installation and operation of any above or below ground chemical or fuel storage 

tanks prior to installing such tanks would be obtained. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.9 Hazardous Materials and Wastes

3.9-15

3.9.6 SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS

Prior to implementing specific elements of the Build Preferred Alternative, 

component-specific hazardous materials evaluations should would be conducted. 

These evaluations will be used to determine if additional mitigations strategies from 

those discussed above in Subsection 3.9.5 are applicable.
Coast Corridor

3.9 Hazardous Materials and Wastes Final Program EIS/EIR

3.9-16

Page intentionally left blank
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

3.10-1

3.10 CULTURAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL 

RESOURCES

Cultural resources include prehistoric archaeological sites, historic archaeological 

sites, traditional cultural properties, and historic structures. Paleontological 

resources refer to resources in the fossil record, such as prehistoric remains and 

other evidence of past life. This section discusses the applicable federal and state 

laws and regulations that protect cultural and paleontological resources, including 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and California Public Resources 

Code Sections 5024.1 and 21084.1, and assesses the potential effects of the No 

Build and Build Alternative action alternatives on these resources.

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 on Build Alternative components discussed in the 

cultural and paleontological resources section (see comments A-3.20, A-3.48 

through A-3.51). None of the City of King’s comments resulted in text revisions to 

the cultural and paleontological background information or analysis of the Build 

Alternative, but several of the comments are pertinent to the analysis of the 

Preferred Alternative (see Section 3.10.4.3 below). 

3.10.1 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

3.10.1.1 Federal 

National Historic Preservation Act 

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.) established a 

national program to preserve the country’s historical and cultural resources. 

Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to consider the effects of their 

undertakings on historic properties and provide the President’s Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation (ACHP) opportunity to.1 Guidelines for implementing the 

Section 106 process are provided in 36 CFR Part 800. Per 36 CFR 800.4, significant 

 

1

Undertaking is defined as “a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct 

or indirect jurisdiction of a Federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a Federal 

agency; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; and those requiring a Federal permit, 

license or approval.” 36 CFR 800.16 (y).
Coast Corridor

3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.10-2

cultural resources are those that are eligible for listing in the National Register of 

Historic Places (NRHP). The NRHP eligibility criteria (36 CFR 60.4) state that the 

quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is 

present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local 

importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, association, and that meet one or more of the following 

criteria:

a) The resource is associated with events that have made a significant 

contribution to the broad patterns of our history.

b) The resource is associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

c) The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or 

method of construction; represents the work of a master; possesses high 

artistic values; or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose 

components may lack individual distinction.

c) The resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to 

prehistory or history.

Impacts to NRHP-eligible resources are considered adverse when “an undertaking 

may alter directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that 

qualify the property for inclusion in the NRHP in a manner that would diminish the 

integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, 

or association” (36 CFR 800.5[1]). Examples of adverse effects include physical 

destruction or damage to all or part of the property; alteration that is not consistent 

with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for the treatment of historic 

properties; removal of the property from its historic location; change in the type of 

use or of the physical characteristics of the setting; introduction of visual, 

atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property’s 

significant features; and neglect resulting in deterioration (36 CFR 800.5[2]). 

Historic properties include prehistoric archaeological sites. Archaeological sites are 

usually adversely affected only by physical destruction or damage, whereas all of 

the examples above can apply to historic buildings and structures.

Federal Antiquities Act of 1906 (16 USC 431 et seq)

This act established national monuments and reservation of lands including historic 

landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or 

scientific interest on federal lands. 16 USC 433 The Antiquities Act prohibits 

appropriation, excavation, injury, or destruction of any historic or prehistoric ruin or 

monument, or any object of antiquity on federal land.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

3.10-3

3.10.1.2 State 

California Register of Historic Resources

The California Register program encourages public recognition and protection of 

cultural and historic resources. Under CEQA, significant cultural resources are called 

historical resources whether they are of historic or prehistoric age. 

Generally, a resource should be considered by a lead agency to be historically 

significant if the resource has integrity and meets one of the following criteria for 

CRHR listing (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 [a][3]).

 The resource is associated with events that have made a significant contribution 

to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage and/or with 

the lives of persons important in California’s past.

 The resource embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, 

or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative 

individual; or possesses high artistic values.

 The resource has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in 

prehistory or history.

CRHR is similar to the NRHP in that any resource determined eligible for the NRHP is 

also automatically eligible for the CRHR. However, the treatment of historical 

resources under CEQA and in the CRHR is more inclusive in that resources listed in 

local historical registers may be included.

Projects that would impact CRHR-listed and –eligible resources and resources listed 

in local historical registers may result in a significant effect on the environment if 

the project would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 

historical resource (PRC Section 21084.1). Substantial adverse change in the 

significance of a historical resource refers to “physical demolition, destruction, 

relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that [its] 

significance...would be materially impaired (CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5[b][1]). 

Material impairment means demolition of the resource, or alteration of the physical 

characteristics that make the resource eligible for listing such that it would no 

longer be eligible for the CRHR or a local historical register (CEQA Guidelines Section 

15064.5[b][2]).

California Environmental Quality Act

California Environmental Quality Act CEQA (PRC Section 21000 et seq.) requires 

public agencies and private interests to identify the potential adverse impacts 

and/or environmental consequences of their proposed project(s) to any object or 

site that is historically or archaeologically significant or significant in the cultural or 
Coast Corridor

3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.10-4

scientific annals of California (PRC Section 5020.1). Under CEQA, archaeological 

resources are presumed non-unique unless they meet the definition of “Unique 

archaeological resources” (PRC Section 21083.2[g]). Under CEQA, an impact on a 

non-unique archaeological resource is not considered a significant environmental 

impact. An EIR need not discuss non-unique archaeological resources.

CEQA Guidelines

CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.5[a][3]) provides that a lead agency may find that 

“any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript” is 

historically significant or significant in the “cultural annals of California.” The section 

also provides that a resource may be considered historically significant if it has 

yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory. 

Paleontological resources fall within this broad category and are included in the 

CEQA checklist under Cultural Resources.

Assembly Bill (AB) 52

On September 15, 2014, the Governor of California approved Assembly Bill (AB) 52.2 

The legislation specifies that a project with an effect that may cause a substantial 

adverse change in significance to a tribal cultural resource is a project that may have 

a significant effect on the environment. The bill also outlines the consultation 

process between the lead agency and the California Native American tribe that is 

traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed 

project. 

AB 52 is applicable to projects with a notice of preparation (NOP) date on or after 

July 1, 2015. While the NOP date for the Coast Corridor Program Draft EIS/EIR was 

August 17, 2012 (well before the AB 52 deadline) the document does consider 

Native American resources at a level of detail that is appropriate for a first tier,

program-level review. As discussed in Section 3.10.6, Subsequent Analysis, if any of 

the proposed components are carried forward, further consultation with NAHC and 

Native American tribal groups, in compliance with AB 52, could be required during 

future project-level review to the extent that tribes inform relevant local lead 

agencies (SLOCOG, TAMC, and/or Caltrans DOR) of their interest in receiving notice 

of environmental projects pending with those agencies. 

 

2

California State Assembly, 2014.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

3.10-5

3.10.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION

Study Area Defined

The study area continues to include all permanent and temporary impact areas 

associated with the elements of the Build Alternative action alternatives, including 

all proposed stations, realignments, sidings, track/signal upgrades, and the new 

second mainline. FRA has determined that the programmatic decisions made here 

do not constitute an undertaking with potential to cause adverse effects to historic 

properties under Section 106. As a result, FRA did not complete the full Section 106 

process but did take the appropriate steps to identify resources potentially eligible 

for protection under Section 106 and categorize the potential impacts to those 

resources at a programmatic level of detail. FRA will complete the Section 106 

process at Tier 2 as necessary for any future FRA undertakings. An area of potential 

effect (APE) was not established, given the programmatic and contingent nature of 

the physical components proposed improvements in this environmental document.

However, in FRA’s consultation with the California State Historic Preservation 

Officer (SHPO), FRA determined that permanent and temporary impact footprints 

were considered to be an appropriate area to assess potential direct and indirect 

impacts on cultural resources. The permanent and temporary impact footprints are 

defined as follows:

 Permanent: areas where affected resources would not be restored back to their 

original conditions.

 Temporary: areas that would be disturbed during construction and then 

returned to their original conditions post construction. 

Proposed permanent and temporary impact areas differ for each type of component 

improvement, as listed below. 

 Siding Extensions/New Sidings:

 Permanent: Existing railroad right-of-way (typically 50 feet)

 Temporary: 50 feet on either side of existing right-of-way

 Curve Realignments:

 Permanent: 100 foot wide corridor

 Temporary: 200 feet on either side of 100 foot corridor for a total width of 

500 feet

 Second Mainline

 Permanent: Existing railroad right-of-way

 Temporary: 100 feet on either side of existing UP right-of-way

 Stations
Coast Corridor

3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.10-6

 Soledad Station: 1.9 Acres – permanent impact area is based on conceptual 

station plans from the Soledad Downtown Specific Plan (2012).

 King City Station: 3.4 Acres – permanent impact area is based on conceptual 

station plans from the King City First Street Corridor Master Plan (2013).

The cultural analysis also evaluates the potential sensitivity of portions of the 

existing alignment where only signaling, track maintenance, and other corridor-wide 

components improvements would take place. Existing alignment sections #1 

through #6 are within Monterey County and existing alignment sections #7 through 

#10 are within San Luis Obispo County.

As further outlined in Chapter 3.0, Affected Environment, Environmental 

Consequences, and Mitigation Strategies, direct and indirect effects are assessed 

with regard to cultural resources. Direct effects would occur if archaeological or 

historic resources, such as building or structures, are altered or destroyed as a result 

of physical components potential improvements. Indirect effects would occur if 

visual, noise, or vibration effects from physical components potential improvements

diminished the integrity of the cultural resource. 

As discussed, FRA and SLOCOG consulted with the SHPO in determining these 

parameters on June 27, 2013 and followed with a letter on September 9, 2013. 

Following consultation with FRA, SHPO found that the above parameters were 

“reasonable” for the purposes of this programmatic analysis. 

Cultural Resource Categories

Various types of cultural resources exist within the study area and occur within all 

land use designations of Monterey County and San Luis Obispo County. Each type 

of cultural resource differs in sensitivity and importance. The different cultural 

resources categories are defined below.

Archaeological Resources

Archaeology is the study of prehistoric human activities and cultures. 

 Prehistoric Archaeological Sites: In California, prehistoric archaeological sites 

are places where one can find evidence of human activities prior to 1789 1769 

AD, which is generally accepted as the earliest date of permanent European 

arrival and exploration leading to permanent settlement in what is now the 

State of California. Prehistoric sites typically contain human burial or 

subsistence remains and artifacts or tools made by people. Objects that may be 

found on a prehistoric archaeological site include tools, beads, ornaments, 

ceremonial items, rock art, and inedible remains of food sources. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

3.10-7

 Historic Archaeological Sites: Historic archaeological sites are places where 

evidence exists of human activities between 1789 1769 AD and 50 years ago. 

Many historic archaeological sites are places where houses formerly existed and 

contain ceramic, metal, glass refuse resulting from the transport, preparation 

and structural remnants, such as windowpane glass, lumber, and nails. 

Historical archaeological sites can also be nonresidential, resulting from 

ranching, farming, industrial, and other activities.

 Traditional Cultural Properties: Traditional cultural properties are specific 

locations that are largely associated with the history of the community. These 

places are typically associated with the cultural practices or beliefs of a living 

community, such as locations where ceremonial activities were performed.

Historic Resources

Historic resources are associated with the recent past. 

 Historic Structures: Historic structures are facilities that served residential, 

commercial, industrial, agricultural, transportation, and other purposes during 

historic periods (more than 50 years ago). Historic structures generally consist 

of houses, outbuildings, stores, offices, factories, barns, dams, bridges, roads, 

and other facilities. 

Paleontological Resources

Paleontology is the study of plant and animal fossils. 

 Paleontological Resources: Paleontological resources are fossilized remains of 

plants and animals. Generally, paleontological resources are those that are 

more than 10,000 years old and are typically found below ground surface in 

sedimentary rock units.

Record Search and Analysis 

Archaeological and Historical Resources

Qualified archaeologists submitted prehistoric and historic properties record search 

requests to the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) in July 

2013. The Northwest Information Center (NWIC) conducted a records search for 

the portion of the study area located within Monterey County. Likewise, the Central 

California Information Center (CCIC) conducted a records search for the portion of 

the study area located within San Luis Obispo County. The NWIC and CCIC

conducted records searches of all previously recorded sites and studies within a 

quarter mile of the study area. The search included current listings for the National 
Coast Corridor

3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.10-8

Register of Historic Places (NRHP), the California Register of Historical Resources 

(CRHR), Historical Resources Inventory (HRI), and historical maps. The records 

search identified the number of archaeological and historical sites within the study 

area along with their general location. The number of archaeological sites within 

the study area in the vicinity of each proposed element of the Build Alternative 

action alternatives was tabulated and used as an indicator of potential sensitivity; 

however given the programmatic nature of the environmental document, a finding 

of effect under Section 106 was not determined at this time. As discussed below 

(Subsection 4.4.5 3.10.6, Subsequent Analysis), if one or more elements of the 

Build Alternative are proposed to be of the physical components are carried out at a 

later time, an APE would be established and finding of effect made during 

subsequent environmental review. Likewise, determination of NRHP or CRHR 

eligibility of individual sites was not conducted for this evaluation. Sites evaluated 

here are considered “potentially eligible” resources. However, this analysis does 

disclose previous determinations of eligibility. 

As required under CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5, a list of potentially historic structures 

deemed locally eligible was assembled using maps and property lists from cities 

within the study area. Locally eligible resources do not require any further 

consideration under Section 106. However, those resources are assessed in this 

analysis for the purposes of adequate CEQA review. Resources identified in this 

reconnaissance include railroad bridges and other buildings and structures in the 

study area. The number of potential eligible historic properties within the study 

area for each proposed component improvement was tabulated and used as an 

indicator of potential sensitivity. 

FRA and SLOCOG, with contacted the Native American Heritage Commission 

(NAHC), initiated in July 2013 to initiate a Sacred Lands File Search. The record 

search indicated the potential presence of Native American traditional cultural 

places in the project vicinity and also identified 25 Tribal representatives with a 

potential interest in the involved lands. FRA subsequently contacted the identified 

Native American Tribal governments through letter correspondence and subsequent

follow-up telephone calls.

3

 

 

3

Valenstein, David. Chief, Environment & Systems Planning Division. Federal Railroad Administration. 

September 2013 – letter communications.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

3.10-9

Paleontological Resources

Significant paleontological resources are fossils or assemblages of fossils that are 

unique, rare, unusual, or uncommon. According to Caltrans Standard 

Environmental Reference (SER), scientifically significant paleontological resources 

are identified sites or geologic deposits containing individual fossils or assemblages 

of fossils that are unique or unusual, diagnostically, or stratigraphically important, 

and add to the existing body of knowledge in specific areas, stratigraphically, 

taxonomically, or regionally. These resources can generally be anticipated based on 

the stratigraphic layer of the earth’s surface, as some layers are more prone to 

contain paleontological resources. As a result, this program-level analysis 

determines paleontological sensitivity based on the underlying geological unit. 

Likewise, paleontological sensitivity is predicated on the research potential of fossils 

suspected to occur in that unit. Caltrans uses the scale below to rate 

paleontological sensitivity. Since many of Caltrans’ transportation projects include 

improvements to corridors spanning many miles, this Program EIS/EIR uses the 

Caltrans scale as an appropriate means to assess the paleontological sensitivity of 

the Coast Corridor.

 High Potential - Rock units which, based on previous studies, contain or are 

likely to contain significant vertebrate, significant invertebrate, or significant 

plant fossils. These units include, but are not limited to, sedimentary 

formations that contain significant nonrenewable paleontological resources 

anywhere within their geographical extent, and sedimentary rock units 

temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils. These units 

may also include some volcanic and low-grade metamorphic rock units.

Fossiliferous deposits with very limited geographic extent or an uncommon 

origin (e.g., tar pits and caves) are given special consideration and ranked as 

highly sensitive. High sensitivity includes the potential for containing: 1) 

abundant vertebrate fossils; 2) a few significant fossils (large or small 

vertebrate, invertebrate, or plant fossils) that may provide new and significant 

taxonomic, phylogenetic, ecologic, and/or stratigraphic data; 3) areas that may 

contain datable organic remains older than recent, including Neotoma (sp.) 

middens; or 4) areas that may contain unique new vertebrate deposits, traces, 

and/or trackways. 

 Low Potential - This category includes sedimentary rock units that: 1) are 

potentially fossiliferous, but have not yielded significant fossils in the past; 2) 

have not yet yielded fossils, but possess a potential for containing fossil 

remains; or 3) contain common and/or widespread invertebrate fossils if the 

taxonomy, phylogeny, and ecology of the species contained in the rock are well 

understood. Sedimentary rocks expected to contain vertebrate fossils are not 
Coast Corridor

3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.10-10

placed in this category because vertebrates are generally rare and found in 

more localized stratum.

No Potential - Rock units of intrusive igneous origin, most extrusive igneous 

rocks, and moderately to highly metamorphosed rocks are classified as having 

no potential for containing significant paleontological resources. The underlying 

geologic units along the existing Coast Corridor were evaluated based on the 

criteria above and a paleontological sensitivity rating was applied. The 

paleontological sensitivities are rated according to Table 3.10-1 below. 

Table 3.10-1 Geologic Unit and Paleontological Sensitivity

Geologic Unit Geologic Age

Paleontological 

Sensitivity

Quaternary Alluvium and Marine Deposits (Q) Pliocene to Holocene Low

Franciscan Complex (KJf) Jurassic to Cretaceous High

Plio-Pleistocene and Pliocene (QPc) Miocene to Pleistocene Low

Miocene Marine Rocks (M) Oligocene to Pliocene Low

Upper Cretaceous Marine Rocks (Ku) Late Cretaceous High

Ultramafic Rocks (um) Middle to Late Jurassic High

Mesozoic Volcanic Rocks (Mzv) Jurassic to Cretaceous High

Tertiary Volcanic Flow Rocks (Tv) Tertiary Low

Source: University of California Museum of Paleontology, 2013

3.10.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.10.3.1 Study Area Context and Resources

Archaeological Resources

According to the Monterey County General Plan EIR, signs of first human life in 

Monterey County date back to 10,000 to 12,000 years ago. First inhabitants were 

nomadic hunters that followed game herds for subsistence. A cultural shift 

occurred around 8,000 to 7,500 B.C. when humans began forming settlements and 

spreading out to maximize resources. Between 2,500 and 1,600 years ago, another 

shift in settlement patterns occurred as a result of migration of different people 

from the north – emanating from a larger migration from the east. Villages became 

larger during this time period as a result of new foraging techniques. Over time, 

villages organized collection, processing, and distribution of resources and 

developed systems to collect and transport resources to population centers. Sea 

level rise and climate change spurred the population to move further inland for 

shelter and resources. Around 1500 A.D., the climate shifted into a colder period
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

3.10-11

known as the “Little Ice Age”, changing collection behavior to more specialized and 

migratory. The indigenous people maintained this type of subsistence behavior 

until the Spanish explorers arrived.

Monterey Bay became the focus of several Spanish expeditions, thus influencing the 

culture and history of the region. Monterey County played a role in the MexicanAmerican War and later the California Gold Rush, influencing economic growth and 

development in the area. Grain production quickly became Monterey County’s 

main economic activity and spurred the development of transportation to export 

grain products. In 1872, the Southern Pacific Railroad extended its railroad line 

south to encompass the agricultural areas in the Salinas Valley and allowed farmers 

to increase acreages available for cultivation. In turn, the lower Salinas Valley 

transformed into agricultural land, which shaped the economic structure that 

largely remains in place today.

The Ohlone Native American Tribe encompassed much the inland valleys, relying on 

hunting and gathering. The Ohlone had permanent villages and seasonal camps, but 

their culture was dramatically changed by Spanish influence. The Monterey County 

General Plan EIR categorized areas of archaeological sensitivity. Areas that surround 

river courses and other large drainages are considered sensitive, since human 

occupation commonly occurred along water sources. Several burial sites have been 

uncovered on the terraces of the Salinas River, showing the importance of streams 

and rivers in human occupation. 

Prehistoric archaeological sites within the Coast Corridor study area, within 

Monterey County, include mostly lithic scatters. “Lithic scatter” describes the 

surface scatter of cultural artifacts and leftover debris after shaping raw stone into 

usable tools. Lithic scatters are commonly found on most archaeological sites. 

According to the Monterey County General Plan EIR, areas between Salinas and San 

Lucas within the study area have generally low sensitivity for archaeological 

resource occurrence in Monterey County as shown on Figure 3.10-1. Areas south of 

San Lucas, adjacent to the Salinas River and US 101 have varying degrees of 

moderate to high sensitivity.

Early settlements in San Luis Obispo County included both large villages and smaller 

camps. Artifacts found from early settlements include shell beads and exotic trade 

items, alluding to increased cultural expansion and complexity. Between 1,000 and 

1,800 A.D., recovered evidence supports possibilities of larger populations settling 

near the coast to facilitate ocean access. Marine fishing and trading were the main 

economic pursuits. Typical villages included such features as sweathouses, sacred 

council areas, dance areas, and cemeteries. Land animals were hunted with bow 

and arrow as a main food source. Acorns were another valuable food source. 
Coast Corridor

3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.10-12

Because acorns were easily stored, they are believed to have reduced the need for 

hunting and fishing, and thus played a role in increasing sedentism and social 

complexity. 

The Chumash, a Native American Tribe, occupied coastal and inland areas when the 

Mission Period began in 1769. The Chumash society was organized around lineages 

and distinct social stratification. Chumash technology highlights the exploitation of 

marine resources, as found from toolkits with fishhooks, angled bone hooks, nets, 

traps, harpoons, and other items. 

The Salinan Tribe inhabited the northern portion of the county and followed a 

hunting and gathering lifestyle as well, based on fishing. Eventually European 

contact with the Chumash and the Salinan people resulted in religious conversion 

and population increase. Spanish colonization also strongly influenced agricultural 

development in San Luis Obispo County. 

Prehistoric archaeological sites within the San Luis Obispo County portion of the 

Coast Corridor study area include mostly lithic scatters, stone artifacts, and burial 

sites. A temporary village and the remains of Estrada Adobe have also been 

recorded within the study area. 

Historic archaeological sites within the San Luis Obispo County portion of the Coast 

Corridor study area include the Mission San Miguel Arcangel. The Mission includes 

building remains, original wall paintings and decorations completed by Native 

Americans, and porcelain artifacts. The Mission is also listed as a California 

Historical Landmark. Additionally, the Rios-Caledonia Adobe is located near the 

Mission San Miguel Arcangel. This building reflects California's Mexican-era 

architecture and is listed as a NRHP and is a California Historical Landmark.

Historical Resources 

More than 200 Federal, State, and County listed historic sites or eligible historic 

resources exist within Monterey County. Major regional county historic resources 

include Mission Nuestra Señora de la Soledad and the Old Mission School near 

Soledad, Richardson Adobe near Soledad, the Site of the Battle of Natividad near 

Salinas, the Boronda Adobe in Boronda, the Glass House in Pajaro, and Mission San 

Antonio de Padua near Jolon.

Historic structures existing within the Coast Corridor’s Monterey County study area 

include portions of the Southern Pacific Railroad near King City, and the Bradley 

Road Bridge over the Salinas River, the latter previously determined eligible for the 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

3.10-13

NRHP.4 Several structures associated with the Holly Sugar Beet railroad freight site 

and portions of US 101 were previously recorded and determined to not be eligible 

for NHRP listing. Several culverts were also previously recorded, but have not been 

evaluated as potential historic resources. The El Camino Real trail is also a historic 

resource that roughly traces parallel to US 101 and is located within portions of the 

study area. This trail is a historic roadway that connected a series of established 

Spanish and Mexican outposts. As a result, a series of missions were built in the 

footpath of this roadway.5 In Monterey County, the study area has about 5 

potentially eligible historic residential, commercial, and industrial properties, as 

shown in Table 3.10-2.

Existing historic structures within the San Luis Obispo County portion of the study 

area include several historic-era railroad bridges as well Union Pacific UPRR and 

Southern Pacific Railroad bridges. A bridge/culvert on Cuesta Forest Road and the 

Highway 41 overpass of the South Pacific Railroad were recorded, but not evaluated 

for eligibility. Additionally, several locally eligible historic cottage residences and 

carpenter gothic residences are also present within the study area. Similar to 

Monterey County, the El Camino Real trail is also a historic resource that roughly 

traces parallel to US 101 and the study area in San Luis Obispo County. Table 3.10-2

shows lists potentially eligible historic residential, commercial, and industrial 

properties, as indicated by local standards, found within the Study Area.

Paleontological Resources 

Paleontological resources in Monterey County are primarily from marine life forms 

that deposited from rising and falling sea levels. As a result, terrestrial fossils are 

less likely. Monterey County fossils are mainly microorganisms such as foraminifers 

or diatoms, assemblages of mollusks, and barnacles from the Cretaceous age (138 to 

96 million years old) to the Pleistocene age (1.6 million to 11,000 years old). Out of 

700 known fossil locations within Monterey County, 12 have been identified to have 

scientific value, with rare and unique characteristics. 

The most prevalent underlying geologic unit within the Coast Corridor study area 

and within Monterey County is Quaternary Alluvium and marine deposits, which is 

considered to have low paleontological resources sensitivity. Although the exact 

location of these sites is not disclosed to avoid potential degradation, the general 

 

4

The Bradley bridge is also a section 4(f) resource and is discussed in Chapter 4.0, Section 4(f)/6(f) 

Evaluation.

5

California Highways, 2014
Coast Corridor

3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.10-14

locations in Monterey County are shown in the 2006 General Plan Update. The 

General Plan showed a negligible amount of such resources along the study area. 

Similarly to Monterey County, paleontological resources in San Luis Obispo County 

are primarily made up of invertebrate fossils in marine rocks. Coastal Franciscan 

formation, a geologic unit within the southern portions of the study area, includes 

trace fossils (preserved tracks or other signs of animal activity), mollusks, and 

marine reptiles. These are typically found where bedrock is exposed from erosion 

on the surface, such as along cliffs along the coast. Scattered vertebrate remains 

have been identified within the county in deposits from the Pleistocene era. The 

study area has low sensitivity for containing paleontological resources with the 

exception of a few areas with high paleontological sensitivity in the southernmost 

portions of the study area. These areas are discussed in more detail below. 

3.10.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.10.4.1 No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative represents the continuation of existing operations and 

physical components, and assumes the perpetuation continuation of existing freight 

and passenger service. The only proposed physical component improvement would 

be the implementation of PTC along the corridor, which would possibly include new 

and/or modified signaling and communications equipment. Installation of this

equipment would most likely occur within the railroad ROW, which generally does 

not include any historic resources and is an unlikely location for unrecorded 

archaeological resources given the disturbed nature of these such areas. To the 

extent PTC installation may requires any federal action or approval, further 

consultation under Section 106 may be necessary. 

3.10.4.2 Build Alternative

Direct Impacts

Construction of one or more of the proposed physical components improvements 

comprising the Build Alternative could potentially affect archaeological, historic, and 

paleontological resources. The severity of the impact to these resources depends 

on the condition of the resource and its location with respect to the proposed

physical component improvement. For the purposes of this programmatic 

evaluation, Table 3.10-2 below summarizes the number of known archaeological 

sites, number of recorded historic structures, and paleontological sensitivity for the 

various areas comprising the study area. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

3.10-15

As previously noted in Subsection 3.10.2, Methods of Evaluation, this evaluation 

does not make any new determinations of eligibility of any potential archaeological 

or historic resource. Where such determinations were previously made, this 

analysis discloses available information. As one or more components of the Build 

Alternative move forward to further design and implementation, componentspecific evaluation for cultural resources effects will be required and conducted. 

Additional evaluation would will include further identification and analysis of 

resources present, their condition and eligibility, and the potential direct and 

indirect effects of proposed physical components improvements to adversely affect 

the resources’ eligibility status resource. 

Archaeological Resources

In Monterey County, as indicated in Table 3.10-2, four archaeological sites were 

recorded, within existing alignment section #6, but the eligibility status has not been 

evaluated or determined. Cultural resources at these four archaeological sites entail

are the mostly highly disturbed prehistoric lithic scatter along the Salinas River 

floodplain. Lithic scatters in these areas include pieces of eroded cryptocrystalline 

debitage,

6

core tools, chert flakes, and one fragment of burned bone. Proposed 

improvements under The Build 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 Build Alternative would be unlikely to affect recorded archaeological 

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

Three archaeological sites were recorded within the Getty/Bradley curve 

realignment areas. but the eligibility status has not been evaluated or determined. 

These recorded sites are also prehistoric lithic scatters and chert flakes along the 

Salinas River. 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 known/unknown

archaeological sites. 

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

within the existing alignment and in proposed physical improvement areas. There 

are a total of 12 archaeological sites located within existing alignments section #7, 

 

6

Cryptocrystalline is a type of silicate that likely contains lithic material and cultural debitage (debris 

from quarrying and tool making).
Coast Corridor

3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.10-16

section #8, section #9, and section #10 in San Luis Obispo County. 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). 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 as a on the NRHP and is also a California Historical

Landmark. No physical components improvements outside of the railroad ROW

would occur in these areas as it because the Build Alternative only entails systemwide components improvements related to including track tie and ballast upgrades. 

As a result, these archaeological resources would not likely be affected. However, 

any proposed physical component improvement has potential to uncover unknown 

cultural resources. Therefore, if any of the proposed improvements are carried 

forward, appropriate measures consistent with Section 106 may be required to 

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

An archaeological site was recorded within the impact area of both the new 

Wellsona siding and the Templeton siding extension. The Wellsona siding site was 

recorded as a lithic scatter and the Templeton siding was recorded as bedrock 

mortar.

7

 These sites were recorded but their eligibility was not determined. Both of 

these proposed sidings improvements would occur within the existing railroad ROW

and would be limited to already disturbed areas. Therefore, the Build Alternative 

would not likely affect recorded archaeological sites within these sidings’

permanent and temporary impact areas. However, In addition, any proposed

physical component improvement has potential to uncover unknown cultural 

resources., as discussed above.

Two archaeological sites were recorded, but not evaluated within the Henry/Santa 

Margarita curve realignment permanent/temporary impact area. Both of these 

sites include lithic scatters. Four sites were recorded within the proposed 

Templeton/Henry curve realignment permanent/temporary impact area. Only one 

of the four sites is in the permanent impact area for the Templeton/Henry curve 

 

7

Bedrock mortars are rock outcrops that were used for food grinding.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

3.10-17

realignment and includes the remains of the Estrada Adobe in Atascadero, which is 

monitored by the Atascadero Land Preservation Society (ALPS).8 In 1845, Governor 

Pio Pico gave Pedro Estrada 40,000 acres through a land grant, which is now modern

day Atascadero. The Estrada Adobe was Pedro Estrada’s home and has local 

significance. 9The other sites located within the temporary impact area entail

include lithic scatters. Proposed curve realignments would require conversion of 

land outside the existing railroad ROW and have elevated potential to disturb 

known and/or uncover unknown archaeological sites. If one or both of these curve 

realignments are carried forward for construction, contingent on project design,

subsequent analysis would include a formal evaluation of impacts. 

Historical Resources

There are several historic structures from the more recent built environment that 

exist within the existing Coast Corridor alignment and within the established 

temporary and permanent impact areas for the proposed physical components

improvements. These historical sites include buildings, bridges, and other structures 

of local significance. Most notably is the Bradley Bridge over the Salinas River, 

which is the only historical resource within the entire Coast Corridor study area that 

was previously determined eligible for the NRHP.10 That said The Bradley Bridge is 

located within existing alignment section #6 and physical components

improvements on the bridge would consist of overall track upgrades, which are

proposed for the entirety of the Salinas to San Luis Obispo rail corridor. 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. These components improvements would be highly unlikely to 

alter the bridge’s eligibility insofar as the components improvements would be 

 

8

Allen, 2013

9

Atascadero Chamber of Commerce, 2014

10 Mission San Miguel Arcangel, a National Historic Landmark and resource listed on the National 

Register since 1971, is outside the Coast Corridor study area. The existing railroad alignment is 

approximately 100 feet east of the Mission, across Mission Street. Through this portion of the Coast 

Corridor, corridor-wide track upgrades and are contemplated for the Build Alternative; the Preferred 

Alternative also incorporates island CTC. These upgrades would not have the potential to substantially 

alter the visual character of the railroad and in turn, negligible potential to indirectly affect the 

eligibility of the Mission as an historic architectural resource. Accordingly, the Mission was excluded 

from the architectural APE at this program level of analysis. 
Coast Corridor

3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.10-18

consistent with the bridge’s use to serve an existing railroad. If track upgrades are 

selected for this portion of the corridor, an appropriate level of review will be 

needed to formally determine the potential for such improvements the Build 

Alternative components to affect the bridge’s previously established eligibility. 

Additionally, a portion of the Southern Pacific Railroad was identified as a 

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

but was not evaluated. Physical components in this portion of the track would 

consist of overall track upgrades. These components would be unlikely to alter 

potential historical values or eligibility as the components would be consistent with 

the existing railroad use. 

There are nine potentially historic structures of local importance built between 1920 

and 1940 located within the permanent/temporary impact area of the proposed 

Soledad Passenger Station and one structure within the permanent/temporary 

impact area of the proposed King City Passenger Station. Both Soledad and King 

City have developed conceptual plans for proposed station sites in their respective 

downtowns (see the Soledad Downtown Specific Plan (2012) and King City First 

Street Corridor Master Plan (2013)). As described in Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, since 

publication of the Draft Program EIS/EIR the City of King has adopted draft revised 

plans for the Multi-Modal Transportation Center – Conceptual Design ((MMTC) 

(2014). These updates are described and analyzed in Section 3.10.4.2 under the 

Preferred Alternative.

The structure near the proposed King City Station is located on Pearl Street and 

does not appear to be within the Build Alternative’s station footprint or within the 

city’s historic corridor.

11

 All of the structures near the Soledad Station have 

commercial purposes on Front Street and are located across the street from the 

proposed station. They would not likely be affected or acquired by the new station. 

Cesar Chavez Park is located on Front Street, between Main Street and Soledad 

Street, potentially within the proposed station’s footprint. If the King City and/or 

Soledad stations are carried forward, subsequent project-level analysis of the 

proposed station footprint may be required to determine if the station features 

would affect any of the relevant historic properties. At that time, appropriate 

avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures may be required to address

potential adverse effects to such resources, as discussed in Subsection, 3.10.6, 

Subsequent Analysis. 

 

11 City of King, 2011, p. 7
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

3.10-19

In Monterey County, there are 12 potentially historic structures of local importance 

from the more recent built environment that exist within the existing Coast Corridor 

alignment and within the established temporary and permanent impact areas for 

the proposed Harlem/Metz, MP 165, MP 172, and Getty/Bradley curve 

realignments. Curve realignments would require work outside the railroad ROW

and would have more potential to disturb existing structures than other proposed

physical components improvements limited to the railroad ROW. If any of the curve 

realignments are carried forward, detailed design work will be necessary to identify 

final footprint areas Such work would help to determine if the footprints overlap 

with one or more historic properties. As appropriate, subsequent project level 

analysis of the proposed Harlem/Metz, MP 165, MP 172, and Getty/Bradley curve 

realignments may be required to determine if one or more of them would affect any 

of the relevant historic properties. 

In San Luis Obispo County, several historic-era bridges and residences exist within 

the temporary and permanent impact areas of the existing Coast Corridor alignment

sections #8, section #9, and section #10. Physical components improvements to the 

existing alignment would occur within the railroad ROW and would be limited to 

already disturbed areas. Therefore, the Build Alternative would not affect recorded 

historical sites within the existing alignment in San Luis Obispo County.

In the temporary impact area for the second mainline, two historic resources have 

been recorded without eligibility determinations: the UPRR Bridge and a 

bridge/culvert on Cuesta Forest Road. The proposed second mainline would occur 

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

Therefore, the Build Alternative would not affect recorded historical sites within the 

impact areas.

In San Luis Obispo County, there are 8 potentially historic structures of local 

importance from the more recent built environment that exist located within the 

existing Coast Corridor alignment and within the established temporary and 

permanent impact areas for the proposed Henry/Santa Margarita, Wellsona/Paso 

Robles, and McKay/Wellsona curve realignments. Although eligibility for the NRHP 

or CRHR has not been determined for these resources, the resources may be 

potentially historic owing to their age or their cultural importance on a local level. 

Curve realignments would require work outside the railroad ROW and have more 

potential to disturb existing structures than other proposed physical components

improvements located within the railroad ROW. Subsequent project-level analysis 

of the proposed curve realignment footprints will be required to determine an 

impact to these historic buildings and parcels. If any of the curve realignments are 

carried forward, detailed design work will be necessary to identify final footprint 
Coast Corridor

3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.10-20

areas. Design such work will help determine if the footprints overlap with one or 

more historic properties. As appropriate, subsequent review of the proposed 

Henry/Santa Margarita, Wellsona/Paso Robles, and McKay/Wellsona curve 

realignments may be required to determine if one or more of them would affect any 

of the potentially eligible historic properties. As further discussed in Section 3.10.3, 

future project-level environmental review would further assess these resources.

Paleontological Resources

In Monterey County and in San Luis Obispo County, most of the existing rail 

alignment and proposed improvements are is underlain with quaternary alluvium 

and marine deposits from the Holocene epoch. This geologic unit is considered to 

have low sensitivity to encounter paleontological resources because it is young in

geologic age primarily made up of loose sand and silt material. The only portions of 

the study area with high paleontological sensitivity are located within the existing 

alignment #10 and the proposed second main track north of the Cuesta Grade. 

Work required to upgrade existing portions of the Coast Corridor would generally 

not require grading or excavations that would impact potential paleontological 

resources because upgrades would be embedded into the existing tracks. However, 

proposed curve realignments, siding extensions/new sidings, and the second 

mainline would require grading but primarily at surficial levels. Typically, projects 

have an increased potential to affect paleontological resources when they involve 

substantial excavation work and/or tunneling. As none of the proposed physical 

components improvements comprising the Build Alternative are anticipated to 

require significant substantial excavation or any tunneling, the potential for impacts 

to paleontological resources would be low. 

Indirect Impacts

The range of potential improvements associated with the elements components of 

the Build Alternative could have potential indirect effects on cultural resources, 

particularly where proposed physical components improvements are located in 

proximity to historic resources. Indirect effects include those that could indirectly 

alter the context in which an existing historic resource is situated, potentially to 

such an extent that the resource’s eligibility for the NRHP is compromised. As a 

result of The potential introduction of new visual elements, noise, and vibration 

upon existing cultural resources would need to will be further assessed in 

subsequent environmental review. 

As discussed in Section 3.6, Aesthetics and Visual Resources, the majority of the 

study area would have low to medium visual impacts as a result of implementation 

of proposed physical components improvements. Some of the proposed physical
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

3.10-21

components improvements would include the visual presence of construction 

equipment, light and glare impacts from any nighttime construction work, and 

newly disturbed natural land cover that would recover to its original undisturbed 

form. As elements of the Build Alternative are carried forward for further design, 

funding, and implementation, The potential for the Build Alternative resources to 

indirectly affect or contrast substantially with the existing railroad/transportation 

use of the corridor is unlikely. 

With regard to noise and vibration To the extent any of these Build Alternative 

physical components improvements are ultimately carried forward for further 

design leading to construction, heavy equipment and vehicles could result in 

temporary increases in noise and vibration levels. These temporary construction 

impacts would be more pronounced at nighttime when overall ambient noise levels 

are lower. Once any of the potential proposed physical components improvements

are operational, noise and vibration effects would occur primarily on approach and 

pass through urban areas. While these effects would likely be found negligible and 

further found not to diminish the integrity of location, setting, feeling, association, 

workmanship, design or materials for any historic property, further analysis will be 

needed to make conclusions for any specific locations along the corridor. 

3.10.4.3 Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would include the same service as the Build Alternative 

and would retain all corridor-wide and almost all of the same physical components. 

The only differences are that the Preferred Alternative would include modified 

footprints for the King City siding extension and passenger station, and would 

exclude each of the four curve realignments within San Luis Obispo County. 

Additionally, the Preferred Alternative includes a 27 mile “island” of CTC between 

MP 202 and 229 (McKay to Santa Margarita).

Accordingly, potential impacts to cultural and paleontological resources for the 

Preferred Alternative would be the same as the Build Alternative except for the 

areas where the modified or excluded components are located, as summarized in 

Table 3.10-2. The discussions below therefore assess effects of modified or 

excluded components. The vast majority of the sites in Table 3.10-2 were recorded 

but the resources were not evaluated for eligibility. 
Coast Corridor

3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.10-22

Archaeological Resources

Based on further review of the location of the King City siding and passenger station, 

no archaeological resources are located within proximity to these improvement 

areas. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative would be unlikely to affect known

archaeological sites within these areas.

As noted for the Build Alternative, the four curve realignments have the potential to 

result in impacts to six archaeological sites. Because the Preferred Alternative 

excludes these curve realignments, potential cultural impacts would be avoided. 

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 

summarized in Table 3.10-2 below, archaeological resources have been identified 

between McKay and Santa Margarita. Although archaeological resources are 

located within the vicinity of the Coast Corridor alignment within these 27 miles of 

proposed CTC, implementation of CTC would be located within the existing railroad 

ROW and would be limited to already disturbed areas. As a result, implementation 

of CTC would be unlikely to affect recorded archaeological sites within this portion 

of the corridor.

Historical Resources

The Build Alternative includes one potentially historic structure located within the

King City passenger station . The revised passenger station footprint under the 

Preferred Alternative would affect two additional potentially historic structures. 

Therefore, implementation of the passenger station as part of the Preferred 

Alternative would potentially affect up to three historic structures. 

With regard to the two additional structures, 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 identify 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 may be eligible historic resources. Accordingly, it is unlikely that these 

structures are eligible historic resources. However, because the year these buildings 

were constructed cannot be readily verified based on available information, any

future project-level environmental review of the proposed station would require a 

site-specific analysis to determine eligibility. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

3.10-23

There are six potentially historic resources within the Build Alternative’s King City 

siding extension. The revised siding extension included under the Preferred 

Alternative would only affect one potentially historic resource that was never 

evaluated. This resource is a portion of the Southern Pacific Railroad and is part of 

the Build Alternative under Existing Alignment 3, but would be within the King City 

siding extension under the Preferred Alternative. Therefore, this resource had 

already been accounted for in the total number of potential historic structures and 

disclosed as part track improvements under the Build Alternative. Similar to the 

Build Alternative, the proposed King City siding extension under the Preferred 

Alternative would include work within the ROW. Physical improvements would be 

unlikely to alter historical values or eligibility as the improvements would be 

consistent with existing railroad use. However, future project-level environmental 

review would be necessary to formally determine the potential to affect historic

resources in this location.

As noted for the Build Alternative, the four curve realignments within San Luis 

Obispo County would have resulted in potential impacts to eight potentially historic 

resources. Since the Preferred Alternative excludes these curve realignments, 

potential cultural impacts associated with these curve realignments would be 

avoided. 

As discussed above, 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). Implementation of CTC would be located within the existing railroad ROW

and thus would be limited to already disturbed areas. As a result, implementation 

of CTC within these 27 miles would be unlikely to affect recorded historical sites 

within this portion of the corridor.

Overall, implementation of the Preferred Alternative would avoid eight potentially 

historic resources in comparison to the Build Alternative. Although eligibility for the 

NRHP or CRHR has not been determined for these resources, they may be eligible

because of their age or cultural importance on a local level. As noted in the Section 

3.10.3 below, future project-level plans and environmental review will require a 

more detailed analysis of potential cultural resources which could include formal 

evaluation under federal and/or state requirements. 
Coast Corridor

3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.10-24

Paleontological Resources

Most of the underlying soil within Monterey County is quaternary alluvium and 

marine deposits from the Holocene epoch. This geologic unit is considered to have 

low sensitivity to encounter paleontological resources because it is young in 

geologic age. The revised King City siding extension and passenger station are 

underlain by the same types of deposits and each would have low paleontological 

sensitivity. 

Additionally, the installation of a 27-mile “island” CTC between McKay and Santa 

Margarita (between MP 202.3 and MP 229.6). Implementation of CTC would be 

located within the existing railroad ROW within an area with generally low 

paleontological sensitivity. As a result, implementation of CTC within these 27 miles 

would be unlikely to affect paleontological resources within this portion of the 

corridor.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

3.10-25

Table 3.10-2 Summary of Potential Impacts to Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Proposed 

Component

No Build Alternative Build Alternative Preferred Alternative

Archaeo 

Sites

Historic 

Architectural 

Resources

Paleo 

Sensitivity

Archaeo 

Sites

Historic 

Architectural 

Resources

Paleo 

Sensitivity

Archaeo 

Sites

Historic 

Architectural 

Resources

Paleo 

Sensitivity

Salinas Powered 

Switch

N/A 0 0 Low 0 0 Low

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #1 

0 0 Low 0 0 Low 0 0 Low

Spence Siding 

Extension

N/A 0 0 Low 0 0 Low

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #2 

0 1 Low 0 1 Low 0 1 Low

Gonzales Powered 

Switch

N/A 0 0 Low 0 0 Low

Soledad Powered 

Switch

N/A 0 0 Low 0 0 Low

Soledad New 

Passenger Station

N/A 0 9 Low 0 9 Low

Harlem/Metz Curve 

Realignments

N/A 0 6 Low 0 6 Low

Chalone Creek New 

Siding 

N/A 0 0 Low 0 0 Low

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #3

0 2 Low 0 2 Low 0 1 Low
Coast Corridor

3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.10-26

Proposed 

Component

No Build Alternative Build Alternative Preferred Alternative

Archaeo 

Sites

Historic 

Architectural 

Resources

Paleo 

Sensitivity

Archaeo 

Sites

Historic 

Architectural 

Resources

Paleo 

Sensitivity

Archaeo 

Sites

Historic 

Architectural 

Resources

Paleo 

Sensitivity

Coburn Curve 

Realignments

N/A 0 0 Low 0 0 Low

King City Siding 

Extension

N/A 0 6 Low 0 1 Low

King City New 

Passenger Station

N/A 0 1 Low 0 3 Low

King City Powered 

Switch

N/A 0 0 Low 0 0 Low

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #4

0 0 Low 0 0 Low 0 0 Low

MP 165 Curve 

Realignment

N/A 0 3 Low 0 3 Low

San Lucas New Siding N/A 0 0 Low 0 0 Low

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #5

0 2 Low 0 2 Low 0 2 Low

MP 172 Track 

Realignment

N/A 0 2 Low 0 2 Low

San Ardo Powered 

Switch

N/A 0 0 Low 0 0 Low

Getty/Bradley Curve 

Realignments

N/A 3 1 Low 3 1 Low
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

3.10-27

Proposed 

Component

No Build Alternative Build Alternative Preferred Alternative

Archaeo 

Sites

Historic 

Architectural 

Resources

Paleo 

Sensitivity

Archaeo 

Sites

Historic 

Architectural 

Resources

Paleo 

Sensitivity

Archaeo 

Sites

Historic 

Architectural 

Resources

Paleo 

Sensitivity

Bradley Siding 

Extension

N/A 0 0 Low 0 0 Low

Bradley Powered 

Switch

N/A 0 0 Low 0 0 Low

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #6

4 6 Low 4 6 Low 4 6 Low

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #7

1 1 Low 1 1 Low 1 1 Low

McKay/ Wellsona 

Curve Realignments

N/A 0 2 Low None. This component is not part of the Preferred 

Alternative.

McKay East Powered 

Switches

N/A 0 0 Low 0 0 Low

Wellsona New Siding N/A 1 0 Low 1 0 Low

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #8

1 4 Low 1 4 Low 1 4 Low

Wellsona/ Paso Robles 

Curve Realignments

N/A 0 3 Low None. This component is not part of the Preferred 

Alternative.

Templeton Siding N/A 1 0 Low 1 0 Low

Templeton/ Henry 

Curve Realignments

N/A 4 0 Low None. This component is not part of the Preferred 

Alternative.
Coast Corridor

3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.10-28

Proposed 

Component

No Build Alternative Build Alternative Preferred Alternative

Archaeo 

Sites

Historic 

Architectural 

Resources

Paleo 

Sensitivity

Archaeo 

Sites

Historic 

Architectural 

Resources

Paleo 

Sensitivity

Archaeo 

Sites

Historic 

Architectural 

Resources

Paleo 

Sensitivity

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #9

8 3 Low 8 3 Low 8 3 Low

Henry/Santa 

Margarita Curve 

Realignment

N/A 2 3 Low None. This component is not part of the Preferred 

Alternative.

Santa Margarita 

Powered Switch

N/A 0 0 Low 0 0 Low

Cuesta Second Main 

Track

N/A 0 3 High 0 3 High

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section 

#10

2 1 High 2 1 High 2 1 High

Source: ICF, 2013 (Appendix D of the Draft Program EIS/EIR). 

a The table does not show any traditional cultural properties because none have been identified to date by the NAHC. 

b

Archaeological sites include those for which eligibility has not yet been determined as well as one resource for which eligibility was previously determined. 

c Historic architectural resources listed here include those for which eligibility has not yet been determined as well as nine resources for which eligibility was 

previously determined. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

3.10-29

3.10.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION 

STRATEGIES

General mitigation strategies identified in the Draft Program EIS/EIR for the Build 

Alternative would be entirely applicable to the Preferred Alternative The measures

listed below are applicable to both the Build and Preferred Alternatives and have 

been identified at this preliminary stage to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate any 

potentially significant impacts. The identification and implementation of specific 

mitigation measures necessary for each project improvement will occur as part of 

subsequent project-level environmental review. Additional avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation measures may also be identified during that review. 

Such measures provide guidance as to additional analysis, evaluation and 

development of appropriate site specific mitigation prior to implementing elements 

of the Build Alternative or Preferred Alternative.

 MIN-CUL-1. Recordation: The lead agency(s) should would ensure that cultural 

resources adversely affected by the Build Alternative are recorded and 

documented in a similar manner to a Historic American Building Survey (HABS) 

or Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) to be coordinated with the 

SHPO. 

 MIN-CUL-2. Design Guidelines: The lead agency should would ensure that 

design guidelines are developed for appropriate and compatible construction 

with regard to aesthetics. Design guidelines would meet HABS and HAER 

standards and would be reviewed by SHPO and other agencies. 

 MIN-CUL-3. Interpretive/Educational Materials: The lead agency should may

prepare interpretive and/or educational materials regarding affected historic 

properties or resources. The focus of this mitigation would be the historic 

themes related to of this resource. 

 A-CUL-4. Relocation: Historic properties or resources that would be demolished 

because of the project should be relocated and rehabilitated. The lead agency 

should would prepare a removal plan, including site plans for the new locations 

and placing them on new foundations. 

 MIN-CUL-5. Monitoring: Project construction documents and new construction 

should would be monitored to ensure they confirm to the design guidelines. A 

professional should would monitor construction to identify conditions that 

would conflict with the mitigation measures. 
Coast Corridor

3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.10-30

 MIN-CUL-6. Minor Repairs and Reconstruction: The lead agency should would

ensure that inadvertent damage to historic properties or resources would be 

repaired in accordance Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of 

Historic Properties. 

 MIN-CUL-7. Salvage: The lead agency should would ensure that selected 

decorative or architectural elements of any adversely affected historic 

properties or resources should be reviewed for feasibility of salvage to mitigate 

loss or destruction. Where possible, these elements should would be retained 

and reused in construction. Where not possible, selected salvaged elements 

should would be made available for educational purposes. 

 MIN-CUL-8. Paleontological Resources: Mitigation measures for paleontological 

resources should would be identified prior to implementing specific elements of 

the Build or Preferred Alternative, such as education of workers, recovery of 

fossils found during reconnaissance, monitoring construction. Furthermore, 

mitigation strategies should would include establishing protocols for recovering 

fossils during construction for identification, dating, interpreting, and preserving 

at appropriate facilities. 

3.10.6 SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS

Where resources exist in the immediate area of the proposed project components, 

additional evaluation of the potential effects to cultural resources would will be 

conducted prior to implementing specific components of the Build Alternative

action alternatives. Additional evaluation will include further identification and 

analysis of resources present, their condition and eligibility, and the potential direct 

and indirect effects of the proposed improvements components to adversely affect 

the resources’ eligibility status. All identified archaeological and historical resources 

will be evaluated using NRHP and CRHR eligibility criteria. 

Further evaluation of paleontological resources will include field reconnaissance to 

identify any exposed resources and determine sensitivity. 

Further consultation with NAHC and Native American groups would be necessary 

with a more precise study area to determine potentially sensitive resources or

territories within the study area.

Project level review may trigger further consultation with the NAHC and Native 

American groups consistent with Section 106 of the NHRP and AB 52. 
Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

3.10-1

Figure Monterey County Archaeological Sensitivity

Source: Monterey County, 2004

Source: Monterey County, 2004

Existing Rail Alignment
Coast Corridor

3.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.10-32

Page Intentionally Left Blank
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals

3.11-1

3.11 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS

This section describes the existing geologic setting and soil conditions in the study 

area as well as any potential impacts that would occur with either the No Build or 

Build Alternative This section evaluates existing fault lines, seismic hazards, 

landslide susceptibility, and liquefaction susceptibility, and discloses locations of oil 

and gas fields, mineral resource sites, and bedrock conditions that are relevant for 

any potential excavation activities. This section also describes the potential geologic 

and seismic impacts associated with the Preferred Alternative in comparison with 

the No Build and Build Alternatives. The analysis also discloses locations of oil and 

gas fields, mineral resource sites, and bedrock conditions that are relevant for any 

potential excavation activities. 

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 two comments on the geology section (see comments A-3.52 through A3.53). These comments were focused on the composition of the Build Alternative. 

Comment I-12.1 is about the geologic conditions on the south side of the Cuesta 

Grade. The comment is consistent with conclusions in the Program EIS/EIR (Table 

3.11-2) that this area (Existing Alignment Section #10) has a high to very high 

landslide potential. This information is reflected in Table 3.11-3 of this Final 

Program EIS/EIR. 

3.11.1 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

There are no federal statutes or regulatory provisions related to geology and soils 

considerations on non-federal lands. However, a number of state and local 

regulations apply to geologic hazards and engineering best practices. 

3.11.1.1 State

Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act (Public Resources Code § 

2621 et seq.) 

The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Zoning Act regulates development and construction 

in designated corridors along active faults (earthquake fault zones) where there is 

elevated risk of surface fault rupture. Earthquake fault zone maps are prepared by 

the State Geologist to indicate areas with potential surface fault rupture hazards. 

Before a project can be permitted or developed, cities and counties must conduct a 
Coast Corridor

3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals Final Program EIS/EIR

3.11-2

site-specific geologic investigation to determine if the project would cross an active 

fault. The Act prohibits the location of most types of structures for human 

occupancy across the active traces of faults in earthquake fault zones. 

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act (Public Resources Code § 2690-

2699.6) 

The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act was adopted in 1990 following the Loma Prieta 

earthquake to reduce threats to public health and safety and to minimize property 

damage caused by earthquakes. The act directed the California Department of 

Conservation to identify and map areas prone to the earthquake hazards of 

liquefaction, earthquake-induced landslides, and amplified ground shaking. The act 

further required most new development projects for human occupancy with 

designated zones to undergo site-specific geotechnical investigations to identify 

potential seismic hazards and formulate/implement mitigation measures. 

Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (Public Resources Code § 2710 

et seq.)

The Surface Mining and Reclamation Act established a program to regulate surface 

mining activities to assure that adverse environmental impacts are minimized and 

mined lands are reclaimed to a usable condition. The law sets uniform 

requirements for areas that are known to contain mineral deposits important to 

meet the future needs of the area. 

3.11.1.2 Local

Monterey County General Plan

The Monterey County General Plan Safety Element contains policies for seismic and 

geologic hazards. The overall goal of these policies is to minimize the potential for 

loss of life and property resulting from geologic and seismic hazards. The policies 

include enforcement of state policies, site-specific geologic studies as it relates to

for new development, land use designations, and required involvement of a 

California licensed civil engineer or landscape architect, when necessary.

San Luis Obispo County General Plan

The San Luis Obispo County General Plan Safety Element contains policies for 

seismic and geologic hazards. The overall goal of these policies is to minimize the 

potential for loss of life and property resulting from geologic and seismic hazards. 

The General Plan includes policies, standards, and a corresponding implementation 

program that relates to fault rupture hazards, groundshaking, liquefaction and 

seismic settlement, slope instability and landslides, and coastal bluff erosion.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals

3.11-3

3.11.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION

To assess potential impacts related to geology, soils, and minerals, aerial mapping 

was used to obtain information for the existing Coast Corridor rail alignment and the 

proposed physical component improvement areas. Proposed Physical components

improvements were mostly evaluated as having high, medium, or low potential 

geologic impacts based on the number of geologic constraints identified. 

Active faults, ground shaking, liquefaction, slope stability, and soil type are 

evaluated in the analysis. The data used for the aerial mapping incorporated the 

permanent and temporary footprints for each proposed physical component

improvement and the existing alignment to determine the findings. Table 3.11-1

summarizes potential geological and soils-related effects. Table 3.11-2 and Table 

3.11-3 summarizes specific geologic and soils related issues for each of the 

proposed physical components improvements. The permanent and temporary 

footprint areas are defined as follows:

 Impact Type Definitions: 

 Permanent: Areas where affected resources would not be restored back to 

their original conditions (i.e., new track locations). 

 Temporary: Areas that would be disturbed during construction and then 

returned to their original conditions post construction (i.e., staging areas and

ingress/egress).

 Track/Signal Upgrades:

 Existing railroad ROW (upgrades would be constructed via existing tracks – No 

Impacts are assumed) 

 Sidings: 

 Permanent = Existing railroad ROW

 Temporary = 50 feet on either side of existing ROW

 Curve Realignments: 

 Permanent =100 foot wide corridor

 Temporary = 200 feet on either side of 100 foot corridor for a total width of 

500 feet

 Second Mainline: 

 Permanent = Existing railroad ROW

 Temporary = 100ft on either side of existing railroad ROW
Coast Corridor

3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals Final Program EIS/EIR

3.11-4

 Stations

 Soledad Station: 1.9 acres – permanent impact area is based on conceptual 

station plans from the Soledad Downtown Specific Plan (2012).

 King City Station: 2.4 acres – permanent impact area is based on the 

conceptual station plans from the King City First Street Corridor Master Plan 

(2013) Multi-Modal Transportation Center – Conceptual Design ((MMTC)

2014).

Faults

The permanent and temporary impact footprints were measured to identify any 

Alquist-Priolo and Quaternary faults that cross the existing alignment and the areas 

with proposed physical components improvements. The data was measured in the 

amount of feet of the proposed physical components improvements that would be 

within a fault zone; the results are expressed as a percentage within Table 3.11-2. 

Ground Shaking

The permanent and temporary impact footprints were measured to show the level 

of ground motion that may affect the areas with proposed physical components

improvements. The data was categorized as low, medium, and high horizontal 

ground accelerations using California potential shaking ranges. Low is classified as 

0.0 – 0.83g, medium is 0.83 – 1.66g, and high is 1.66 – 2.50g. 

Liquefaction

The permanent and temporary footprints of proposed physical components

improvements were measured to show the relative susceptibility for liquefaction 

(accounting for the age and type of soil/sediment, relative density of the mater, and 

the depth of the water table). The data was ranked to show whether the area 

would be very low, low, moderate, high, and very high susceptibility to liquefaction. 

Slope Stability

The permanent and temporary footprints of physical components improvements 

were measured to show areas that may be susceptible to landsliding. The data was 

ranked to show whether the area would be very low, low, moderate, high, and very 

high susceptibility to liquefaction.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals

3.11-5

Shrink-Swell Potential

The permanent and temporary footprints of proposed physical components

improvements were measured to show areas of soils that would be considered 

expansive by the Uniform Building Code (1994). The data was ranked as low, 

moderate, or high susceptibility to shrink-swell.

Corrosive Soils

The permanent and temporary footprints of proposed physical components

improvements were measured to show areas of soils that would be considered 

corrosive to uncoated steel and concrete. The data was ranked as low, moderate, 

or high susceptibility to corrosion.

Soil Erosion

The permanent and temporary footprints of the proposed physical components

improvements were reviewed in light of existing slope and vegetation coverage to 

determine whether construction activities would have high, medium, or little/low 

potential to result in soil erosion. 

Mineral Resources

The presence and number of important mineral resources, such as oil/gas fields and 

geothermal wells are evaluated in the analysis. The aerial mapping data 

incorporated the permanent and temporary footprints for each proposed physical 

component improvement and the existing alignment relative to known oil and gas 

fields. The number of such fields crossed by the proposed improvements is noted. 

3.11.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.11.3.1 Geologic Setting

California’s central coast has a dynamic and varied landscape made up of coastal 

mountain ranges, gently sloping hills, and valley flats. Over time, tectonic plate 

activity and instances of high-pressure and heat (metamorphism) changed the 

composition and structure of underlying materials. As a result, Monterey and San 

Luis Obispo Counties are geologically complex and seismically active. 
Coast Corridor

3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals Final Program EIS/EIR

3.11-6

The Coast Corridor is situated in the Coastal Ranges Geomorphic Province with the 

Pacific Ocean to the west and the Great Valley Geomorphic Province to the east, 

with the distant Sierra Nevada Mountain Range Geomorphic Province farther east.1

The California coastal mountain ranges were formed by vertical uplift as the Pacific 

tectonic plate and the North American tectonic plate converged and compressed. 

Over tens of millions of years, these mountain ranges eroded and deposited 

nutrient-rich soil on the California central valley flats. The earth’s climate changed 

over time, shifting between glacial maximums and interglacial periods, and resulted 

in sea level fluctuations. When the seas advanced, marine layers were deposited 

and formed the rich soils found in the Salinas Valley, which continue today to lend 

themselves to intensive agricultural uses. 

In the northern portion of the study area within Monterey County, most of the 

underlying geologic units are quaternary alluvium and marine deposits from the 

Pliocene to Holocene epoch, between the present time and 1.6 million years ago 

(mya). The quaternary alluvium deposits are generally young and made up of 

unconsolidated sand, silt, and clay-bearing material. 2

San Luis Obispo County is primarily underlain with quaternary alluvium and marine 

deposits and Franciscan Complex. The underlying Franciscan Complex formed when 

subsurface soils underwent high-pressure and heat as the Pacific and North 

American plates interacted. These geological deposits are much older than 

quaternary alluvium; they were formed between the Jurassic to Cretaceous epochs 

(between 65 and 200 mya).

3.11.3.2 Seismic Hazards

Faults

Tectonic plate activity in Central California has resulted in a variety of active fault 

zones. A fault is a fracture on the earth’s surface where two blocks of the earth’s 

crust slide past each other. In most of California, large faults form in response to 

stress caused by relative displacement between the North American and Pacific 

tectonic plates. Over time, the displacement stresses build up enough strain that 

the two blocks slip past each other to alleviate the tension, causing an earthquake. 

Surface rupture occurs when the ground surface is broken due to fault movement 

during an earthquake. 

 

1

California Geological Survey, 2006

2

County of Monterey, 2006, pp. 4.4-1-2, 25
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals

3.11-7

Several faults are located within the Coast Corridor rail alignment, as shown in 

Figure 3.11-1 and Figure 3.11-2.

3

The California Geological Survey and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 

classify active faults if they have ruptured in the last 11,000 years (or within the 

Holocene epoch). All other faults are considered inactive.

4

The Rinconada quaternary fault is the most prevalent active fault within the Coast 

Corridor alignment. The Rinconada fault zone is a strike-slip fault that is part of the 

San Andreas Fault system and extends west of King City southeast for approximately 

74 miles to Santa Margarita.5 The Rinconada fault is parallel to the Coast Corridor 

throughout most of Monterey County. Near Paso Robles, the existing rail alignment 

travels turns towards the southwest direction and traverses the fault line through 

Templeton, Atascadero, and Santa Margarita. According to the Monterey County 

General Plan EIR, the Rinconada fault has a low-rated slip potential and is not 

expected to produce large earthquakes. No major earthquake has occurred along 

this fault within the past 100 years. 

Small portions of the Cambria and Oceanic faults traverse the existing rail alignment 

near the City of San Luis Obispo. The Cambria fault trends northwest and is 

approximately 39 miles long. The Oceanic Fault Zone trends north-northwest for 62 

miles.6 

Ground Shaking

Ground or seismic shaking is the motion of the earth’s surface resulting from an 

earthquake generated by a sudden slip at a fault line. An earthquake with moderate 

to high magnitude can generate considerable ground shaking. The degree of 

shaking is dependent on the magnitude of the earthquake, distance to the 

epicenter, duration of strong ground motion, and local geologic conditions (soil 

type, topography, etc). The most common damage from ground shaking is 

structural damage to buildings. 

Both Monterey County and San Luis Obispo Counties are located in a seismically 

active region subject to earthquakes and potentially strong ground shaking from 

nearby faults and generally unconsolidated alluvial areas. The most recent large 

 

3

This graphic depicts only terrestrial portions of the illustrated fault lines within Monterey County.

4

County of Monterey, 2006, p. 4.4-. 

5

Rosenberg and Bryant, 2003

6

County of San Luis Obispo, 1999,pp. 57-60
Coast Corridor

3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals Final Program EIS/EIR

3.11-8

earthquake in the region was the 2003 San Simeon earthquake, which registered a 

magnitude of 6.5. This event resulted in two fatalities from a building collapse in 

downtown Paso Robles. The 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake resulted in moderate to 

light ground shaking in the northern Salinas Valley. Although most of Monterey and 

San Luis Obispo Counties are subject to strong ground shaking, the vast majority of 

the existing Coast Corridor alignment and proposed components improvements

have a low potential for ground shaking, as further discussed below. One portion of 

Section #1 of the existing alignment within Monterey County, south of Salinas, has 

moderate ground shaking potential. 

Liquefaction 

Liquefaction is the process in which water-saturated sediment temporarily loses 

strength and acts as a fluid. During liquefaction, the soil undergoes temporary loss 

of strength causing the soil to behave as a fluid for short periods of time. To be 

susceptible to liquefaction, a soil is typically cohesionless, with a grain size 

distribution of a specified range (generally sand and silt), loose to medium dense, 

below the groundwater table, and subjected to a sufficient magnitude and duration 

of ground shaking. Liquefaction-related damage could include loss of support 

beneath foundations and other rail components improvements. Figure 3.11-3 and

Figure 3.11-4 summarizes show the areas of liquefaction potential of the Coast 

Corridor. 

According to the Monterey County General Plan EIR, ground shaking that causes 

liquefaction is most prevalent in alluvial basins in Monterey County. The portions of 

Coast Corridor within Monterey County are most subject to liquefaction near the 

Salinas River and floodplain. 

In San Luis Obispo County, areas that are underlain by young, poorly consolidated, 

saturated granular alluvial sediments are most susceptible to liquefaction. Areas 

adjacent to rivers and creeks are also considered vulnerable. Liquefaction potential 

along the Coast Corridor ranges from very low to very high, but most of the existing 

alignment and proposed components improvements have moderate potential. 

Slope Stability

Slope failure can occur as either rapid movement of large masses of soil (landslide) 

or slow, continuous (creep). The primary factors influencing the stability of a slope 

are the nature of the underlying soil or bedrock, the geometry of the slope (height 

and steepness), rainfall, and the presence of previous landslide deposits. Landslides 

typically occur in areas of steep slopes where underlying earth materials are 

relatively weak and particularly where high rainfall occurs and/or high groundwater 

levels are present. Water can act as a lubricant to decrease resisting forces. Ground 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals

3.11-9

shaking due to earthquakes can also cause landslides. The Coast Corridor alignment 

is located along largely flat areas where landslide hazard risk is generally low, with 

the exception of several high-risk area as discussed below. 

3.11.3.3 Soils

Shrink-Swell Potential

Expansive soils can undergo significant volume change (shrink or swell) due to 

variations in moisture content. Earth materials susceptible to these volumetric 

changes include soils and rock formations containing clays. Changes in soil moisture 

content can result for rainfall, irrigation, utility leakage, surface drainage, perched 

groundwater, drought, or other factors. 

During shrink-swell cycles, the volume of the soil changes and can cause damage to 

infrastructure. Expansive soils vary in severity along the existing Coast Corridor 

alignment and where there are proposed physical components improvements. In 

Monterey County, expansive soils are most severe in the northern portions of the 

existing alignment. Most of the proposed physical components improvements have 

low or moderate amounts of expansive soil. 

In San Luis Obispo County, the shrink-swell potential for soils is much lower than in 

Monterey County. Along the existing Coast Corridor alignment, the presence of 

expansive soils is mostly moderate to low. 

Corrosive Soils

A corrosive substance is one that will destroy or irreversibly damage another surface 

or substance with which it comes into contact. Corrosive soils are a potential hazard 

to concrete and metal foundations, utilities, and other buried or ground-level 

improvements. 

Soil Erosion

Soil erosion is a natural process that can be caused by wind, water, waves, or 

corrosion. Erosion can lead to soil loss, degraded water quality, and other effects. 

In agricultural areas of the Salinas Valley, erosion is common when flooding is 

prevalent. As a result, sediment is picked up and deposited in another location. 
Coast Corridor

3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals Final Program EIS/EIR

3.11-10

Wind is another common source of erosion in the Salinas Valley, especially in areas 

with sandy deposits.7 Most of the existing Coast Corridor alignment has soil prone 

to moderate erosion. 

3.11.3.4 Mineral Resources

Geological resources in California include oil and gas fields, geothermal fields, and a 

wide range of mineral resources. Given the value of these resources, CEQA requires 

consideration of whether a project would eliminate or otherwise reduce access to 

such resources. According to the Monterey County General Plan EIR, there are oil 

wells scattered throughout Monterey County, but the vast majority are clustered in 

the San Ardo oil and gas field, the sixth largest oil field in the State of California. The 

existing Coast Corridor rail alignment passes through a portion of the San Ardo field. 

3.11.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.11.4.1 No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative represents the continuation of existing operations and 

physical components, and assumes the perpetuation of existing freight and 

passenger service. The only physical component improvement would be the 

implementation of PTC along the corridor, including modification to signaling and 

communications equipment. These PTC related changes are not expected to result 

in heightened risk associated with geology or soils-related effects. As such, existing

passenger and freight operations (along with potential additional freight operations)

would continue to be susceptible to the existing geologic hazards present within the 

study area. 

3.11.4.2 Build Alternative

The Build Alternative would construct physical components improvements in areas 

with high geological impact potential. Table 3.11-1 summarizes potential geological

and soils-related effects. Table 3.11-2 summarizes specific geologic and soils issues 

for each of the proposed physical improvements components of the Build 

Alternative.

 

7

County of Monterey, 2006,pp. 4.4-21-23
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals

3.11-11

Table 3.11-1 Types of Potential Impacts from Geologic and Soil Conditions

Geologic Condition Potential Impact

Ground Shaking/Liquefaction Ground shaking and liquefaction effects from an earthquake could pose safety 

hazards to workers and public from possible derailment, collapse of 

infrastructure, or damage to facilities. 

Active Fault Crossing Active fault crossings could pose potential risk to workers and public due to 

interruption of service or derailment due to surface rupture along faults. 

Slope Stability Landslide potential could pose potential risk to workers and public due to failure 

of natural and/or construction cut slopes or retention structures.

Soil Conditions Expansive soil, corrosive soil, and soil erosion could damage infrastructure and

cause premature deterioration of underground structures.

Oil & Gas Fields Potential migration of oil & gas fields could release toxic gases into subsurface 

materials. 

Mineral Resources Potential project costs and delays due to potential impacts on existing mineral 

resource areas and facilities, including remediation. 

Source: Circlepoint, 2014.
Coast Corridor

3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals Final Program EIS/EIR

3.11-12

Table 3.11-2 Summary of Potential Geologic and Soil Impacts - Build Alternative

Build 

Alternative 

Component

Active 

Fault 

Crossing 

(% of 

length)

Ground 

Shaking 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Liquefaction 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Landslide 

Potential/ 

Slope 

Stability

(H/M/L)

Soil ShrinkSwell 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Soil Corrosivity 

Potential

(H/M/L)

Soil 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

(H/M/L)

Oil & Gas 

Fields

(# 

crossed)

Steel Concrete

Salinas 

Powered 

Switch

0% Low High Low Moderate High Low Low 0

Upgrades to 

Existing 

Alignment 

Section #1 

0% Low/

Moderate

High Low High (56%)

Moderate 

(12%)

Low (32%)

High Low Very Low 0

Spence Siding 

Extension

0% Low Moderate Low Moderate/ 

High

High Low Low 0

Upgrades to 

Existing 

Alignment 

Section #2 

0% Low Moderate Moderate High (28%)

Moderate 

(28%)

Low (37%)

N/A (5%) 

High Low/ 

Moderate

High (8%)

Moderate 

(2%)

Low (90%)

0

Gonzales 

Powered 

Switch

0% Low Moderate Moderate Moderate High Low Low 0
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals

3.11-13

Build 

Alternative 

Component

Active 

Fault 

Crossing 

(% of 

length)

Ground 

Shaking 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Liquefaction 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Landslide 

Potential/ 

Slope 

Stability

(H/M/L)

Soil ShrinkSwell 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Soil Corrosivity 

Potential

(H/M/L)

Soil 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

(H/M/L)

Oil & Gas 

Fields

(# 

crossed)

Steel Concrete

Soledad 

Powered 

Switch

0% Low Moderate Low High High Low Low 0

Soledad New 

Passenger 

Station

0% Low Moderate Low High High Low Low 0

Harlem/Metz 

Curve 

Realignments

0% Low High Moderate Low High Low Low/ 

Moderate

0

Chalone Creek 

New Siding 

0% Low High Moderate Low/ 

Moderate

High Low Low 0

Upgrades to 

Existing 

Alignment 

Section #3

0% Low High Moderate High (36%)

Moderate 

(22%)

Low (32%)

N/A (11%)

High Low High (11%)

Moderate 

(23%)

Low (66%)

0

Coburn Curve 

Realignments

0% Low High Moderate Moderate/ 

High

High Low Low 0

King City Siding 

Extension

0% Low Moderate Low Moderate High Low Low 0
Coast Corridor

3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals Final Program EIS/EIR

3.11-14

Build 

Alternative 

Component

Active 

Fault 

Crossing 

(% of 

length)

Ground 

Shaking 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Liquefaction 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Landslide 

Potential/ 

Slope 

Stability

(H/M/L)

Soil ShrinkSwell 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Soil Corrosivity 

Potential

(H/M/L)

Soil 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

(H/M/L)

Oil & Gas 

Fields

(# 

crossed)

Steel Concrete

King City New 

Passenger 

Station

0% Low Moderate Low Moderate High Low Low 0

King City 

Powered 

Switch

0% Low Moderate Low Moderate High Low Low 0

Upgrades to 

Existing 

Alignment 

Section #4

0% Low Moderate Low Moderate 

(44%)

Low (31%)

N/A (26%)

High Low High (26%)

Moderate 

(4%)

Low (71%)

0

MP 165 Curve 

Realignment

0% Low Moderate Low High High Low/ 

Moderate

Low/ 

Moderate

0

San Lucas New 

Siding 

0% Low Moderate Low Low/High High Moderate Low/ 

Moderate

0
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals

3.11-15

Build 

Alternative 

Component

Active 

Fault 

Crossing 

(% of 

length)

Ground 

Shaking 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Liquefaction 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Landslide 

Potential/ 

Slope 

Stability

(H/M/L)

Soil ShrinkSwell 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Soil Corrosivity 

Potential

(H/M/L)

Soil 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

(H/M/L)

Oil & Gas 

Fields

(# 

crossed)

Steel Concrete

Upgrades to 

Existing 

Alignment 

Section #5

0% Low High High High (13%)

Moderate 

(51%)

Low (32%)

N/A (4%)

High Low Very High 

(6%)

High (11%)

Moderate 

(5%)

Low (78%)

2

MP 172 Track 

Realignment

0% Low Moderate Low Moderate High Low/ 

Moderate

Low/ 

Moderate

0

San Ardo

Powered 

Switch

0% Low Moderate Low Moderate High Low Low 0

Getty/Bradley 

Curve 

Realignments

0% Low Moderate High Low/ 

Moderate

High Low Low/ 

Moderate

0

Bradley Siding 

Extension

0% Low High Moderate High High Low/ 

Moderate

Low 0

Bradley 

Powered 

Switch

0% Low High Moderate High High Low/ 

Moderate

Low 0
Coast Corridor

3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals Final Program EIS/EIR

3.11-16

Build 

Alternative 

Component

Active 

Fault 

Crossing 

(% of 

length)

Ground 

Shaking 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Liquefaction 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Landslide 

Potential/ 

Slope 

Stability

(H/M/L)

Soil ShrinkSwell 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Soil Corrosivity 

Potential

(H/M/L)

Soil 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

(H/M/L)

Oil & Gas 

Fields

(# 

crossed)

Steel Concrete

Upgrades to 

Existing 

Alignment 

Section #6

0% Low High Low High (14%)

Low (96%)

High Low Low 0

Upgrades to 

Existing 

Alignment 

Section #7

0% Low Moderate 

(95%)

Very High (5%)

Low Low Moderate Low Low 0

McKay/ 

Wellsona 

Curve 

Realignments

0% Low Moderate/Very 

High

Low Low Moderate Low/ 

Moderate

Low/ 

Moderate

0

McKay East 

Powered 

Switches

0% Low Moderate Low Low Moderate Low Low 0

Wellsona New 

Siding

0% Low Moderate/ 

Very High

Low Low Moderate Low Low/ 

Moderate

0

Upgrades to 

Existing 

Alignment 

Section #8

0.21% Low Very Low (47%)

Moderate 

(23%)

Very High 

(30%)

Low Moderate 

(41%)

Low (59%)

Moderate

/High

Low/ 

Moderate

Low/ 

Moderate

0
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals

3.11-17

Build 

Alternative 

Component

Active 

Fault 

Crossing 

(% of 

length)

Ground 

Shaking 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Liquefaction 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Landslide 

Potential/ 

Slope 

Stability

(H/M/L)

Soil ShrinkSwell 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Soil Corrosivity 

Potential

(H/M/L)

Soil 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

(H/M/L)

Oil & Gas 

Fields

(# 

crossed)

Steel Concrete

Wellsona/ 

Paso Robles 

Curve 

Realignments

0% Low Moderate Low Low Moderate

/ High

Low/ 

Moderate

Low 0

Templeton 

Siding

Extension

2.02% Low Moderate/ 

High

Low Low/ 

Moderate

Moderate

/ High

Low Low 0

Templeton/ 

Henry Curve 

Realignments

0% Low Moderate Low Low Moderate Low/ 

Moderate

Moderate 1

Upgrades to 

Existing 

Alignment 

Section #9

0.84% Low Very Low (27%)

Moderate 

(72%)

Very High (1%)

Low (68%)

Moderate 

(16%)

High (16%)

High (6%)

Moderate 

(38%)

Low (56%)

Moderate Low Low 0

Henry/Santa 

Margarita 

Curve 

Realignment

18.31% Low Very Low/ 

Moderate

Low Low/ 

Moderate

Moderate Low/ 

Moderate

Low 0

Santa 

Margarita

Powered 

Switch

0% Low Moderate Low Low Moderate Low/ 

Moderate

Low 0
Coast Corridor

3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals Final Program EIS/EIR

3.11-18

Build 

Alternative 

Component

Active 

Fault 

Crossing 

(% of 

length)

Ground 

Shaking 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Liquefaction 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Landslide 

Potential/ 

Slope 

Stability

(H/M/L)

Soil ShrinkSwell 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Soil Corrosivity 

Potential

(H/M/L)

Soil 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

(H/M/L)

Oil & Gas 

Fields

(# 

crossed)

Steel Concrete

Cuesta Second 

Main Track

0% Low Very Low/ 

Moderate

Low/High Low/ 

Moderate

Moderate

/ High

Moderate/ 

High

Moderate/

High

0

Upgrades to 

Existing 

Alignment 

Section #10

0.58% Low Very Low (83%)

Moderate 

(17%)

Low (15%)

High (80%)

Very High 

(4%)

High (30%)

Moderate 

(62%)

Low (8%)

High Low/ 

Moderate

Low/ 

Moderate

0

Source: ICF, 2013
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals

3.11-19

Seismic Hazards 

As shown in Table 3.11-2, geologic conditions in the study area generally present 

low to moderate constraints on development. Overall, the study area has a low 

potential for ground shaking because few active faults cross the existing and 

proposed alignment areas; however, about 18 percent of the proposed Henry/Santa 

Margarita curve realignment area would traverse the Rinconada Fault. The 

Rinconada fault has a low-rated slip potential and is not expected to produce large 

earthquakes as discussed in Subsection 3.11.3. Nonetheless, this Build Alternative 

component would require special designs to minimize potential damage to the 

tracks and other infrastructure from surface fault rupture. 

Liquefaction potential is generally moderate to high for most of the study area. The 

Coburn curve realignment, Harlem/Metz curve realignment, Bradley siding 

extension, and the new siding at Chalone Creek are most notable in Monterey 

County for high susceptibility to liquefaction potential. Similarly, the proposed 

McKay/Wellsona curve realignment, Templeton siding extension, and new siding at 

Wellsona are proposed to be located in areas of high potential susceptibility to

liquefaction in San Luis Obispo County. 

Portions of the existing alignment and proposed physical components

improvements within Monterey County would mostly be located in areas with low 

potential for landslides because the topography is generally flat, as shown in Figure 

3.11-5. However, several portions of the alignment extend run immediately 

adjacent to or near relatively steep slopes. These areas include the Harlem/Metz 

and Coburn curve realignments, Chalone Creek new siding, and upgrades to existing 

alignment #3. These Build Alternative components would have moderate potential 

to be impacted by for landslides. Farther south, the Getty/Bradley curve 

realignments and the Bradley siding extension would be located in areas that have 

moderate to high potential for landslides. In San Luis Obispo County, the existing 

railroad alignment is within an area of generally low landslide potential.

Overall, The physical proposed components improvements with the most 

noteworthy geologic risks are the Getty/Bradley curve realignments, Harlem Metz 

curve realignments, Bradley siding extension, and the new siding at Chalone Creek, 

which would face be located in areas of moderate to high risks for both liquefaction 

and landslide potential. 
Coast Corridor

3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals Final Program EIS/EIR

3.11-20

Soils

As shown in Table 3.11-2, soil conditions in the study area generally present 

moderate constraints on development. Most of the proposed improvements Build 

Alternative components located within Monterey County would be within areas that

have moderate to high shrink-swell potential, particularly the Spence siding 

extension, Coburn curve realignment, MP 165 curve realignment, Bradley siding, 

San Lucas siding, and the proposed Soledad station have several acres of high 

potential shrink-swell soil potential. In San Luis Obispo County, shrink-swell soil 

potential in improvement areas and existing areas is generally low to moderate the 

Build Alternative components would be located in areas with low to moderate 

shrink-swell soil potential.

Most of the soils in areas of the proposed physical components improvements

located in Monterey County are highly corrosive to steel and low to concrete with 

low potential for soil erosion. Most of the soils in San Luis Obispo County are 

moderately corrosive to steel and concrete with low to moderate soil erosion 

potential.

Mineral Resources

The proposed Templeton/Henry curve realignment would cross extend through one 

oil and gas field that is no longer in use. There are no geothermal wells within any 

of the proposed physical component improvement areas. 

3.11.4.3 Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would include the same service as the Build Alternative 

and would retain all corridor-wide and almost all of the same physical components. 

The only differences are that the Preferred Alternative includes revised plans for the

City of King siding extension and passenger station, and would exclude each of the 

four curve realignments within San Luis Obispo County. Additionally, the Preferred 

Alternative includes a 27 mile “island” of CTC between MP 202 and 229 (McKay to 

Santa Margarita). 

Accordingly, effects from geology, soils, and minerals for the Preferred Alternative 

would be the same as the Build Alternative except for the areas where the modified 

or excluded components are located. The discussions below assess geologic, soil, 

and mineral effects of modified or excluded components.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals

3.11-21

Seismic Hazards 

Under the Preferred Alternative, overall potential seismic hazards are similar to 

those described in the Build Alternative. However, about 18 percent of the 

Henry/Santa Margarita curve realignment area would have traversed the Rinconada 

Fault. Because the Preferred Alternative excludes this curve realignment the

impacts associated with surface fault rupture would not occur.

High liquefaction potential was identified near the McKay/Wellsona curve 

realignment. Because the Preferred Alternative excludes this curve realignment it 

would have reduced risk for impacts from liquefaction. 

Modifications to the footprints of the City of King siding extension and passenger 

station would not substantially alter the potential seismic hazards identified for the 

Build Alternatives because the new footprints would be located in regions with 

similar geologic conditions. The addition of the 27 miles of island CTC between 

McKay and Santa Margarita would be placed within the existing railroad ROW

between sections 6 through 9 of the alignment (refer to Table 3.11-3). Moderate to 

high liquefaction potential and moderate soil shrink-swell potential exists 

throughout this portion of the corridor. However, given that CTC is a signaling 

system, it would be placed on the ground adjacent to the existing railroad and 

would not entail any substantially increased risk to persons or property. 

As summarized in Table 3.11-3, the Preferred Alternative would not result in any

new substantial seismic adverse effects. 

Mineral Resources

Under the Preferred Alternative, effects to mineral resources would be similar to 

those described for the Build Alternative. In the Build Alternative, the proposed 

Templeton/Henry curve realignment would cross over one oil and gas field that is no 

longer in use. Since the Preferred Alternative excludes this curve realignment,

potential impacts of crossing the oil and gas field would be reduced. No new

substantial effects to mineral resources would occur under the Preferred Alternative

(refer to Table 3.11-3 below).
Coast Corridor

3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals Final Program EIS/EIR

3.11-22

Table 3.11-3 Summary of Potential Geologic and Soil Impacts - Preferred Alternative

Preferred

Alternative 

Component

Active 

Fault 

Crossing 

(% of 

length)

Ground 

Shaking 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Liquefaction 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Landslide 

Potential/ 

Slope 

Stability

(H/M/L)

Soil ShrinkSwell 

Potential 

(H/M/L)

Soil Corrosivity 

Potential

(H/M/L)

Soil 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Potential

(H/M/L)

Oil & Gas 

Fields

(# 

crossed)

Steel Concrete

King City Siding 

Extension 0% Low Moderate Low Moderate/High High Low Low 0

King City New 

Passenger 

Station

0% Low Moderate Low Moderate High Low Low 0

McKay/ 

Wellsona 

Curve 

Realignments

None. This component is not part of the Preferred Alternative.

Wellsona/ 

Paso Robles 

Curve 

Realignments

None. This component is not part of the Preferred Alternative.

Templeton/ 

Henry Curve 

Realignments

None. This component is not part of the Preferred Alternative.

Henry/Santa 

Margarita 

Curve 

Realignment

None. This component is not part of the Preferred Alternative.

Note: All other proposed physical components are the same between the Build and Preferred Alternatives and the impacts would be the same and are 

therefore not repeated in this table.

Source: ICF, 2015
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals

3.11-23

3.11.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION 

STRATEGIES

The physical individual components improvements comprising the Build Alternative

will be designed to minimize impacts related to geology and soils along the Corridor. 

The following strategies The measures listed below are applicable to the Build and 

Preferred Alternatives and have been identified at this preliminary stage to avoid, 

minimize, and/or mitigate any potentially significant impacts. The identification and 

implementation of specific mitigation measures necessary for each project 

component will occur as part of subsequent project-level environmental review. 

Additional avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures may also be identified 

during that review.

3.11.5.1 Ground Shaking

Ground shaking hazards cannot be mitigated completely and thus can be 

unpredictable. The following minimization strategies should be implemented to 

reduce potential adverse effects from ground shaking in areas where substantial risk 

is present:

MIN-GEO-1. Infrastructure would be designed to withstand strong ground motion. 

Designs typically include additional ductility in the structure. The design needed to 

reduce ground shaking would be determined upon for structures during subsequent 

stages of development, when detailed design plans are created.

MIN-GEO-2. Liquefaction potential would be reduced through site-specific methods 

such as soil densification or structural design.

3.11.5.2 Fault Crossings

MIN-GEO-3. Techniques to monitor track alignment as routine maintenance and the 

installation of ground motion warning systems would be used to reduce the effects 

of fault crossings.

3.11.5.3 Slope Stability/Landslides

A-GEO-4. Geotechnical studies during subsequent site-specific evaluation would 

assist in determining the potential for failure of natural and constructed slopes and 

identifying temporary and permanent slope reinforcement and protection measures 

where appropriate.
Coast Corridor

3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals Final Program EIS/EIR

3.11-24

3.11.5.4 Soil Hazards 

A-GEO-5. As one or more components of the Build Alternative are selected for 

further design A site-specific subsurface evaluation would be performed by a 

qualified geologist to evaluate the extent of soils susceptible to shrink-swell present 

along the alignment in the area of the physical component. Where expansive soil 

conditions are found and would be detrimental to proposed physical components

improvements, measures recommended by the geologist would be implemented in 

project design. 

MIN-GEO-6. A subsurface evaluation would be performed prior to design and 

construction to evaluate the potential for corrosive soil and identify 

recommendations to minimize or avoid any potential effects related to the presence 

of such soils (including but not limited to corrosion of rails or ties).

3.11.5.5 Hazards Related to Oil and Gas Fields

Hazards from potential migration of hazardous gases due to the presence of oil 

fields, gas fields, or other subsurface sources will be avoided by following strict 

federal and state Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA/CalOSHA) 

regulatory requirements for excavations, and consultation with the California 

Department of Conservation (Division of Oil and Gas) and California Department of 

Toxic and Substances Control regarding DTSC for known areas of concern. 

Mitigation strategies would include:

A-GEO-7. The use of safe and explosion-proof equipment during construction and 

testing for gases regularly. 

A-GEO-8. Active monitoring systems and alarms would be required in underground 

construction areas and facilities where subsurface gases are present. 

3.11.5.6 Mineral Resources

A-GEO-9. Important mineral sites will be identified as early as possible during

detailed project-level reviews and avoided where possible.

3.11.6 SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS

Prior to implementing specific elements of the Build Alternative individual 

components, component-specific geology, soils and minerals evaluations will be 

conducted. These evaluations will be used to determine if additional mitigations 

strategies from those discussed above in Subsection 3.11.5 are applicable. 
Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

3.11-1

Figure Active Fault Zones in Monterey County

Source: Monterey County, 2004

Exhibit 4.4.1

Regional Faults

00982.07 (06-08)

Proposed Rail Alignment Existing Rail Alignment
Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

3.11-2

Figure Active Fault Zones in San Luis Obispo County

Source: USGS, 2013

Existing Rail Alignment
Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

3.11-3

Figure Monterey County Liquefaction Potential

Source: Monterey County, 2004

Existing Rail Alignment

Legend
Wellsona/Paso Robles

McKay/Wellsona

McKay/Wellsona

McKay/Wellsona

Wellsona Siding

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

c

a

b

San Luis Obispo Liquefaction Potential Figure 3.11-4a

Legend

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Liquefaction Potential

Unknown

Very Low

Low

Moderate

Very High

Source: ICF International, 2013

±

±

0 1 2

Miles

1:75,000

Page 4a
Henry/Santa Margarita Templeton/Henry

Henry/Santa Margarita

Henry/Santa Margarita

Henry/Santa Margarita

Templeton Siding

Second Main Line

H

EA-10

EA-9 H

H

EA-9

EA-8 H

Atascadero

El Paso de

Robles (Paso

Robles)

Templeton

UV46

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

c

a

b

San Luis Obispo Liquefaction Potential Figure 3.11-4b

Legend

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Liquefaction Potential

Unknown

Very Low

Low

Moderate

Very High

Source: ICF International, 2013

±

±

0 1 2

Miles

1:75,000

Page 4b
Henry/Santa Margarita

Second Main Line

EA-10 H

H

EA-10

EA-9 H

Arroyo

Grande

San Luis

Obispo

UV1

UV227

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

c

a

b

San Luis Obispo Liquefaction Potential Figure 3.11-4c

Legend

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Liquefaction Potential

Unknown

Very Low

Low

Moderate

Very High

Source: ICF International, 2013

±

±

0 1 2

Miles

1:75,000

Page 4c
3.11-5

Figure Monterey County Landslide Potential

Source: Monterey County, 2004

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

P a c i f i c

O cea n

M o n t er ey B a y

S a n B e nit o Co un t y

S a n B e nit o Co un t y

S a n t a C ru z Cou n t y

Fr es n o Co unt y

S a n L ui s Ob i s p o C o un ty

King s Co u nt y

S a nt a C l a ra C o un t y

San C lemente

R eservoir

Bi g S u r R i ver

Los Padres

Hunter L iggett

National

Forest

M i litary R eservation

S a n L ui s Ob i s p o C o un ty

C amp

R oberts

M i l . R es.

Carmel R i ver

Ca rmel R i ver

T horne R d

Elm Ave

C entral A ve

Jolon R d

San L uca

R

s

d

Lockw ood Jolon

Peach T ree R d

Jolon R d

Oasis R d

R d Lo ck w ood S an Lucas R d

S arge nts R d

In terl ak e R d

V ineyard C anyon R d

India n V al ley R d

C holam e R d

Slack s C anyon R d

S argents R d

Bitterw ater R d

Spreck les R d

A rroy o S e co R d

Foothill R d

R iver R d

Old Stage R d

Alisal R d

Old Stage R d

San Juan G rade R d

Espinosa R d

Blanco R d

D avis R d

N ashua R d

E lkhorn R d

D olan R d

H all Rd

San Juan R d

C armel V alley R d

C astr ovi lle B l vd

M ig uel

S a n

Canyon Rd

N S outh R d

17 M ile D r

Laurel es G rade

Corral D e T ierra R d

S an B en anc i o R d

C armel V al ley Rd

R i v e r R d

Paraiso R d

S an Juan R d

R eservation R d

Oasis R d

A r or yo Seco

A r r oy o Seco

N a c imi ento R i ver

San A ntoni o R i v er

Sa linas R i ver

Sa l inas R iver

Salinas R iver

Espinosa

Lake

Moro

Cojo

Sl ough

Elkhorn

Sl ough

Los

P adres

R eservoir

L ittl e Sur R i ver

P ancho R i co C reek

A lisal Creek

Laguna Seca

B ig Sandy Creek

San L orenzo Creek

Sa n L orenzo C reek

Johnson Creek

Lake

Antonio

San

M onterey Del MonteForest

(PebbleBeach)

Las Gaz as

Creek R eservoi r

Bradley

C h a lone C reek

Stonewa ll Creek

N acimiento

Lak e D r

S al inas

M arina

S easide

M onterey

K i ng C ity

Soledad

Pacifi c G rove

G reenfi eld

G onzal es

Del R ey Oak s Carmel-by-the-Sea

Sand

City

Pajaro

Aromas

Elkhorn

Chualar

Boronda

San Ardo

Spreckels

San Lucas

Prunedale

Las Lomas

Castroville

Moss Landing

Carmel

V alley V illage

-.

G11

-.

G19

-.

G12

-.

G15

-.

G18

-.

G14

-.

G17

-.

G16

·}þ1

·}þ1

·}þ1

·}þ1

·}þ25

·}þ68

·}þ

183

·}þ

146

·}þ

198

·}þ

156

£[101

£[101

£[101

-.

G20

-.

G13

·}þ

218

Data Sources: County of Monterey - GIS Department, URS Corporation, US Geological Survey (USGS),

US Census Bureau, University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB), HAZUS-MH MR2, Lewis I. Rosenberg

(2001, Relative earthquake-induced landslide susceptibility of Monterey County, California. Data produced

for 21st Century General Plan Update, Monterey County, 2001)

El Estero

L ake

Del

Monte

L ake

R es er vation R d

W Bl anco R d

Forest L ak e

Pr escott A ve

Beach R d

C armel Av e

M onte Av e

For est A ve

Sunset Dr

17 M i l e D r

Lighthouse A v e

Del

H i lby A ve

Broadway A ve

Fremont B l vd

Ocean

R io R d Jun i pero A v e

Sceni c R d

Av e

M unras A ve

Pacif ic S t

Aguaj ito R d

David A ve

S k yli ne D r

Ocean V iew Bl vd

8th A ve

W Fr ank l in S t

8th S t

Imj in

2n

R d

d A ve

M a r i na

M uni ci pa l

Ai r port

C ity of S easide N ot

C onsider ed i n P l an

Del M onte

Bl vd

R eindol lar A ve

12th S t

Av e 4th

Seal R oc k Cr eek

L aguna

Del R ey

P eni nsul a

M onterey

Ai r port

C armel V alley R d

M ar V ista Pl ay

T

a

iog a

M o n t er ey B a y

S a l i n a s R iv er

M udhen L ak e

N S outh R d

C ar lt o n R ey Bl v d

C a nyo n del

-.

G17

·}þ1

·}þ1

·}þ68

·}þ68

·}þ

218

·}þ1

M etz R d

East S t

Front

Fort R omi e R d

S al ina s R iver

Arroyo S eco

C r eek Stonewal l

San V i cente R d

C am phora G lori a R

C a

d

m phora

R d

Br yant C any on R d

Nestles R d

M or isol i R d

M ission R d

W est St

Palm A ve M ai n

Arroyo S eco

R d

T err aza

G abi lan

-.

G17 ·}þ

146

£[101

T horne R d

El C amino R eal

Elm A ve

C entr al A ve

M etz

W alnut Av e

Es pinosa R d

Elm A ve

2nd S t

3rd S t

C ypr ess A ve

St 14th

Pine A v e

Oak A ve

Appl e A ve 4th S t C herry A ve

12th S t

Es pinosa R d

E spinosa R d

C halone Crk

Sal i na s R iver

R d

-.

G15

-.

G16

·}þ

101

3rd S t S pr eck els R d

Bitterwater R d

B roadway S t

C entr al A ve

C anal S t

Jolon R d

M etz R d

Pettitt R d

P ine Cany on R d

Lonoak R d

S an A ntoni o R d

D ivisio n

K i ng

Pearl St

1st S t

San Lorenz o Cr eek

Sal ina s R iv er

K ing C ity

Municipal

Airport

-.

G15

£[101

-.

G13

-.

G14

1 inch equals 4 miles

0 1 2 4 6 8

Miles

1 inch equals 1.5 miles

0 0.75 1.5 2.25 3

Miles

339.0

27 degree rotation for all views

S D avis R d

S M ain S t

N M ain S t

Boronda

W i l li ams R d

Al isal R d

E A l isal S t

Spr eck els B l vd

E B l anco R d

W Bl anco R d

W M ark et S t

E M ark et S t

W L aurel D r

W A l isal S t

C astrov il l e R d

E A l vin D r

E L aurel D r Constituti on B l vd

N atividad R d

Sal inas

Municipal

Airport

N D av is R d

Abbott S t

M onterey S al inas H wy

N S anborn R d

A lis al C reek

G abi lan Creek

Carr

L ake

E Boronda

R d

Boronda R d

R d

Nativ ida d Creek

San Juan G rade R d

R ogge R d

H ark ins R d

-.

G17

·}þ68

·}þ

183

£[101

£[101

R i ver R d

Old S tage R d

5th S t

G onzal es R iv er R d

Alta S t S A lta S t

Johnson C anyon R d

G loria R d

10th S t

C enter S t

Johnson Creek

Sal ina s R iver

Shor

R

t

d

C orda R d £[101

-.

G17

Gonzales Salinas

Soledad

King City Greenfield

County Map Scale

City Inset Map Scale

T:\ M onter ey_C ounty \ R H M P\ deli v era bl es\ E 9_L andsl ide.mxd

Legend

Hydrology (Perennial and Intermittent)

River, Creek or Tributary

Lake or Pond

Artifical Path, Canal/Ditch or Connector

Basemap

Hillshades created from USGS 1" (county-wide)

and 1/3" (city insets) National Elevation Dataset.

Census Designated Place !

Jurisdictional Boundaries

City Limits, Monterey County

Military Reservation

National Forest

County Boundary

Circulation

Active Railroad (Union Pacific)

Local Roads (City Insets Only)

State Highway

US Highway

Major Roads

County Highway

Carmel-by-the-Sea

Del Rey Oaks

Marina

Monterey

Pacific Grove

Sand City

Seaside

Figure E-9. Landslide Hazard Areas

Monterey County, California

Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

Earthquake-Induced Landslide

Susceptibility

Low

Moderate

High

Legend

Jurisdictional Boundaries

City Limits, Monterey County

Military Reservation

National Forest

County Boundary

Circulation

Active Railroad (Union Pacific)

Local Roads (City Insets Only)

State Highway

US Highway

Major Roads

County Highway

Earthquake-Induced

Landslide

Susceptibility

Low

Moderate

High

Existing Rail Alignment
Coast Corridor

3.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals Final Program EIS/EIR

3.11-30

Page intentionally left blank
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources

3.12-1

3.12 HYDROLOGY AND WATER RESOURCES

This section addresses the potential hydrologic and water resource impacts of the 

No Build and Build Alternatives action alternatives. Water resources analyzed 

include floodplains, surface waters, and groundwater.

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 regarding project elements that have been 

incorporated into the Preferred Alternative (see comments A-3.54 through A-3.58, 

A-3.77 and A-3.78). Section 3.12.2 below provides analysis of the Preferred 

Alternative. Individual comments I-7.2, I-7.3, and I-18.2 are also related to 

hydrologic conditions and water resources related to features of the Build 

Alternative but do not require changes to the analysis or findings. 

3.12.1 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

3.12.1.1 Federal

Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act (CWA) was enacted by Congress in 1972 and subsequently 

amended several times. It is the primary federal law regulating water quality in the 

United States, and has formed the basis for several state and local laws throughout 

the country. The key objective of the CWA is to protect water quality by regulating 

pollution in the nation’s rivers, stream, lakes, and coastal waters. The CWA 

prescribed the basic federal laws for regulating discharges of pollutants as well as 

set minimum water quality standards for all “waters of the United States.” The 

CWA makes the discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States unlawful 

without a proper permit. 

Several additional mechanisms are employed to control domestic, industrial, and 

agricultural pollution under the CWA. At the federal level, the CWA is administered 

by the EPA. In California, the CWA is administered and enforced by the State Water 

Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards 

(RWQCBs). The State of California has developed a number of water quality laws, 

rules, and regulations, in part to assist in the implementation of the CWA and 

related federally mandated water quality requirements. In many cases, the federal 

requirements set minimum standards and policies; the laws, rules, and regulations 

adopted by the state and regional boards often exceed the federal requirements. 
Coast Corridor

3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.12-2

Important sections of the CWA include:

 Section 303 and 304: Require states to promulgate water quality standards, 

criteria, and guidelines. Section 303(d) specifically regulates impaired water 

bodies and requires each state to identify waters that will fail to achieve water 

quality standards even after maintaining effluent standards, and to enact 

improvement plans. Each state must develop load-based (rather than 

concentration based) limits called total maximum daily loads (TMDL) for each 

water body and pollutant for which water quality is considered impaired. It is 

up to the state to prioritize development of TMDLs based on the severity of the 

pollution and the beneficial uses of the water body. 

 Section 401: Requires a federal permit to conduct any activity that may result in 

a discharge to waters of the US. The applicant must obtain certification from 

the state that the discharge will comply with other provisions of the act.

 Section 402: Establishes the NPDES, a permitting system for point source 

discharges (except for dredge or fill material) of any pollutant into waters of the 

United States, as authorized by the CWA. RWQCBs administer this permitting 

program in California. The entirety of the Coast Corridor under review here 

(Salinas to San Luis Obispo) is within the Central Coast RWQCB based in San Luis 

Obispo. Section 402(p) requires NPDES permits for discharges of storm water 

from industrial/construction and municipal sources into storm sewer systems. 

The permit ensures the receiving waters will meet water quality standards. 

 Section 404: Establishes a permit program for the discharge of dredge and fill 

materials into waters of the United States. This permit program is administered 

by USACE. 

Rivers and Harbors Act

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act prohibits the unauthorized obstruction or 

alteration of any navigable water of the United States. The construction of any 

structure in or over any navigable water of the United States, the excavation from or 

depositing of material in such waters, or the accomplishment of any other work 

affecting the course, location, condition, or capacity of such waters is unlawful 

unless the work has been recommended by the Chief of Engineers and authorized 

by the Secretary of the Army. The instrument of authorization is designated a 

Section 10 permit.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources

3.12-3

Flood Disaster Protection Act

The Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973 requires flood insurance for the 

protection of property located in Special Flood Hazard Areas (SHFAs). Flood-prone 

areas are identified and flood insurance is provided to residents and businesses in 

those areas.

Executive Order 11988 

Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management) addresses floodplain issues 

related to public safety, conservation, and economics. The Executive Order requires 

federal agencies to avoid short- and long-term impacts resulting from the 

modification and development of floodplains to the maximum extent feasible.

3.12.1.2 State

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

The Porter-Cologne Act, enacted in 1969, provides the legal basis for water quality 

regulation within California. The law gives responsibility to the SWRCB and the 

RWQCBs to establish the water quality standards (objectives and beneficial uses) 

required by the CWA. Additionally, the SWRCB and RWQCBs regulate discharges to 

ensure compliance with water quality standards. In California, Regional Boards 

designate the beneficial uses for all water body segments in their jurisdictions, and 

then set criteria necessary to protect these uses. 

California Fish and Game Code, Section 1602

Pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, CDFW regulates 

activities that divert, obstruct, or alter stream flow, or substantially modify the bed, 

channel, or bank of a stream, which CDFW typically considers to include riparian 

vegetation. Any proposed activity in a natural stream channel that would adversely 

affect an existing fish and/or wildlife resource, would require entering into a 

Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) with CDFW prior to commencing work in the 

stream. However, prior to authorizing such permits, CDFW typically reviews an 

analysis of the expected biological impacts, any proposed mitigation plans that 

would be implemented to offset biological impacts and engineering and erosion 

control plans.
Coast Corridor

3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.12-4

State Agency Drought Declarations 

On August 14, 2014, the CPUC directed all state water utilities to achieve 

compliance with SWRCB conservation efforts. On March 17, 2015, the State Water 

Resources Control Board, noting continued drought conditions, adopted additional 

emergency measures to conserve state water resources. 

3.12.1.3 Local

City of Salinas General Plan

The City of Salina General Plan sets forth policies intended to ensure a safe and 

adequate water supply for community uses and to encourage the conservation of 

water resources. Specific policies aim to maintain and restore natural watersheds 

to recharge the aquifers and ensure the viability of the ground water resources. 

Cooperation with the SWRCB and the RWQCB is encouraged to address poor water 

quality in the area. The General Plan also promotes regional efforts to protect and 

enhance water quality. 

City of Soledad General Plan

The City of Soledad General Plan sets forth policies requiring projects to allocate 

land as necessary for the purpose of retaining flows and/or for the incorporation of 

mitigation measures for water quality and supply impacts related to runoff. 

Mitigation related to controlling pollutant loads in urban storm water runoff must 

be coordinated with responsible agencies, such as the RWQCB.

City of King (King City) General Plan

The City’s General Plan includes goals and policies assuring groundwater resources 

are available to the city and that their quality is not degraded. Specific policies aim 

to preserve and protect all groundwater recharge areas from sources of pollution, 

and to regulate development in such areas to ensure that recharge capabilities are 

not significantly diminished. 

City of El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) General Plan

The City of El Paso de Robles General Plan contains goals and policies aiming to 

ensure the city has an adequate supply of water. Specifically, the development and 

implementation of innovative water provision and conservation programs is 

encouraged, particularly through non-traditional methods, such as storm drainage 

system design integrating Low-Impact Development features to reduce 

hydromodification from development and other improvements to recharge 

groundwater.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources

3.12-5

City of San Luis Obispo General Plan

The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan includes goals, policies, and programs 

related to water supply and demand, with a focus on ensuring a long-term, reliable 

water supply to meet both current and future water demand associated with 

development envisioned by the General Plan.

3.12.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION

The components of the Build Alternative action alternatives would have varying 

potential to result in environmental effects related to hydrology and water 

resources. The study area for hydrology and water resources is defined as the 

existing railroad ROW, the potential locations of the physical improvements, and

conservative buffer areas around the proposed physical components improvements. 

Below, this section discusses how each component was evaluated and what study 

area was considered.

3.12.2.1 Impact Evaluation by Resource

Surface Waters

To determine potential impacts to hydrologic features, including streams, rivers, 

canals, by the proposed physical improvements project components, national 

hydrography data from the United States Geologic Survey (USGS) was used. 

Permanent and temporary impacts were located by identifying where proposed

physical components improvements would intersect known flowlines. From this, 

the size of the impact was computed in linear feet in the jurisdictional areas. 

Groundwater

Impacts to groundwater resources were evaluated qualitatively by examining the 

potential for the physical components improvements to interfere with groundwater 

recharge or to deplete groundwater supplies. Groundwater resources serving 

communities along the alignment were identified, along with any potential impacts 

the physical components improvements may have. For this analysis, it is assumed 

that among all proposed physical components improvements, only proposed new 

station areas would have any significant potential to impact groundwater resources 

due to the likely addition of impervious surface area. Other proposed components

improvements, such as new tracks, would not introduce substantial new impervious 

areas.
Coast Corridor

3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.12-6

Floodplain

To determine the extent to which proposed physical improvements could be located 

within areas of subject to heightened flood risk (i.e., 100-year floodplains or other 

SFHAs), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood maps were 

consulted. The analysis computes acreages of proposed improvements within these 

areas subject to heightened risk of flood such areas.

Impaired Bodies

Impacts to impaired bodies of water within the exiting alignment and resulting from 

the proposed physical components improvements were identified by using the US 

EPA 303(d) list. Any impacted surface waters were cross-checked with the 303(d) to 

determine if they are currently considered impaired. The linear feet of impaired 

water body were calculated for each of the physical improvements.

Erosion

Potential erosion impacts were evaluated by using GIS data and aerial mapping to

identify proposed improvements that could occur in areas with steep slopes. Areas 

near steep slopes are more likely to experience erosion, particularly if proposed 

components improvements would require substantial grading in such areas. 

3.12.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.12.3.1 Hydrological Resources in the Study Area

Surface Waters

Surface waters, including streams, lakes, rivers, ponds, and reservoirs, provide 

critical habitat for fish and wildlife, offer locations for groundwater recharge, and

direct pathways connecting resources. They also help convey flood waters, 

facilitating and maintaining water supply. (See Section 3.13, Biological Resources 

and Wetlands, for a discussion of wetlands and native species habitats). 

The major surface water resource within and immediately adjacent to the study 

area is the Salinas River. The Salinas River stretches approximately 184 miles 

north/northwest, from the Santa Lucia and La Panza Mountain Ranges in San Luis 

Obispo County, through the Salinas Valley, and finally terminating in Monterey Bay 

near Castroville. The river meanders amidst 230,000 acres through the Salinas 

Valley floor, fed by several tributaries along the way. The river flow averages 

approximately 282,000 acre-feet per year (AFY). Surface waters in the study area 

are shown in Figure 3.12-1.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources

3.12-7

Between Salinas and San Luis Obispo, the existing railroad crosses or is in close 

proximity to a number of other named streams, including the San Antonio River, 

Nacimiento River, Jack Creek, Santa Margarita Creek, Paso Robles Creek, Atascadero 

Creek, Chualar Creek, Stonewall Creek, Chalone Creek, Pancho Rico Creek, Sargent 

Creek, San Lorenzo Creek, Pine Creek, San Marcos Creek, Yerba Buena Creek, 

Paloma Creek, Graves Creek, Brizzolara Creek, Stenner Creek, and several unnamed 

creeks. 

Groundwater

Rainfall, snowmelt, and other types of water infiltration may penetrate the ground 

surface moving downward through spaces between soil particles, eventually 

encountering an impermeable layer. At this impermeable layer water begins to 

build up, ultimately becoming an aquifer. A groundwater basin contains one large 

aquifer or several connected and interrelated aquifers. Groundwater basins are 

distinguished by natural or artificial divides, such as impermeable layers, in the 

water table. Precipitation as well as artificial infiltration can serve to recharge the 

groundwater basin. Groundwater recharge is most effective in areas where surface 

water is easily able to penetrate into the ground, such as along undeveloped river 

channels or beneath lakes.

Groundwater is an important resource to Monterey County. Overall, the 

groundwater is considered to be of good quality; however, localized groundwater 

quality issues exist, resulting from seawater intrusion in northern Monterey County 

(not an issue for the inland Salinas Valley) and nitrate contamination. Through 

Monterey County and parts of San Luis Obispo County, the Coast Corridor study 

area lies within the Salinas River Basin, extending a length of approximately 130 

miles. The Salinas River Basin consists of one large hydrologic unit consisting of four 

subareas, each containing their own hydrogeological and recharge characteristics. 

Water can move freely between them as they are not separated by any horizontal

flow barrier. Groundwater resources in the study area are shown in Figure 3.12-2.

Groundwater is the primary water resource in the Salinas Valley and supplies a 

variety of uses, including irrigation, as well as domestic, municipal, and industrial 

purposes. In the Salinas Valley, groundwater recharge occurs primarily through the 

Salinas River, Arroyo Seco River, and some infiltration from rainfall. Lake San 
Coast Corridor

3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.12-8

Antonio serves in part to collect water to recharge the San Antonio River, a tributary 

to the Salinas River. Some infiltration from small streams and inflow from bedrock 

areas adjoining the basin does occur, but to a much lesser extent.1

San Luis Obispo County obtains approximately 80 percent of its water supply from 

groundwater.2 As of 2014, Paso Robles relieds entirely on groundwater, drawn from 

a large aquifer known as the Paso Robles Basin and the Salinas River Underflow. 

However, in 2015, Paso Robles is scheduled to begin receiving surface water (4,000 

AFY) from the Lake Nacimiento Water Project.3 

The City of San Luis Obispo obtains water from Santa Margarita Lake, Whale Rock 

Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, recycled water from the city’s WRF, and 

groundwater. The city’s groundwater basin is relatively small and recharges quickly 

after rainfall events. Currently, the city operates one potable and one non-potable 

well. Two of the city’s largest producing wells were shut down after elevated nitrate 

levels were detected. The potable well produces approximately 11 acre-feet per 

minute (AFM), about 2 percent of the city’s total water use. The non-potable well 

serves construction activities in the area, such as soil compaction and dust control. 

Two additional wells are operated by the Laguna Lake Golf Course that serve to help 

meet irrigation demands at the course. The remainder of the irrigation demand for 

the golf course is met by the WRF.4

Drought

A prolonged drought period has affected flows in local waterways. For most of 2014 

and year 2015 to date, the United States Drought Monitor has noted “exceptional 

drought” conditions in San Luis Obispo County.5 

Floodplains

Floodplains are flatlands adjacent to rivers, lakes, and oceans that are subject to 

flooding when the nearby water body overflows, resulting in a variety of 

geomorphic and hydrological processes. A total of 49 acres of SFHAs have been 

designated within the Coast Corridor study area, and are shown in Figure 3.12-3. 

 

1

County of Monterey, 2006, pp. 4.3-2-4.3-6

2

County of San Luis Obispo, 2009, p. 3.7-1

3

City of Paso Robles, 2014

4

City of San Luis Obispo, , 2010, pp. 8.1-8.4

5

United States Department of Agriculture, National Drought Mitigation Center, 2015.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources

3.12-9

Water Quality Issues

Impaired Bodies

Impaired water bodies are those that do not meet water quality standards after 

application of effluent limits under the CWA. Water bodies with impaired water 

quality in the vicinity of the Coast Corridor study area include Atascadero Creek, 

Chualar Creek, Salinas River, San Lorenzo Creek, and Stenner Creek.6 These water 

bodies are considered impaired because they exceed the limits for fecal coliform, e. 

coli, low dissolved oxygen, boron, chloride, electrical conductivity, sodium, pH, 

chlordane, pesticides, total dissolved solids, toxaphene, nitrate, polychlorinated 

biphenyls (PCBs), enterococcus, diazinon, chlorpyrifos, 

dichlorodiphenyldichloroethane (DDD), and a number of other pollutants.

Erosion Potential

Erosion is the slow deterioration of land surface by flowing water, wind, waves, and 

corrosion, typically leading to soil loss and degraded water quality. Soil erosion can 

occur in areas near steep slopes, and during construction activities that involve 

grading and other earth moving activities. See Section 3.11 Geology, Soils, and 

Minerals for an in-depth discussion of soil erosion in Monterey and San Luis Obispo 

Counties.

Most of the Coast Corridor study area has low soil erosion potential; very few areas 

are identified as having moderate to severe erosion potential. The topography of 

the existing Coast Corridor study area is predominately flat; however, several 

portions of the alignment run adjacent to areas with steeper topography, where any 

ground disturbance would increase the potential for erosion and sedimentation.

3.12.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.12.4.1 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 improvement expected under the No Build Alternative would be the 

installation of PTC, which would provide increased safety for freight and passenger 

trains. PTC equipment would likely be installed within the existing railroad ROW or 

 

6

California EPA, 2013
Coast Corridor

3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.12-10

would modify existing signaling equipment, and train operations would continue as 

at present it currently does. As a result, no new impacts to hydrology and water 

resources would not change under current operation and no new impacts would be 

expected to occur.

3.12.4.2 Build Alternative

Surface Waters/Impaired Water Bodies

The Build Alternative could result in potential proximity impacts to surface waters 

through runoff during construction activities, operation-related pollution in areas 

immediately adjacent to surface waters, and potential surface water crossings. 

Table 3.12-1 below shows potential impacts to surface waters resulting from various 

elements the components of the Build Alternative. Potential temporary and 

permanent surface water impacts are reported as linear feet, which represents 

areas in which Build Alternative components would come within close proximity to 

surface water resources. For example, construction activities occurring to upgrade 

existing alignment #1 would temporarily be in close proximity to 83 linear feet of 

surface waters. Once operational, these upgrades would be within the existing 

railroad ROW and would not be in close proximity to any water resources. As such, 

no permanent impacts are reported.

Table 3.12-1 Build Alternative: Potential Proximity Impacts to Surface Waters 

Build Alternative 

Components

Surface Water Impacts (linear feet)

Temporary Permanent

Salinas Powered Switch 0 0

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #1 

83 0

Spence Siding Extension 130 83

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #2 

2,411 0

Gonzales Powered Switch 0 0

Soledad Powered Switch 0 0

Soledad New Passenger Station 0 0

Harlem/Metz Curve Realignments 302 0
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources

3.12-11

Build Alternative 

Components

Surface Water Impacts (linear feet)

Temporary Permanent

Chalone Creek New Siding 0 0

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #3

120 0

Coburn Curve Realignments 61 0

King City Siding Extension 133 100

King City New Passenger Station 0 0

King City Powered Switch 0 0

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #4

0 0

MP 165 Curve Realignment 403 100

San Lucas New Siding 0 0

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #5

1,732 0

MP 172 Track Realignment 785 150

San Ardo Powered Switch 0 0

Getty/Bradley Curve 

Realignments

1,636 417

Bradley Siding Extension 109 109

Bradley Powered Switch 0 0

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #6

1,076 0

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #7

287 0

McKay/ Wellsona Curve 

Realignments

0 0

McKay East Powered Switches 0 0

Wellsona New Siding 123 124
Coast Corridor

3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.12-12

Build Alternative 

Components

Surface Water Impacts (linear feet)

Temporary Permanent

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #8

612 0

Wellsona/ Paso Robles Curve 

Realignments

0 0

Templeton Siding 267 227

Templeton/ Henry Curve 

Realignments

0 0

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #9

1,846 0

Henry/Santa Margarita Curve 

Realignment

5,719 305

Santa Margarita Powered Switch 0 0

Cuesta Second Main Track 5,986 749

Upgrades to Existing Alignment 

Section #10

3,620 0

Totalsa27,442a2,264a

Note: a) Rounded to the nearest whole number.

Source: ICF, 2013

The Build Alternative would result in some potential proximity impacts to surface 

waters, including potential crossings of 17 streams and rivers on at 117 occurrences

locations.

7 More specific construction-period and operational impact discussions 

are provided below. 

Construction-Period Effects

Construction activities could result in potential proximity impacts to approximately 

5.2 miles of surface waters within the study area. Construction activities may also

result in potential proximity impacts to water quality along the corridor. During 

construction, erosion and runoff could result in an increased risk of sedimentation in 

 

7 More than 17 streams may be crossed; however, of all the streams crossed in the study area, only 17 

are named.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources

3.12-13

nearby surface waters. This mainly results from the proximity of construction work 

and associated staging areas, vehicle ingress/egress, etc. to surface waters. The

Henry/Santa Margarita Curve Realignment and the Cuesta Second Main Track would 

both affect approximately one mile of surface waters each during construction 

activities. Construction of the King City Siding Extension could result in a potential 

temporary impact to the San Lorenzo Creek; however, this impact would extend for 

only 133 linear feet. Upgrades to Existing Alignment section #10 would potentially 

impact just over a half mile (3,620 linear feet) of surface waters during construction 

activities. Following construction work, these impacted areas would be restored 

back to their original condition.

Operational Effects

Five (5) of the seventeen (17) streams and/or rivers that would be crossed by one or 

more of the elements of the Build Alternative are considered impaired. Of the 

impaired water bodies in the Corridor, San Lorenzo Creek is the only body of water 

that is not currently crossed by the existing alignment. The proposed King City 

Siding Extension is the only proposed physical improvement Build Alternative 

component that would add a new crossing of San Lorenzo Creek. 

Once operational, the number of daily trains on the corridor would increase, and

there would be increased potential for operation-related pollutants to enter the 

environment. Potential permanent proximity impacts could occur to approximately 

0.4 miles (2,264 linear feet) of surface waters. Like construction-period effects, 

these impacts would result from the proximity of the various proposed 

improvements Build Alternative components (new sidings, siding extensions, etc.) 

and subsequently close proximity of trains to surface waters. The King City Siding 

Extension has the potential to result in impacts to the San Lorenzo Creek for 

approximately .02 mile (100 linear feet) once operational. Operation of the Cuesta 

Second Main Track could result in approximately 0.15 mile (749 linear feet) of 

potential impacts to surface waters. All of the remaining new sidings/siding 

extensions would have potential impacts to already affected surface waters in a 

length of less than one tenth of a mile in the vicinity of the alignment.

Erosion Potential

Construction-Period Effects

Several elements components of the Build Alternative could result in potential 

erosion impacts during construction. Particularly The Harlem/Metz Curve 

Realignment, New Chalone Creek Siding, Coburn Curve Realignments, Bradley 

Siding, and Getty/Bradley Curve Realignments are located near steep slopes and 

could result in potential erosion impacts. The Cuesta Second Main Track is 
Coast Corridor

3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.12-14

proposed in an area near steep topography; however, potential for soil erosion is 

low in this area because it is forested and agricultural uses are negligible. The 

Harlem/Metz and Coburn Curve Realignments would move the track farther away 

from sloping hillside areas. These realignments, along with the Chalone Creek New

Siding, would be located on relatively flat land, reducing the potential for erosion

and potentially creating a beneficial effect. 

Operational Effects

Once operational, the Build Alternative would have minimal potential to result in 

erosion as erosion because it is typically associated with grading and other land 

disturbing activities that occur during construction.

Groundwater

Construction-Period Effects

Little groundwater use is anticipated for construction of all of the proposed physical 

components improvements. Curve realignments, siding extensions, new power 

switches, and the second main track would have little to no impact to groundwater 

as construction activity associated with these components improvements does not 

require water. Construction of the new stations and concrete platforms would 

require water. Water use may also be needed during construction activities for dust 

control and other best management practices (BMPs); however, water use would be 

minimal and temporary. Furthermore, construction activities would truck water to 

the sites rather than need to withdraw it from wells, which would have no impact to 

groundwater resources located within the study area. Since permanent sources of 

water are not needed for construction, new wells would not be developed and the

study area groundwater would not be depleted.

Operational Effects

Both Soledad and King City get municipal water from groundwater. The new station 

areas proposed in Soledad and King City would require some new water use to 

operate restroom facilities and offer drinking water. Water use at existing stations 

(Salinas, San Luis Obispo, and Paso Robles) may increase as ridership is projected to 

increase (add 124,000 annual riders by 2020)8 with the improved Coast Corridor 

service. Salinas draws at least a portion of its water from groundwater resources

and Paso Robles relies completely on groundwater for its municipal water as of 

2014. However, water use is generally minimal as the existing stations do not offer 

 

8

Caltrans Division of Rail, 2013b
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources

3.12-15

shower facilities only supply water for restroom and drinking water amenities. 

Therefore, although increased operational demand for groundwater may occur with 

the proposed physical improvements Build Alternative components, no significant 

increase in use is anticipated. 

Floodplain

In the study area, 100-year flood hazard areas (or SFHAs) exist around flat lands 

surrounding the Salinas River and creeks in San Luis Obispo County. Portions of the 

existing alignment are located within the 100-year floodplain. Portions of the 

railway within the floodplain are at risk of being inundated and potentially 

impassible during a storm event. Table 3.12-2 below lists the element component

of the Build Alternative that would be located within the designated 100-year 

floodplain.

Table 3.12-2 Build Alternative: Acreage of Proposed Improvements within 100-

Year Floodplain 

Build Alternative Components 100yr Floodplain (Acres)

Temporary Permanent

Salinas Powered Switch 0 0

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #1 0 0

Spence Siding Extension 0 0

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #2 5 0

Gonzales Powered Switch 0 0

Soledad Powered Switch 0 0

Soledad New Passenger Station 0 0

Harlem/Metz Curve Realignments 61 14

Chalone Creek New Siding 0.5 .03

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #3 1 0

Coburn Curve Realignments 20 1.5

King City Siding Extension 1 1

King City New Passenger Station 0 0

King City Powered Switch 0 0
Coast Corridor

3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.12-16

Build Alternative Components 100yr Floodplain (Acres)

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #4 8 0

MP 165 Curve Realignment 6 1

San Lucas New Siding 0 0

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #5 6 0

MP 172 Track Realignment 6 .01

San Ardo Powered Switch 0 0

Getty/Bradley Curve Realignments 19 3

Bradley Siding Extension 0 0

Bradley Powered Switch 0 0

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #6 2 0

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #7 2 0

McKay/ Wellsona Curve Realignments 10 0.2

McKay East Powered Switches 0 0

Wellsona New Siding 1 0.2

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #8 13 0

Wellsona/ Paso Robles Curve Realignments 0.9 0

Templeton Siding 6 3

Templeton/ Henry Curve Realignments 0 0

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section #9 10 0

Henry/Santa Margarita Curve Realignment 19 4

Santa Margarita Powered Switch 0 0

Cuesta Second Main Track 0 0

Upgrades to Existing Alignment Section 

#10

2 0

Totalsa200 29

Note: a Rounded to the nearest whole number.

Source: ICF, 2013
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources

3.12-17

Elements of the Build Alternative would be located within approximately 229 acres 

of the 100-year flood zone, putting them at risk of inundation by flooding.

Temporary inundation can result in travel delays. Over time, frequent temporary 

inundations could result in damage to tracks or other rail facilities. 

Construction-Period Effects

Approximately 200 of the acres potentially affected during construction of the Build 

Alternative would be within SFHAs only during construction activities. Temporary 

staging areas associated with for construction of the Coburn, Getty/Bradley, 

Harlem/Metz, and Henry/Santa Margarita Curve Realignments would result in the 

majority of temporary acreage identified as potentially within SFHAs. These areas 

would only be at risk of flood impacts during the construction period, and measures 

could be taken to reduce the likelihood of impacts (storing equipment on high 

ground, etc.). 

Operational Effects

The remaining Approximately 29 acres of identified within the flood zone would be 

required for implementation of specific physical improvements potentially be 

affected during operation of the Build Alternative. Almost half of this amount (14 

acres) is associated with the potential construction of would be from several

segments of the Harlem-Metz curve realignment located near a stretch of the 

Salinas River. Given the relatively small amount of land that would be permanently 

affected within the existing 100-year flood zone and that impacts to the flood zone 

would be spread across a relatively wide geography within the study area, the Build 

Alternative would not result in a substantial increase in flood elevations or 

substantially shift the location of flood zones. However, these areas would be at 

risk of flood inundation during a severe weather event.

3.12.4.3 Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would include the same service as the Build Alternative 

and would retain all corridor-wide and almost all of the same physical components. 

The only differences are that the Preferred Alternative would include modified 

footprints for the King City siding extension and passenger station, and would 

exclude each of the four curve realignments within San Luis Obispo County. 

Additionally, the Preferred Alternative includes a 27 mile “island” of CTC between 

MP 202 and 229 (McKay to Santa Margarita). 
Coast Corridor

3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.12-18

Accordingly, effects to hydrology and water quality for the Preferred Alternative 

would be the same as the Build Alternative except for the areas where the modified 

or excluded components are located. The discussions below assess hydrology and 

water quality of the modified or excluded components.

Surface Waters/Impaired Water Bodies

The Preferred Alternative revises the King City siding extension to extend on the 

north side of the existing siding only. The siding would extend from MP 156.38 to 

159.19, resulting in a siding 2.81 miles or about 14,800 feet in length. In the Build 

Alternative, construction of the southern portion of the King City siding extension 

would have potentially resulted in both temporary and permanent impacts to the 

San Lorenzo Creek. Because the Preferred Alternative revises the King City siding 

extension to extend only on the north end, the revised siding extension would not 

result in impacts to surface waters during construction and operation (refer to Table 

3.12-3).

The Preferred Alternative excludes four curve realignments in San Luis Obispo 

County. One of the excluded realignments (Henry/Santa Margarita) had the 

potential to impact approximately one mile of surface waters during construction, 

and about one tenth of a mile during operation. Because this curve realignment 

would not be constructed as part of the Preferred Alternative, these impacts would 

not occur. 

Floodplain

Components of the Build Alternative (the King City siding extension and three of the 

San Luis Obispo County curve realignments) would have resulted in constructionperiod and operational impacts to floodplains. Modifications to and the exclusion of 

these components incorporated in the Preferred Alternative would avoid these 

impacts (refer to Table 3.12-3 below). 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources

3.12-19

Table 3.12-3 Summary of Changes in Potential Impacts to Hydrology and Water Quality

No Build Alternative Build Alternative Preferred Alternative

Proposed 

Components

Surface 

Water 

Impacts 

(linear feet)

100yr 

Floodplain 

(Acres)

Surface Water Impacts 

(linear feet)

100yr Floodplain (Acres) Surface Water Impacts 

(linear feet)

100yr Floodplain (Acres)

Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm Temp Perm

King City Siding 

Extension

N/A 133 100 1 1 0 0 0 0

King City New 

Passenger Station

N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

McKay/ Wellsona

Curve 

Realignments

N/A 0 0 10 0.2 None. This component is not part of the Preferred 

Alternative.

Wellsona/ Paso 

Robles Curve 

Realignments

N/A 0 0 0.9 0 None. This component is not part of the Preferred 

Alternative.

Templeton/ Henry 

Curve 

Realignments

N/A 0 0 0 0 None. This component is not part of the Preferred 

Alternative.

Henry/Santa 

Margarita Curve 

Realignment

N/A 5,719 305 19 4 None. This component is not part of the Preferred 

Alternative.

Note: All other proposed components are the same between the Build and Preferred Alternatives, thus the impacts would be the same and are not repeated in 

this table.

Source: ICF, 2015 
Coast Corridor

3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.12-20

3.12.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION 

STRATEGIES

The Build Alternative will be designed to minimize impacts to biological resources 

along the Corridor. The measures listed below are applicable to the Build and 

Preferred Alternatives and have been identified at this preliminary stage to avoid, 

minimize, and/or mitigate any potentially significant impacts. The identification and 

implementation of specific mitigation measures necessary for each project 

component will occur as part of subsequent project-level environmental review. 

Additional avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures may also be identified 

during that review.

Surface Waters

Strategies to reduce potential impacts on surface waters include the following:

A-BIO-1 A-HYD-1. Many of the potential impacts to water resources could be

avoided through Where feasible, project-level design would avoid adverse impacts 

to water resources. For example, siding extension impact areas were analyzed 

assuming one mile extension areas could occur entirely on one side or the other. In 

the event that one end of a siding extension would impact a surface water body, the 

siding extension would be designed on the opposite side and away from the water 

resource area, thus removing the impact altogether.

MIN-BIO-2 MIN-HYD-2. NPDES permits and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans 

(SWPPP) would be obtained prior to implementing elements components of the 

Build or Preferred Alternative. California NPDES permit requirements would be 

followed and BMPs would be implemented as mandated. These would include 

measures to provide permeable surfaces, where feasible, and to retain and treat 

stormwater onsite using catch basins and treatment wetlands. These measures will 

be particularly valuable in areas where new stations would be constructed and/or 

paved parking areas would be developed or expanded The SWPPP would include 

BMPs to minimize potential sediment transport due to construction activities, 

including obligatory erosion control techniques, stormwater management, and 

channel dewatering for all stream/river crossings. The SWPPP would also include 

measures to control the overall amount and quality of stormwater runoff to regional 

systems. Potential BMPs may include the following:
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources

3.12-21

 Practices that minimize contact between construction materials, equipment, 

and maintenance supplies with stormwater;

 Practices that reduce soil erosion including watering for dust control, perimeter 

silt fences, placement of rice straw bales, sediment basins, and soil stabilization; 

and

 Practices that maintain water quality including filtration, detention, and 

retention systems, constructed wetland systems, biofiltration/bioretention 

systems, grass buffer strips, ponding areas, organic mulch layers, planting soil 

beds, sand beds, or vegetated systems (biofilters) such as vegetated swales and 

grass strips designed to convey and treat either shallow flow (swales) or 

sheerflow (filter strips) runoff.

MM-BIO-3 MM-HYD-3. The project sponsor would obtain permits required under 

Sections 401 and 404 of the CWA and comply with mitigation measures required in 

the permits. Mitigation measures may include compensation for habitat loss 

involving habitat restoration, reconstruction onsite, or habitat replacement offsite, 

with the ultimate goal of ensuring minimal impact to surface water quality.

MIN-BIO-4 MIN-HYD-4. For any water body designated as Navigable If required, the 

project sponsor would comply with any permit conditions required under Section 10 

of the Rivers and Harbors Act would be adhered to.

MIN-BIO-5 MIN-HYD-5. If required, the project sponsor would secure a Lake or 

Streambed Alteration Agreement would need to be obtained for any work that 

would take place along the banks of surface water bodies.

MIN-BIO-6 MIN-HYD-6. The project sponsor would manage potential fuel or other 

spills and a spill prevention and emergency response plan would be developed and 

implemented.

Floodplains

Strategies to reduce potential impacts on floodplains should include the following:

A-BIO-7 A-HYD-7. Prior to implementing physical components improvements that 

would introduce new structures in the study area, such as curve realignments,

further evaluation of potential 100-year flood risk areas would be conducted. 

Construction of facilities within floodplains would be avoided where feasible, and 

floodplains temporarily impacted by construction activities would be restored as 

much as possible so they can function as before. 
Coast Corridor

3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.12-22

MIN- BIO-8 MIN-HYD-8. Where avoidance is infeasible, the footprint of facilities 

within the floodplain would be minimized to the extent possible. All opportunities 

for redesign or modification to minimize flooding risk and potential harm to or 

within the floodplain would be assessed. For instance, siding extensions can be 

designed to either extend from the north or south end of the existing siding,

potentially avoiding a flood-prone area.

Groundwater

Strategies to reduce potential impacts from construction and operation of the 

physical components improvements on groundwater resources should include the 

following:

A-BIO-9 A-HYD-9. Design facilities that are elevated and/or permeable so as to not 

affect recharge potential where construction is required in areas of potentially 

substantial groundwater discharge or recharge.

MIN-BIO-10 MIN-HYD-10. Minimize development of facilities in areas that have 

substantial groundwater discharge or that would affect recharge.

MM-BIO-11 MM-HYD-11. Obtain waste discharge permits where required.

MIN-BIO-12 MIN-HYD-12. Obtain a NPDES permit and implement permit 

requirements, as well as BMPs that would control the release of contaminants near 

areas of surface water or groundwater recharge.

MIN-BIO-13 MIN-HYD-13. Consider use and retention of native materials with high 

infiltration potential at the ground surface in areas that are critical to infiltration for 

groundwater recharge.

3.12.6 SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS

Additional analysis to further identify potential impacts on hydrology and water 

resources would be needed. The subsequent analysis would include the following;

 Further assessment of potential construction and facility impacts on surface 

waters and hydrology.

 As specific locations and facility designs are developed, further analysis of 

potential impacts on floodplains.

 Field surveys of potential water impacts to further analyze potential impacts on 

water quality, obtain required permits from the appropriate agencies, and 

develop suitable BMPs.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources

3.12-23

 Assessment of significant alteration in water-flow and drainage patterns, 

including increased stormwater runoff, or changes to groundwater discharge or 

recharge.

 Analysis of potential impacts of the physical improvements on groundwater 

recharge and infiltration systems.

 Identification of shallow groundwater areas to determine potential impacts 

from dewatering during construction.

 Assessment of how the various physical improvements would contribute to 

additional impervious surface and the subsequent potential additional impacts 

to surface runoff. This assessment would include potential mitigation measures.

 Field surveys of groundwater discharge/recharge conditions including additional 

analysis of groundwater conditions with information from other geotechnical 

studies.
Coast Corridor

3.12 Hydrology and Water Resources Final Program EIS/EIR

3.12-24

Page intentionally left blank
Spence Siding

H

EA-2

EA-1 H

H

EA-1

Chualar

Spreckels

£¤101

Salinas

Limekiln Creek

Rana Creek

Alisal Creek

El Toro Creek

Gabilan Creek

Natividad Creek

Salinas River

Chualar Creek

Main Canal

Quail Creek

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Surface Waters in the Project Area

Figure 3.12-1a

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Streams/Rivers

Potentially Affected Waters

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1a ±

1:75,000
Harlem/Metz

Harlem/Metz

Harlem/Metz New Chalone Creek

H

EA-3

EA-2 H

Gonzales

Soledad

£¤101

£¤101

Stonewall Creek

Arroyo Seco

Chalone Creek

McCoy Creek

Johnson Creek

Salinas River

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Surface Waters in the Project Area

Figure 3.12-1b

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Streams/Rivers

Potentially Affected Waters

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1b ±

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

Chalone Creek

Monroe Creek

Arroyo Seco

San Lorenzo Creek

Reliz Creek

Salinas River

Topo Creek

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Surface Waters in the Project Area

Figure 3.12-1c

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Streams/Rivers

Potentially Affected Waters

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1c ±

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

San Lucas Siding

EA-5

H

EA-4

H

H

EA-4

UV198

San

Lucas

£¤101

£¤101

Pine Creek

Salinas River

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Surface Waters in the Project Area

Figure 3.12-1d

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Streams/Rivers

Potentially Affected Waters

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1d ±

1:75,000
Getty/Bradley

Getty/Bradley

Getty/Bradley

Bradley Siding

EA-6 H

H

EA-6

H

EA-5

Bradley

San Ardo

£¤101

£¤101

San Antonio River

Hames Creek

Pancho Rico Creek

Big Sandy Creek

San Antonio River

Hames Creek

Salinas River

Sargent Creek

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Surface Waters in the Project Area

Figure 3.12-1e

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Streams/Rivers

Potentially Affected Waters

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1e ±

1:75,000
Wellsona/Paso Robles

McKay/Wellsona

McKay/Wellsona

McKay/Wellsona

Wellsona Siding

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

San Antonio River

San Jacinto Creek

Huerhuero

Creek

Big

Sandy Creek

Estrella River

San Marcos Creek

Nacimiento River

Mustard Creek

Salinas River

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Surface Waters in the Project Area

Figure 3.12-1f

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Streams/Rivers

Potentially Affected Waters

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1f ±

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

Henry/Santa Margarita

Henry/Santa Margarita

Henry/Santa Margarita

Templeton Siding

Second Main Line

H

EA-10

EA-9 H

H

EA-9

EA-8 H

UV46

Atascadero

El Paso de

Robles (Paso

Robles)

Templeton

£¤101

£¤101

Eagle Creek

Morro Creek

Hale Creek

Trout Creek

Willow Creek

Salinas River

Toro Creek

Tassajera Creek

South Fork Santa Rita Creek

West Branch

Huerhuero

Creek

Paso

Robles Creek

East Fork Morro Creek

Graves Creek

Jack Creek

Atascadero Creek

Paloma Creek

Sheepcamp Creek

Santa Rita Creek

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Surface Waters in the Project Area

Figure 3.12-1g

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Streams/Rivers

Potentially Affected Waters

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1g ±

1:75,000
H

enry/SantaMargarita

SecondMainLine

E

A

-

1

0

H

H

E

A

-

1

0

E

A

-

9

H

UV1

UV227

Arroyo

Grande

SanLuis

Obispo

£¤101

£¤101

Wittenberg

Creek

Yerba

B

u

e

naC

re

e

k

Ri

nconada

Creek

Chorro Creek

Trout

Creek

Davenport Creek

San

Luis

Obispo

Creek

Vasquez Creek

Potrero Creek

Tassajera Creek

Pismo Creek

East Corral de Piedra Creek

V

ill

a

Cre

ek

Little

Falls

Creek

Stenner Creek

Dairy Creek

West Corral de Piedra Creek

Brizzolara Creek

Burrito Creek

CoastCorridorImprovementsEIR/EIS

a

b

c

d

e

fg

h

SurfaceWatersintheProjectArea

Figure

3.12-1h

±

012

Miles

Legend

Streams/Rivers

PotentiallyAffectedWaters

ProjectComponents

ExistingAlignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source:ICFInternational,2013

Page1h

±

1:75,000
King City Siding

Templeton Siding

Second Main Line

New Chalone Creek

Wellsona Siding

San Lucas Siding

Bradley Siding

Spence Siding

McKay/Wellsona

Henry/Santa Margarita

McKay/Wellsona

Coburn

Harlem/Metz

Realign Tracks at MP 172

Coburn

Realign Tracks at MP 165

Harlem/Metz

Getty/Bradley

Templeton/Henry

Getty/Bradley

Wellsona/Paso Robles

Atascadero Henry/Santa Margarita

Bradley

El Paso de Robles

(Paso Robles)

King City

Salinas

San Ardo

San Lucas

San Luis Obispo

San Miguel

Soledad

Templeton

UV46

UV145

UV198

UV25

UV1

£¤101

§ ̈¦5

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

Groundwater Resources in Project Area

Figure 3.12-2 Source: ICF International, 2013

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Aquifers

San Luis Obispo Valley

180/400 Foot

East Side

Forebay

Paso Robles Area

Upper Valley

± 0 6 12

Miles
Spence Siding

H

EA-2

EA-1 H

H

EA-1

Chualar

Spreckels

Salinas

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Special Flood Hazard Areas

Figure 3.12-3a

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Special Flood Hazard Areas

Potentially Affected Flood Hazard Areas

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 3a ±

1:75,000
Harlem/Metz Harlem/Metz

Harlem/Metz New Chalone Creek

H

EA-3

EA-2 H

Gonzales

Soledad

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Special Flood Hazard Areas

Figure 3.12-3b

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Special Flood Hazard Areas

Potentially Affected Flood Hazard Areas

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 3b ±

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

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Special Flood Hazard Areas

Figure 3.12-3c

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Special Flood Hazard Areas

Potentially Affected Flood Hazard Areas

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 3c ±

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

San Lucas Siding

EA-5

H

EA-4

H

H

EA-4

UV198

San

Lucas

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Special Flood Hazard Areas

Figure 3.12-3d

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Special Flood Hazard Areas

Potentially Affected Flood Hazard Areas

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 3d ±

1:75,000
Getty/Bradley

Getty/Bradley

Getty/Bradley

Bradley Siding

EA-6 H

H

EA-6

H

EA-5

Bradley

San Ardo

£¤101 £¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Special Flood Hazard Areas

Figure 3.12-3e

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Special Flood Hazard Areas

Potentially Affected Flood Hazard Areas

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 3e ±

1:75,000
Wellsona/Paso Robles

McKay/Wellsona

McKay/Wellsona

McKay/Wellsona

Wellsona Siding

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 £¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Special Flood Hazard Areas

Figure 3.12-3f

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Special Flood Hazard Areas

Potentially Affected Flood Hazard Areas

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 3f ±

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

Henry/Santa Margarita

Henry/Santa Margarita

Henry/Santa Margarita

Templeton Siding

Second Main Line

H

EA-10

EA-9 H

H

EA-9

EA-8 H

Atascadero

El Paso de

Robles (Paso

Robles)

Templeton

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Special Flood Hazard Areas

Figure 3.12-3g

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Special Flood Hazard Areas

Potentially Affected Flood Hazard Areas

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 3g ±

1:75,000
Henry/Santa Margarita

Second Main Line

EA-10 H

H

EA-10

EA-9 H

Arroyo

Grande

San Luis

Obispo

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

Special Flood Hazard Areas

Figure 3.12-3h

±

0 1 2

Miles

Legend

Special Flood Hazard Areas

Potentially Affected Flood Hazard Areas

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Sidings

Realignments

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 3h ±

1:75,000
This page intentionally left blank.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-1

3.13 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND WETLANDS

This section addresses the potential impacts of the No Build Alternative and the 

action alternatives Build Alternative on biological resources and wetlands in the 

corridor. 

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 on project elements that have been incorporated into 

the Preferred Alternative (see comments A-3.59 through A-3.63). Section 3.13.4.3 

below provides analysis of the Preferred Alternative. 

3.13.1 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

Numerous federal, state, and local regulations and agencies have been 

enacted/created to protect biological resources. Listed below are pertinent 

regulations and/or oversight agencies for biological resources and wetlands. 

3.13.1.1 Federal

Endangered Species Act

The Endangered Species Act (ESA)

1

establishes protection for species that are listed 

as endangered or threatened by USFWS. Sections 9 and 4(d) of the ESA prohibit 

“take” of endangered and threatened animal species. The USFWS has jurisdiction 

over wildlife and resident fish; the National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA 

Fisheries) has jurisdiction over anadromous fish.2 For plants, the ESA prohibits the 

removal or destruction of any endangered plant on federal land as well as 

destruction of an endangered plant species in non-federal areas in knowing 

violation of any state law. Section 7 of the ESA mandates that all federal agencies 

consult with the USFWS to ensure that federal agencies’ actions do not jeopardize 

the continued existence of a listed species or adversely modify critical habitat for 

listed species.

 

1

16 USC 1531-1543

2

Anadromous fish are fish that are born in freshwater, spend most of their lives in the sea, and return 

to fresh water to spawn. Salmon, smelt, shad, striped bass, and sturgeon are common examples. 

(http://www.nefsc.noaa.gov/faq/fishfaq1a.html)
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-2

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918

The MBTA3prohibits take of most species of birds and their active nests, eggs, and 

nestlings, without a permit from USFWS. Activities that cause abandonment of a 

nest are also considered non-permitted take, prohibited by the MBTA.

Clean Water Act

Under Section 404 of the CWA4, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USACE regulates 

the discharge of dredged, or fill material into “Waters of the United States” 

including wetlands. Section 401 of the CWA requires a water quality certification 

from the state for all nationwide or individual permits issued by the USACE under 

Section 404. The RWQCB is the state agency that issues Section 401 certifications.

Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act

Section 105regulates construction activities in “navigable waters” including rivers. 

The construction of any structure in or over any navigable water of the United 

States, the excavation from or depositing of material in such waters, or the 

accomplishment of any other work affecting the course, location, condition, or 

capacity of such waters is unlawful unless the work has been recommended by the 

Chief of Engineers and authorized by the Secretary of the Army. The instrument of 

authorization is designated a Section 10 permit.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)6requires that wildlife conservation 

be given equal consideration to other features of water-resource development 

programs through planning, development, maintenance and coordination of wildlife 

conservation and rehabilitation. Wildlife resources are defined by the Act to include 

birds, fish, mammals and all other classes of wild animals and all types of vegetation 

upon which wildlife is dependent.

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands

Executive Order (EO) 11990, Protection of Wetlands (DOT Order 5660.1A) is an 

overall wetland policy for all agencies managing federal lands, sponsoring federal 

projects, or providing federal funds to state and local projects. It requires federal 

agencies to follow procedures for avoidance, mitigation, and preservation, with 

 

3

16 USC 703-712

4

33 USC 1251-1376

5

33 USC 401 et seq

6

16 USC 661-666
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-3

public input, before proposing new construction in wetlands. When federal lands 

are proposed for lease or sale to nonfederal parties, EO 11990 requires that the 

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

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

installations proposed for closure. In this capacity, EO 11990 can affect the sale of 

federal lands with wetlands. Compliance with Section 404 permit requirements may 

constitute compliance with EO 11990.

Executive Order 13112, Invasive species

EO 13112 directs all federal agencies to refrain from authorizing, funding, or 

carrying out actions or projects that may spread invasive species (including weeds). 

The order further directs federal agencies to prevent the introduction of invasive 

species, control and monitor existing invasive species populations, restore native 

species to invaded ecosystems, research and develop prevention and control 

methods for invasive species, and promote public education on invasive species.

3.13.1.2 State

California Endangered Species Act

The California Endangered Species Act (CESA)7prohibits the take of state-listed 

endangered and threatened species unless specifically authorized by CDFW. CDFW 

administers the CESA and authorizes take through permits or memorandums of 

understanding. Section 2090 of the California Fish and Game Code requires state 

agencies to comply with threatened and endangered species protection and 

recovery and to promote conservation of these species.

Wildlife and Natural Areas Conservation Program

The Wildlife and Natural Areas Conservation Program of the State Fish and Wildlife

code gives CDFW the authority to create and administer wildlife areas.8

Native Plant Protection Act

The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA)9includes provisions that prohibit the taking 

of endangered or rare native plants from the wild and a salvage requirement for 

landowners. CDFW administers the NPPA and generally regards as “rare” many 

plant species included on lists 1A, 1B and 2 of the California Native Plant Society 

(CNPS) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (CNPS, 2001).

 

7

California Fish and Wildlife Code 2050 et seq

8

California Fish and Wildlife Code Division 3, Chapter 7.5, Sections 2700-2729

9

California Fish and Wildlife Code Sections 1900 – 1913
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-4

Streambed Alterations California Fish and Game Wildlife Code 

Sections 1601-1603

The California Fish and Wildlife Game Code regulates activities that interfere with 

the natural flow of, or substantially alter the channel, bed, or bank of a lake, river, or 

stream. Lakebed and streambed alteration activities are covered under Section 

1602 for public and private entities. Requirements to protect the integrity of 

biological resources and water quality are often conditions of Streambed Alteration 

Agreements SAAs administered under Sections 1600 to 1616.

3.13.1.3 Local

There are no Habitat Conservation Plans in place within the project corridor.10

3.13.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION

The components of the action alternatives Build Alternative would have varying 

potential to result in significant environmental effects, either directly or indirectly, 

to biological resources in the study area as described below. This section discusses 

how each component was evaluated. 

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines was consulted to assist in determining whether 

the project would have significant impacts on biological resources.

3.13.2.1 Study Areas and Impact Footprints for Biological 

Resources

For the purposes of this evaluation, study areas are defined as the proposed work 

area composed of both permanent and temporary impact areas, along with an 

additional 250-foot-wide buffer zone on all sides. 

The 250-foot buffer was selected primarily, but not exclusively, for vernal pool 

species and wetlands that could be indirectly affected by alterations in hydrology 

from project construction. This buffer also serves to define an area of potential 

indirect effects upon species that may be affected by construction dust, noise, fuel 

and oil spills, and visual disturbance. These indirect effects have the potential to 

disrupt normal behavior patterns (e.g., disrupt nesting or foraging) or result in the 

exclusion of species from these areas. 

 

10 County of San Luis Obispo, 2011
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-5

Because these areas are generally already subject to rail operations, it is assumed 

that the operational indirect effects would be relatively similar to the baseline 

conditions.

3.13.2.2 Biological Resource Evaluation

Sensitive Plant and Wildlife Species and Associated Habitat

Impacts to special-status species were evaluated using a variety of government and 

private foundation databases. CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database

(CNDDB) records and CNPS inventories were used to first identify all species 

occurring in the study area vicinity. Each impacted species was crosschecked with 

USFWS and CNPS inventories to determine legal status, geographic distribution, 

habitat description, reported blooming period for plants, potential for occurrence in 

the study areas, and whether there are CNDDB records within the study areas. 

The potential for occurrence of special-status species was further assessed using the 

land cover type data from USFS’s CALVEG classification system and the California 

Fire and Resource Assessment Program (FRAP) to identify suitable habitat. The 

California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System – Life History Accounts and Range 

Maps were queried to determine wildlife species’ range and habitat requirements. 

NatureServe Explorer was used to determine rare wildlife species’ ranges and 

habitat requirements. Impacts to critical habitat for federally protected wildlife 

were assessed using USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service Critical Habitat 

database.

Potential effects to special-status were determined based on whether or not there 

would be direct and/or indirect impacts to suitable habitat (i.e., land cover types 

suitable for the species). 

Wildlife Movement/Migration Corridors

Impacts to wildlife movement/migration corridors were identified qualitatively, 

wherever proposed improvements components would result in new barriers within 

large open areas, parks and reserve areas, creeks, rivers and riparian areas in 

undeveloped settings.

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands

Impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands were assessed using the USFWS’s 

National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) for wetlands and the USGS’s National 

Hydrography Dataset (NHD) for streams.
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-6

3.13.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

This section describes the biological and wetland resources present in the project 

corridor. 

3.13.3.1 Biological Resources and Wetlands in the Study 

Area

Regional Summary 

The project corridor is dominated largely by agricultural uses and urban/suburban 

areas in the cities of Salinas, Soledad, Paso Robles, Atascadero, San Luis Obispo, and 

many smaller communities. The Salinas River, a designated wildlife area, and a 

section of the Los Padres National Forest are each located within the project 

corridor. Each provides different degrees of habitat quality for plant and animal 

species. Wildlife may also be found in agricultural or urban/suburban areas, though 

to a lesser extent.

Sensitive Vegetation Communities

Sensitive vegetation communities, groups of species, both plant and wildlife, that 

form communities, and wildlife habitats that are unique, of relatively limited 

distribution in the region, or of particularly high wildlife value. These resources 

have been defined by federal, state, and local government conservation programs. 

The maps comprising Figure 3.13-1 depict these communities in relation to the 

existing railroad corridor. 

Riparian Communities

Freshwater Ponds hold different plants and animals, depending on pond size and 

depth. Most permanent ponds support fish life; intermittent types typically do not. 

Algae, plankton, and pondweeds are typical of shallow lacustrine environments. 

Birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians use lacustrine habitats for reproduction, 

food, water, and cover.11

Riverine habitats are characterized by the presence of intermittent or continually 

running water, as in a river or stream. Open water zones provide resting and escape 

cover for many species of waterfowl, and habitat for aquatic mammals. Insects, 

such as nymphs of mayflies, caddisflies, alderflies, stoneflies, and their larvae, are

 

11 Grenfell, 1988a
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-7

the most common fast stream inhabitants. Water moss and algae grow on rocks. 

Smaller organisms are found in slow-moving waters. The turbidity and velocity of 

the river have the most prominent impacts on the species that may be present.12 

Valley Foothill Riparian habitats are found in valleys bordered by sloping alluvial 

fans, lower foothills, and coastal plains. Winter-deciduous trees grow to form a 

canopy and subcanopy, with an understory shrub layer. Dominant species include 

cottonwood, California sycamore, valley oak, white alder, bozelder, wild grape, wild 

rose, and California blackberry.13

Terrestrial Communities

Annual Grassland is the most abundant natural community in the project corridor. 

Where natural conditions restrict the growth of other species, exotic grasses will 

flourish. Exotic grass species such as wild oats, various Bromes, Foxtail Fescue, and 

Kentucky Bluegrass are common in these areas.14

Blue Oak Woodland communities often include California juniper and various small 

shrubs, in addition to the abundant blue oak trees. The term “woodland” is used 

instead of “forest” because woodlands tend to be more open and sunlit than 

forests. Blue oak woodlands are typically associated with shallow, rocky, infertile, 

well-drained soils in dry, hilly terrain. Blue Oak-Foothill Pine is a similar natural 

community found at higher elevations.15

Coastal Oak Woodland is typically found within a 50-mile radius of the coast, often 

in drainages in ravines between grassy hillsides. Fog is common in these areas, 

though soil most often remains too dry to support a forest. In addition to coast live 

oak trees, California blackberry, creeping snowberry, toyon, and poison oak are 

commonly present. Wildfire is an intrinsic part of coastal live oak woodland 

ecology.16

Coastal Scrub is an upland vegetation community characterized by low soft-leaved, 

drought-deciduous shrubs. Coastal scrub is typically found on dry sites and steep 

slopes, providing habitat for many endangered and threatened species.17 

 

12 Grenfell, 1988b

13 Grenfell, 1988c

14 US Forest Service, 2009

15 Ritter, 1998

16 Cal Poly Land, n.d.

17 Caltrans, 2007, p. 3.13-6
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-8

Mixed Chaparral is a mix of fully woody and sometimes semi-woody, low to midelevation chaparral and coastal sage scrub species. Chaparral is typically dominated 

by drought-tolerant shrubs with hard evergreen leaves.18

Valley Oak Woodland is located on low to moderate slopes at elevations below 

4,000 feet. Valley Oaks are large, winter-deciduous trees.19

Non-Sensitive Land Use Types20

Urban land includes developed areas near towns and cities. This land can include 

any combination or residential, commercial, or public uses.

Barren land refers to non-urban, non-agricultural, public or private land that is not 

under special protection under relevant state or federal laws. 

Cropland includes all agricultural lands, whether for grazing or production of crops. 

In this section, no distinction is made between various forms of cropland. For 

additional information on agricultural resources, see Section 3.7, Agricultural and 

Forest Resources.

Sensitive Plant Species

Sensitive plant species include those species that have been identified for special 

status and/or recognition by federal and state resource agencies, as well as relevant 

private organizations, due to concerns of documented or perceived decline or 

limitation of population size or geographical extent. Table 3.13-1 lists the 55 

species with potential to occur in the study area, per the CNDDB. Of these 55 

species, a total of 8 are known or expected to occur in the study area. 

Sensitive Wildlife Species

Sensitive wildlife species include those species that have been identified for special 

status and/or recognition by federal and state resource agencies due to concerns of 

documented or perceived decline or limitation of population size or geographical 

extent. Wildlife that are legally protected or otherwise considered sensitive by 

federal, state, or local resource conservation agencies and organizations are all 

considered special-status. Special status species include those species listed in state 

 

18 US Forest Service, 2009

19 US Forest Service, 2009

20 Non-sensitive land use types are considered to have a low potential of providing habitat for state of 

federally protected species. Regular maintenance of croplands generally make them unattractive as 

potential habitat. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-9

and or/federal threatened or endangered species records under the ESA or CESA, 

those considered as candidates for listing, and species recognized by USFWS and or 

CDFW as California species of special concern.

According to a search of the CNDDB, the study area may contain potential habitat 

for more than 45 sensitive species of fish, invertebrates, birds, amphibians, reptiles, 

and mammals. Table 3.13-2 identifies each of these species and evaluates the 

likelihood of their presence in the study area given particular conditions.

Critical Habitat

It is assumed that all sensitive vegetation communities within the study area 

provide wildlife habitat. Certain portions of the existing rail alignment and the 

proposed improvements occur in areas study area are located in areas that have 

been designated as Critical Habitat for certain species. Designated critical habitat is 

defined by the USFWS as habitat believed to be essential to the conservation of a 

designated threatened or endangered species. The study area contains critical 

habitat areas for three threatened or endangered species: vernal pool fairy shrimp, 

California red-legged frog, and south-coast California steelhead. Figure 3.13-2 

shows the distribution of critical habitat in the study area.

Wildlife Movement/Migration Corridors

Any large open areas, parks and reserve areas, creeks, rivers and riparian areas in 

undeveloped settings are considered potential wildlife movement corridors. 

Smaller creeks and areas of disconnected habitat can also provide connectivity for 

wildlife by acting as stepping stones for the regional movement of some avian 

species, or by providing rest areas for migratory species. 

At a secondary level, agricultural and even suburbanized areas can provide limited 

opportunities for wildlife movement.

Based on the foregoing, the most likely wildlife movement/migration corridors in 

the study area include the Salinas River, San Marcos Creek, Santa Margarita Creek, 

Yerba Buena Creek, San Lorenzo Creek, Camp Roberts, the Big Sandy Wildlife Area, 

and Los Padres National Forest. 

Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands

The study area includes numerous creeks, rivers, and wetlands. These bodies are 

important for consideration as both jurisdictional waters and potential wildlife 

areas. Figure 3.13-3 shows the distribution of wetlands and jurisdictional waters in 

the study area.
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-10

Table 3.13-1 Special-Status Plant Species Potentially Occurring in Coast Corridor Study Area

Common and Scientific 

Names

Statusa

(Federal/State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and

General Habitat Description b

Species Potential to Occur 

in Study Area

Occurrences 

in Study 

Area (Y/N)

Abbott’s bush-mallow 

(Malacothamnus abbottii)

–/–/1B.1 Known from Monterey County. Occurs in 

riparian scrub; 135-490 meters. Blooms MayOct.

Low. Suitable habitat occur in 

one Study Area; and several 

occurrences in the region

No

Blochman’s dudleya 

(Dudleya blochmaniae ssp. 

blochmaniae)

–/–/1B.1 Known from Coastal California from San Luis 

Obispo County to San Diego County; Baja 

California. Occurs on clay soils, rock outcrops, 

in coastal scrub and adjacent grasslands, often 

on serpentinite; 5-450 meters. Blooms AprJun.

Moderate. Suitable habitat may 

be present if rocky microhabitat 

areas are present within 

grassland and shrubland 

habitats and several 

occurrences in the region

No

Brewer’s spineflower 

(Chorizanthe breweri)

–/–/1B.3 Known from South Coast Ranges, San Luis 

Obispo County. Occurs on rocky or gravelly 

serpentinite soils in oak woodland, chaparral, 

and coastal scrub; 45-800 meters. Blooms AprAug.

High. Suitable rocky or gravelly 

serpentinite substrates may be 

present in Study Areas and 

many occurrences in the region

No

Caper-fruited 

tropidocarpum 

(Tropidocarpum 

capparideum)

–/–/1B.1 Historically known from the northwest San 

Joaquin Valley and adjacent Coast Range 

foothills; currently known from Fresno, 

Monterey, and San Luis Obispo Counties. 

Occurs in grasslands on alkaline hills; below 

455 meters. Blooms Mar-Apr.

Low. Could occur in one Study 

Area if suitable alkaline soils are 

present; one occurrence in 

region

No
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-11

Common and Scientific 

Names

Statusa

(Federal/State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and

General Habitat Description b

Species Potential to Occur 

in Study Area

Occurrences 

in Study 

Area (Y/N)

Chaparral ragwort 

(Senecio aphanactis)

–/–/2B.2 Known from Scattered locations in central 

western and southwestern California, from 

Alameda County to San Diego County. Occurs 

in oak woodland, coastal scrub, chaparral, 

open sandy or rocky areas, sometimes on 

alkaline soils; 15-800 meters. Blooms Jan-Apr.

Moderate. Suitable habitat 

present, and several 

occurrences in region

No

Chorro Creek bog thistle 

(aka San Luis Obispo 

fountain thistle) 

(Cirsium fontinale var. 

obispoense)

E/E/1B.2 Known from Endemic to San Luis Obispo 

County. Occurs in Serpentinite seeps, 

drainages, and stream banks in chaparral, oak 

woodlands, coastal scrub, annual grassland; 

35-380 meters. Blooms Feb-Jul, less often AugSep.

Moderate. Suitable habitat may 

be present in one Study Areas if 

alkaline seeps occur, several 

occurrences known in region 

No

Congdon’s tarplant 

(Centromadia parryi ssp. 

congdonii)

–/–/1B.1 Known from East San Francisco Bay Area, 

Salinas Valley, Los Osos Valley. Occurs in 

alkaline soils in annual grassland, on lower 

slopes, flats, and swales, sometimes on saline 

soils; below 230 meters. Blooms May-Oct, less 

often Nov.

High. Suitable habitat may be 

present if alkaline soils occur in 

Study Areas, one occurrence 

known in region is in a Study 

Area

Yes

Cuesta Pass checkerbloom 

(Sidalcea hickmanii ssp. 

anomala)

–/R/1B.2 Known from Cuesta Ridge, San Luis Obispo 

County. Occurs on serpentinite soils in 

chaparral; 600-800 meters. Blooms May-Jun.

None. Occurs at higher 

elevations than Study Areas

No

Cuesta Ridge thistle 

(Cirsium occidentale var. 

lucianum)

–/–/1B.2 Known only from fewer than 10 extant 

occurrences in the southern Santa Lucia Mtns. 

Of San Luis Obispo County. Occurs on 

serpentinite, often steep rocky slopes and 

disturbed roadsides, openings in chaparral; 

500-750 meters. Blooms Apr-Jun.

None. Occurs at higher 

elevations than Study Areas

No
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-12

Common and Scientific 

Names

Statusa

(Federal/State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and

General Habitat Description b

Species Potential to Occur 

in Study Area

Occurrences 

in Study 

Area (Y/N)

Davidson’s bush-mallow 

(Malacothamnus davidsonii)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Los Angeles, Monterey, Santa 

Clara, San Luis Obispo, and San Mateo 

Counties. Occurs in coastal scrub, chaparral, 

oak woodland, and riparian woodland in sandy 

washes; 185-855 meters. Blooms Jun-Jan.

Moderate. Suitable habitat is 

present, two occurrences in 

region

No

Dune larkspur 

(Delphinium parryi ssp. 

blochmaniae)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Coastal areas of Santa Barbara, 

San Luis Obispo, and Ventura Counties. Occurs 

in maritime chaparral, coastal dunes; below 

200 meters. Blooms Apr-Jun.

Low. Suitable habitat may be 

present if maritime chaparral 

occurs in Study Areas, one 

occurrence in region

No

Dwarf calycadenia 

(Calycadenia villosa)

–/–/1B.1 Known from about 20 occurrences in interior 

foothills of South Coast Ranges in Fresno, 

Kern*, Monterey, Santa Barbara, and San Luis 

Obispo Counties. Occurs on rocky, fine soils in 

chaparral, oak woodland, meadows and seeps, 

annual grassland; 240-1,350 meters. Blooms 

May-Oct.

Moderate. Suitable habitat may 

be present if suitable soil type 

occurs, two occurrences in 

region

No

Dwarf soaproot 

(Chlorogalum 

pomeridianum var. minus)

–/–/1B.2 Known from widely disjunct populations in 

Tehama, Colusa, Lake, Sonoma, and San Luis 

Obispo counties. Occurs in openings in 

chaparral, annual grasslands, on serpentinite 

outcrops; 305-1000 meters. Blooms May-Aug.

Moderate. Suitable habitat may 

be present if serpentinite soil 

type occurs, two occurrences in 

region, including one in Study 

Area

Yes

Eastwood’s larkspur 

(Delphinium parryi ssp. 

eastwoodiae)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Coastal San Luis Obispo County. 

Occurs on serpentinite substrates in openings 

in chaparral, annual grassland; 75-500 meters. 

Blooms Mar, less often Feb.

Moderate. Suitable habitat may 

be present if serpentinite soil 

type occurs, several 

occurrences in region

No
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-13

Common and Scientific 

Names

Statusa

(Federal/State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and

General Habitat Description b

Species Potential to Occur 

in Study Area

Occurrences 

in Study 

Area (Y/N)

Hardham’s eveningprimrose 

(Camissoniopsis 

hardhamiae)

–/–/1B.2 Known from South Coast Ranges, Monterey 

and San Luis Obispo Counties. Occurs on 

sandy, decomposed carbonate in disturbed or 

burned areas in chaparral, oak woodland; 140-

945 meters. Blooms Mar-May.

High. Suitable habitat may be 

present if suitable soil type and 

microhabitats occur, several 

occurrences in region, including 

one in Study Area

Yes

Hooked popcorn-flower 

(Plagiobothrys uncinatus)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Monterey, San Benito, Santa 

Clara, San Luis Obispo, and Stanislaus Counties. 

Occurs in Chaparral on sandy soils, oak 

woodland, annual grassland; 300-760 meters. 

Blooms Apr-May.

Moderate. Suitable habitat is 

present, and two occurrences in 

region

No

Hoover’s bent grass 

(Agrostis hooveri)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Southern central coast, southern 

outer South Coast Ranges: Santa Barbara, San 

Luis Obispo Counties. Occurs usually in sandy 

soils in chaparral, closed cone forest, oak 

woodland, annual grassland; 6-610 meters. 

Blooms Apr-Jul.

Moderate. Suitable habitat is 

present, some occurrences in 

region

No

Hutchinson’s larkspur 

(Delphinium hutchinsoniae)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Monterey County. Occurs in 

broadleaved upland forest, chaparral, coastal 

prairie, coastal scrub; below 427 meters. 

Blooms Mar-Jun.

Moderate. Suitable habitat is 

present, only one occurrences 

in region. 

No

Indian Valley bush-mallow 

(Malacothamnus 

aboriginum)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Inner South Coast Ranges: Fresno, 

Kings, Monterey, San Benito, Santa Clara, and 

San Mateo Counties. Occurs on granitic rocky 

areas in chaparral and oak woodland, often in 

burned areas; 150-1700 meters. Blooms AprOct.

Moderate. Suitable habitat 

may be present if granitic rocky 

microhabitat is present; several 

occurrences in region

No
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-14

Common and Scientific 

Names

Statusa

(Federal/State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and

General Habitat Description b

Species Potential to Occur 

in Study Area

Occurrences 

in Study 

Area (Y/N)

Indian Valley spineflower 

(Aristocapsa insignis)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Inner South Coast Range, 

Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties. 

Occurs on sandy soils in oak woodland; 300-

600 meters. Blooms May-Sep.

Moderate. Suitable habitat 

may be present if granitic rocky 

microhabitat is present; several 

occurrences in region

No

Jared’s pepper-grass 

(Lepidium jaredii ssp. 

jaredii)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Inner South Coast Ranges, Carrizo 

Plain and western San Joaquin Valley from 

Kern County south to San Luis Obispo County. 

Occurs in alkaline, adobe soils in grassland, in 

sinks, alluvial fans, and washes; 335-1005 

meters. Blooms Mar-May.

Low. Suitable habitat may be 

present if alkaline adobe soils 

occur in Study Areas, only one 

occurrence in region

No

Jolon clarkia 

(Clarkia jolonensis)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Northern outer South Coast 

Ranges, Monterey County. Occurs in chaparral, 

oak woodland, coastal scrub; 20-660 meters. 

Blooms Apr-Jun.

High. Suitable habitat is 

present, and several 

occurrences in region

No

Jones’ layia 

(Layia jonesii)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Coastal Monterey and San Luis 

Obispo Counties. Occurs on clay soil or 

serpentinite outcrops in chaparral and annual 

grasslands; 5-400 meters. Blooms Mar-May.

Low. Suitable habitat may be 

present in one Study Area if 

suitable soil substrates are 

present; several occurrences in 

region

No

Kellogg’s horkelia 

(Horkelia cuneata var. 

sericea)

–/–/1B.1 Known from Coastal California from San Mateo 

to Santa Barbara Counties, formerly further 

north. Occurs in openings in coastal scrub, 

maritime chaparral, on sandy or gravelly soils; 

10-200 meters. Blooms Apr-Sep.

None. No suitable habitat is 

present

No
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-15

Common and Scientific 

Names

Statusa

(Federal/State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and

General Habitat Description b

Species Potential to Occur 

in Study Area

Occurrences 

in Study 

Area (Y/N)

La Panza mariposa lily 

(formerly San Luis Obispo 

mariposa lily) 

(Calochortus simulans)

–/–/1B.3 Known from Southeastern outer South Coast 

Ranges with occurrences in Santa Barbara and 

San Luis Obispo Counties. Occurs in sandy, 

often granitic, sometimes serpentine soils in 

chaparral, oak woodland, annual grassland; 

395-1,100 meters. Blooms Apr-Jun.

Low. Suitable habitat may be 

present in one Study Area if 

suitable sandy soils are present; 

several occurrences in region

No

Lemmon’s jewelflower 

(Caulanthus lemmonii)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Southeast San Francisco Bay Area, 

south through the South Coast Ranges and 

adjacent San Joaquin Valley to Ventura County. 

Occurs on dry, exposed slopes in grasslands 

and pinyon-juniper woodland; 80-1220 meters. 

Blooms Mar-May.

High. Suitable habitat is 

present, and several 

occurrences in region

Yes

Mesa horkelia 

(Horkelia cuneata var. 

puberula)

–/–/1B.1 Known from Los Angeles, Orange, Santa 

Barbara, San Luis Obispo, and Ventura 

Counties; extirpated from Riverside, San 

Bernardino, and San Diego Counties. Occurs on 

sandy or gravelly soils in oak woodland, 

maritime chaparral, and coastal scrub; 70-810 

meters. Blooms Feb-Jul, occasionally Sep.

Low. The CNDDB polygon for 

this species overlaps the study 

area but there is likely no 

suitable habitat (sandy or 

gravelly soils) in the study area ;

Yes

Miles' milk-vetch 

(Astragalus didymocarpus 

var. milesianus)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, 

and Ventura Counties. Occurs on clay soils in 

coastal scrub; 20-90 meters. Blooms Mar-Jun.

None. Plant occurs at lower 

elevations than Study Areas

No
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-16

Common and Scientific 

Names

Statusa

(Federal/State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and

General Habitat Description b

Species Potential to Occur 

in Study Area

Occurrences 

in Study 

Area (Y/N)

Monterey spineflower 

(Chorizanthe pungens var. 

pungens)

T/–/1B.2 Known from Northern and Central Coast, San 

Francisco Bay in Monterey, Santa Cruz, and 

San Luis Obispo* Counties. Occurs in sandy 

areas in maritime chaparral, oak woodland, 

coastal dunes, coastal scrub, annual grassland; 

3-450 meters. Blooms Apr-Jun, less often JulAug.

Moderate. Suitable habitat may 

be present if sandy soils occur 

in Study Areas, several 

occurrences in region

No

Most beautiful jewel-flower 

(Streptanthus albidus ssp. 

peramoenus)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Eastern San Francisco Bay area, 

central outer South Coast Ranges in Alameda, 

Contra Costa, Monterey, Santa Barbara, Santa 

Clara, San Luis Obispo, and Stanislaus Counties. 

Occurs on serpentinite outcrops in chaparral, 

oak woodland, annual grassland, on ridges and 

slopes; 94-1000 meters. Blooms Apr-Sep, less 

often Mar and Oct

Moderate. Suitable habitat may 

be present if serpentine 

outcrops occur in Study Areas, 

several occurrences in region

No

Mouse-gray dudleya 

(formerly San Luis Obispo 

dudleya) 

(Dudleya abramsii ssp. 

murina)

–/–/1B.3 Known from San Luis Obispo County. Occurs 

on serpentinite in chaparral, oak woodland, 

annual grassland; 90-440 meters. Blooms MayJun.

Moderate. Suitable habitat may 

be present if serpentinite 

substrates occur in Study 

Areas, many occurrences in 

region

No
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-17

Common and Scientific 

Names

Statusa

(Federal/State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and

General Habitat Description b

Species Potential to Occur 

in Study Area

Occurrences 

in Study 

Area (Y/N)

Pale-yellow layia 

(Layia heterotricha)

–/–/1B.1 Known from Interior foothills of the South 

Coast Ranges, Transverse Ranges, and 

Tehachapi Mountains in Fresno, Kings*, Kern*, 

Monterey*, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo*, 

Ventura, and possibly San Benito Counties. 

Occurs on alkaline or clay soils in coastal scrub, 

oak woodland, pinyon- juniper woodland, 

annual grassland in open areas; 300-1705 

meters. Blooms Mar-Jun.

Moderate. Suitable habitat may 

be present if suitable substrates 

occur in Study Areas, several 

occurrences in region

Yes

Palmer’s monardella 

(Monardella palmeri)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Monterey and San Luis Obispo 

Counties. Occurs on serpentinite in chaparral 

and oak woodland; 200-800 meters. Blooms 

Jun-Aug.

Moderate. Suitable habitat may 

be present if serpentinite 

substrates occur in Study 

Areas, several occurrences in 

region

No

Pecho manzanita 

(Arctostaphylos pechoensis)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Pecho Hills in coastal mountains 

of San Luis Obispo County, also Santa Barbara 

County. Occurs on siliceous shale in chaparral, 

coastal scrub; 125-850 meters. Blooms NovMar.

Low. Suitable habitat may be 

present in one Study Area if 

silaceous shale occurs, only one 

occurrence in region

No

Pinnacles buckwheat 

(Eriogonum nortonii)

–/–/1B.3 Known from Restricted to Gabilan Range of 

Monterey and San Benito Counties. Occurs on 

sandy soils in chaparral, annual grassland, 

often on recent burns; 300-975 meters. 

Blooms May-Aug(Sep).

None. Plant occurs at higher 

elevations than Study Areas

No
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-18

Common and Scientific 

Names

Statusa

(Federal/State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and

General Habitat Description b

Species Potential to Occur 

in Study Area

Occurrences 

in Study 

Area (Y/N)

Recurved larkspur 

(Delphinium recurvatum)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Central Valley from Colusa* to 

Kern Counties. Occurs on alkaline soils in 

annual grassland, saltbush scrub, oak 

woodland; 3-790 meters. Blooms Mar-Jun.

Low. Suitable habitat may be 

present in two Study Area if 

alkaline soils occur, only one 

occurrence in region

No

Robust spineflower 

(Chorizanthe robusta var. 

robusta)

E/–/1B.1 Known from Coastal central California, from 

Marin to Monterey County. Occurs on sandy or 

gravelly areas in coastal scrub, coastal dunes, 

and openings in oak woodland; 3-300 meters. 

Blooms Apr-Sep.

Low. Suitable habitat may be 

present in one Study Area if 

suitable sandy openings occur, 

only one occurrence in region

No

Round-leaved filaree 

(California macrophylla)

–/–/1B.1 Known from Scattered occurrences in the 

Great Valley, southern North Coast Ranges, 

San Francisco Bay Area, South Coast Ranges, 

Channel Islands, Transverse Ranges, and 

Peninsular Ranges. Occurs in oak woodland, 

annual grassland on clay soils; 15-1,200 

meters. Blooms Mar-May.

Moderate. Suitable habitat may 

be present if suitable soil types 

occur, two occurrences in 

region

No

San Antonio collinsia 

(Collinsia antonina)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Outer South Coast Ranges in 

Monterey County. Occurs in chaparral and oak 

woodland; 280-365 meters. Blooms Mar-May.

None. Plant occurs at higher 

elevations than Study Areas

No

San Benito fritillary 

(Fritillaria viridea)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Central Coast Ranges in Fresno, 

San Benito, Monterey, and San Luis Obispo 

Counties. Occurs on serpentinite outcrops, on 

slopes in chaparral; 200-1525 meters. Blooms 

Mar-May.

Moderate. Suitable habitat may 

be present in one Study Area if 

serpentinite substrates occur, 

one occurrence in region

Yes
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-19

Common and Scientific 

Names

Statusa

(Federal/State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and

General Habitat Description b

Species Potential to Occur 

in Study Area

Occurrences 

in Study 

Area (Y/N)

San Luis mariposa lily 

(Calochortus obispoensis)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Outer South Coast Range in San 

Luis Obispo County. Occurs often on 

serpentine soils in chaparral, coastal scrub, 

annual grassland; 50-730 meters. Blooms MayJul.

High. Suitable habitat is 

present, many occurrences in 

region

No

San Luis Obispo County 

lupine 

(Lupinus ludovicianus)

–/–/1B.2 Endemic to San Luis Obispo County. Occurs on 

sandstone or sandy soil in oak woodland, 

openings in chaparral or pine-oak woodland on 

carbonate substrate; 50-525 meters. Blooms 

Apr-Jul.

Low. Suitable habitat may be 

present if sandstone or sandy 

soils are present in Study Areas, 

only one occurrence in region

No

San Luis Obispo owl's-clover 

(Castilleja densiflora var. 

obispoensis)

–/–/1B.2 Endemic to San Luis Obispo County. Occurs in 

annual grassland; 10-400 meters. Blooms MarMay.

None. No suitable habitat is 

present

No

San Luis Obispo sedge 

(Carex obispoensis)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Outer South Coast Ranges in 

Monterey, San Diego, and San Luis Obispo 

County. Occurs often on serpentine seeps, 

sometimes gabbro soils in chaparral, coastal 

prairie, coastal scrub, and annual grassland; 

10-820 meters. Blooms Apr-Jun.

High. Suitable habitat is 

present, several occurrences in 

region

No

Santa Cruz microseris 

(Stebbinsoseris decipiens)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Coastal California: scattered 

occurrences from Marin County to Monterey 

County. Occurs in mixed oak forest, chaparral, 

annual grasslands, coastal prairie, coastal 

scrub, and open grassy areas in other habitat 

types, sometimes on serpentinite; 10-500 

meters. Blooms Apr-May.

Moderate. Suitable habitat is 

present, one occurrence in 

region

No
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-20

Common and Scientific 

Names

Statusa

(Federal/State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and

General Habitat Description b

Species Potential to Occur 

in Study Area

Occurrences 

in Study 

Area (Y/N)

Santa Cruz Mountains 

pussypaws (Calyptridium 

parryi var. hesseae)

–/–/1B.1 Known from Southern San Francisco Bay, 

Mount Hamilton, Santa Cruz Mountains, 

northern inner South Coast Ranges, Monterey, 

San Benito, Santa Clara, San Luis Obispo, 

Stanislaus, and Santa Cruz Counties. Occurs in 

sandy or gravelly, openings in chaparral, oak 

woodland; 305-1530 meters. Blooms May-Aug.

Low. Suitable habitat may be 

present if suitable microhabitat 

conditions occur in Study Areas, 

one occurrence in region 

No

Santa Lucia dwarf rush 

(Juncus luciensis)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Lassen, Monterey, Modoc, Napa, 

Nevada, Placer, Plumas, Riverside, Santa 

Barbara, San Benito, San Diego, Shasta, San 

Luis Obispo Counties. Occurs in chaparral, 

meadows and seeps, vernal pools; 300-2040 

meters. Blooms Apr-Jul.

Moderate. Suitable habitat is 

present, two occurrences in 

region

No

Santa Lucia manzanita 

(Arctostaphylos luciana)

–/–/1B.2 Endemic to Santa Lucia Range in San Luis 

Obispo County. Occurs on shale outcrops in 

chaparral and oak woodland; 350-850 meters. 

Blooms Dec-Mar.

Moderate. Suitable habitat may 

be present if shale outcrops 

occur in Study Areas, several 

occurrences in region

No

Santa Margarita manzanita 

(Arctostaphylos pilosula)

–/–/1B.2 Known from South Coast Ranges: near Santa 

Margarita in Monterey and San Luis Obispo 

Counties. Occurs on outcrops and slopes in 

chaparral, oak woodland; 170-1,100 meters. 

Blooms Dec-May.

High. Suitable habitat is 

present, several occurrences in 

region

Yes
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-21

Common and Scientific 

Names

Statusa

(Federal/State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and

General Habitat Description b

Species Potential to Occur 

in Study Area

Occurrences 

in Study 

Area (Y/N)

Shining navarretia 

(Navarretia nigelliformis 

ssp. radians)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Interior foothills of South Coast 

Ranges from Merced County to San Luis 

Obispo County. Occurs in Mesic areas with 

heavy clay soils, in swales and clay flats, in oak 

woodland, grassland; 76-1000 meters. Blooms 

Apr-Jul.

High. Suitable habitat is 

present, many occurrences in 

region

No

Straight-awned spineflower 

(Chorizanthe rectispina)

–/–/1B.3 Known from Outer South Coast Ranges: 

Monterey, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo 

Counties. Occurs often on granitic soils in 

chaparral, coastal scrub, oak woodland; 85-

1,035 meters. Blooms Apr-Jul.

High. Suitable habitat is 

present, several occurrences in 

region

No

Toro manzanita (formerly 

Monterey manzanita) 

(Arctostaphylos 

montereyensis5)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Central Coast, Fort Ord, northern 

outer South Coast Ranges, Toro Mountain, 

northwestern Monterey County and San Luis 

Obispo County. Occurs on sandy soils in 

maritime chaparral, oak woodland, and coastal 

scrub; 30-730 meters. Blooms Feb-Mar.

Low. Suitable habitat may be 

present in one Study Area if 

suitable sandy soils occur, two 

occurrences in region

No

Umbrella larkspur 

(Delphinium 

umbraculorum)

–/–/1B.3 Known from Monterey, Santa Barbara, San Luis 

Obispo, and Ventura Counties. Occurs in moist 

areas in oak woodland; 400-1600 meters. 

Blooms Apr-Jun.

None. No suitable habitat is 

present

No
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-22

Common and Scientific 

Names

Statusa

(Federal/State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and

General Habitat Description b

Species Potential to Occur 

in Study Area

Occurrences 

in Study 

Area (Y/N)

woodland woolythreads

(Monolopia gracilens)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Alameda, Contra Costa, 

Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Clara, Santa 

Cruz, and San Mateo Counties. Occurs on 

serpentinite soils in openings in mixed oak 

woodland, chaparral, oak woodland, and 

annual grassland; 100-1200 meters. Blooms 

Mar-Jul, less often Feb.

Low. Suitable habitat may be 

present in Study Areas if 

serpentinite soils and suitable 

microhabitat conditions occur, 

one occurrence in region

No

Yellow-flowered eriastrum 

(Eriastrum luteum)

–/–/1B.2 Known from Monterey and San Luis Obispo 

Counties. Occurs on sandy or gravelly soils in 

mixed oak forest, chaparral, oak woodland; 

290-1000 meters. Blooms May-Jun.

Moderate. Suitable habitat may 

be present in Study Areas if 

suitable soil types occur, several 

occurrences in region

No

Source: ICF, 2013

a Status explanations:

Federal

E = Listed as endangered under the federal ESA.

T = Listed as threatened under the federal ESA.

— = No listing status.

State

E = Listed as endangered under CESA.

T = Listed as threatened under CESA.

R =Listed as rare under the CESA. This category is no longer used for newly listed plants, but some plants previously listed as rare retain this designation. 

— = No listing status.

Other

1B = CRPR List 1B species: rare, threatened, or endangered; rare in California and elsewhere.

2B = CRPR List 2B species: rare, threatened, or endangered; rare in California but not elsewhere.

.1 = seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened–high degree and immediacy of threat).

.2 = fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened).

.3 = not very endangered in California (<20% occurrences threatened).

b Distribution information

* = presumed extirpated in that county.

? = status within county unknown.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-23

Table 3.13-2 Special-Status Wildlife Species Potentially Occurring in Coast Corridor Study Area

Common and 

Scientific Names

Statusa

(Federal/

State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and General 

Habitat Description

Species Potential to 

Occur in Study Area

CNDDB 

Occurrences in 

Study Area (Y/N)

Fish

Steelhead -

south/central California 

coast DPS 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss 

irideus)

T/SSC/- Occurs in rivers and creeks from the Pajaro River 

south to, but not including, the Santa Maria 

River.

High. Study areas in the range 

of the species and the Salinas 

River and tributaries provide 

habitat for this species.

Not in CNDDB but 

species is noted to 

occur in the Salinas 

River according to 

the National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

(2007)b

Invertebrates

Atascadero June beetle

(Polyphylla nubile)

-/-/- Known only from sand dunes in San Luis Obispo 

County

None. No suitable habitat in 

the Study Areas.

No

California linderiella

(Linderiella 

occidentalis)

-/-/- Central Valley of California and central coastal 

California. Vernal pools, swales, and other 

ephemeral wetlands found in annual grasslands.

Moderate. Potential habitat in 

annual grasslands. Species 

known to occur in region.

No

Conservancy fairy 

shrimp

(Branchinecta 

conservation)

E/-/- Disjunct occurrences in Butte, Tehama, Glenn, 

Placer, Yolo, Solano, Merced, Stanislaus, and 

Ventura counties. Found in vernal pools in swales. 

Most records are in large turbid pools yet they 

have been found in a few instances in smaller 

pools with relatively clear water.

Low. Potential habitat in 

annual grasslands. Species not 

known to occur in region.

No
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-24

Common and 

Scientific Names

Statusa

(Federal/

State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and General 

Habitat Description

Species Potential to 

Occur in Study Area

CNDDB 

Occurrences in 

Study Area (Y/N)

Lompoc grasshopper

(Trimerotropis 

occulens)

-/-/- Occurs in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara 

counties. Little is known about the species habitat 

requirements. CNDDB records indicate that the 

species is found on exposed, weathered shale.

Low. Potential habitat in 

annual grasslands and one 

occurrence in the region.

No

San Luis Obispo pyrg

(Pyrgulopsis taylori)

-/-/- Occurs in San Luis Obispo County. Snail species 

found in freshwater habitats, typically springs and 

creeks.

Moderate. Potential habitat in 

streams and a few 

occurrences in the region.

No

Vernal pool fairy shrimp

(Branchinecta lynchi)

T/-/- Occurs in the Central Valley from Shasta County to 

Tulare County and the central and southern Coast 

Ranges from northern Solano County to Ventura 

County. Occurs in vernal pools and seasonal 

wetlands found in annual grasslands.

Moderate. Potential habitat in 

annual grasslands. Several 

occurrences in the region.

No

Amphibians

California red-legged 

frog

(Rana draytonii)

T/SSC/- Occurs primarily in the foothills of the central 

Coast Ranges, with isolated populations in the 

Sierra Nevada. Ponds and streams with a 

minimum 11–20 weeks of water for larval 

development, and upland refugia for aestivation. 

Recovery Plan identifies Diablo Range and Salinas 

Valley as part of historic range.

High. Suitable habitat in Study 

Areas and numerous 

occurrences in the region.

No
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-25

Common and 

Scientific Names

Statusa

(Federal/

State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and General 

Habitat Description

Species Potential to 

Occur in Study Area

CNDDB 

Occurrences in 

Study Area (Y/N)

California tiger 

salamander (central 

California)

(Ambystoma 

californiense)

T/T/- Central Valley from Sacramento County south to 

Kern County, including Sierra Nevada foothills, up 

to approximately 1,000 feet, and coastal region 

from San Francisco Bay area south to northeastern 

San Luis Obispo County. Small ponds or vernal 

pools in annual grasslands and oak woodlands for 

aquatic habitat; rodent burrows or soil crevices for 

adult cover during the summer.

Moderate. Suitable habitat in 

Study Areas and a few 

occurrences in the region.

No

Coast Range newt

 Taricha torosa

-/SSC/- Occurs from Mendocino County south through the 

Coast Range and on into coastal areas of southern 

California. Found in woodlands that are 

interspersed with grassland and chaparral. 

Breeding takes place in streams, ponds, and lakes.

High. Suitable habitat in Study 

Areas and several occurrences 

in the region.

No

Foothill yellow-legged 

frog

 Rana boylii

-/SSC/- Occurs in the Klamath, Cascade, north Coast, 

south Coast, Transverse, and Sierra Nevada 

Ranges up to approximately 6,000 feet. Creeks or 

rivers in woodland, forest, mixed chaparral, and 

wet meadow habitats with rock and gravel 

substrate and low overhanging vegetation along 

the edge. Usually found near riffles with rocks and 

sunny banks nearby.

Moderate. Potentially suitable 

habitat in Study Area and a 

few occurrences in the region.

No

Western spadefoot 

toad

 Spea hammondii

-/SSC/- Sierra Nevada foothills, Central Valley, Coast 

Ranges, coastal counties in southern California. 

Seasonal streams and seasonal wetlands, such as 

vernal pools in annual grasslands.

High. Suitable habitat in Study 

Areas and numerous 

occurrences in the region.

Yes
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-26

Common and 

Scientific Names

Statusa

(Federal/

State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and General 

Habitat Description

Species Potential to 

Occur in Study Area

CNDDB 

Occurrences in 

Study Area (Y/N)

Reptiles

Black legless lizard

 Anniella pulchra nigra

-/SSC/- Subspecies currently distributed in Monterey 

County between Salinas and Carmel Rivers. 

Associated with a variety of vegetation types on 

sandy soils with accessible moisture.

Low. Study areas outside 

species known range.

No

Coast horned lizard

 Phrynosoma blainvillii

-/SSC/- Occurs in select regions of the Coast Range, the 

Sierra Nevada foothills, parts of the Central 

Valley, South Coast, Tehacapi, Transverse, and 

Peninsular ranges. Inhabits sandy areas such as 

washes, flood plains, or windblown deposits. 

Usually associated with grassland, open 

chaparral, open coniferous forest, coastal sage 

scrub, and broadleaf woodlands. 

Moderate. Suitable habitat in 

Study Areas and some 

occurrences in the region.

No

San Joaquin whipsnake

 Masticophis flagellum 

ruddocki

 

-/SSC/- Occurs in the southern half of the Central Valley 

and coast ranges south of San Francisco. Occur 

in open terrain and most abundant in grasslands, 

desert, scrub, and chaparral.

High. Suitable habitat in Study 

Area and numerous 

occurrences in region.

Yes

Silvery legless lizard

 Anniella pulchra 

pulchra

-/SSC/- Patchily distributed from Antioch south along the 

coast, foothills, San Joaquin Valley, and southern 

Sierra Nevada. Associated with a variety of 

vegetation types on sandy soils with accessible 

moisture.

Moderate. Suitable habitat in 

Study Areas

No
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-27

Common and 

Scientific Names

Statusa

(Federal/

State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and General 

Habitat Description

Species Potential to 

Occur in Study Area

CNDDB 

Occurrences in 

Study Area (Y/N)

Two-striped garter 

snake

 Thamnophis 

hammondii

-/SSC/- Occurs from the Diablo Range and the Salinas 

Valley south along the South Coast and 

Transverse ranges to the Mexican border, and on 

Catalina Island. Associated with permanent and 

semi-permanent bodies of water in a variety of 

habitats. Forages primarily along streams and 

uses mammal burrows and crevices at times for 

upland cover.

Moderate. Suitable habitat in 

Study Areas and one 

occurrence in the region. 

Species likely not typically 

reported to CNDDB.

No

Western pond turtle

 Emys marmorata

-/SSC/- Range spans across California west of the SierraCascade crest, below 5,000 feet in elevation. 

Forages in ponds, marshes, slow-moving streams, 

sloughs, and irrigation/drainage ditches; nests in 

nearby uplands with low, sparse vegetation. 

High. Suitable habitat in Study 

Areas and numerous 

occurrences in region.

Yes

Birds

American peregrine 

falcon

 Falco peregrinus 

anatum

D/D(FP)/BCC Permanent resident along the north and south 

Coast Ranges. May summer in the Cascade and 

Klamath Ranges and through the Sierra Nevada 

to Madera County. Winters in the Central Valley 

south through the Transverse and Peninsular 

Ranges and the plains east of the Cascade Range. 

Nests and roosts on protected ledges of high 

cliffs, usually adjacent to lakes, rivers, or marshes 

that support large prey populations

Low. The CNDDB polygon for 

this species overlaps the study 

area but there is likely no 

suitable nesting habitat (cliffs) 

in the study areas.

Yes
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-28

Common and 

Scientific Names

Statusa

(Federal/

State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and General 

Habitat Description

Species Potential to 

Occur in Study Area

CNDDB 

Occurrences in 

Study Area (Y/N)

Bank swallow

 Riparia riparia

-/T/- Occurs along the Sacramento River from Tahama 

County to Sacramento County, along the Feather 

and lower American Rivers, in the Owens Valley; 

and in the plains east of the Cascade Range in 

Modoc, Lassen, and northern Siskiyou Counties. 

Small populations near the coast from San 

Francisco County to Monterey County. Nests in 

bluffs or banks, usually adjacent to water, where 

the soil consists of sand or sandy loam.

High. There are records for 

colonies along the Salinas 

River. Portions of the study 

areas may include suitable 

habitat.

Yes

Burrowing owl

 Athene cunicularia

-/SSC Lowlands throughout California, including the 

Central Valley, northeastern plateau, 

southeastern deserts, and coastal areas. Rare 

along south coast. Level, open, dry, heavily 

grazed or low stature grassland or desert 

vegetation with available burrows

High. Suitable habitat in Study 

Areas and numerous 

occurrences in region.

No

California condor

 Gymnogyps 

californianus

E/E/- Populations exist in central and southern 

California, northern Arizona, and southern Utah, 

as well as northern Baja California. Species nests 

primarily in cavities located on steep rock 

formations or in the burned out hollows of oldgrowth conifers with less typical nesting 

occurring on cliff ledges, cupped broken tops of 

old-growth conifers, and nests of other species. 

Forage widely in open terrain of foothill 

grassland and oak savanna habitats.

Low. No suitable nesting 

habitat in the Study Areas 

(cliffs or old growth trees) but 

species could forage in Study 

Areas. CNDBB record polygon 

is large and actual nesting 

habitat is far removed from 

the Study Areas.

Yes
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-29

Common and 

Scientific Names

Statusa

(Federal/

State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and General 

Habitat Description

Species Potential to 

Occur in Study Area

CNDDB 

Occurrences in 

Study Area (Y/N)

California horned lark

 Eremophila alpestris 

actia

-/-/WL Year-round range spans most of lowland 

California. Nests and forages in open habitats 

with sparse vegetation, including grasslands and 

fallow agricultural fields.

Moderate. Suitable habitat is 

present and some occurrences 

in the region.

No

California least tern 

 Sternula antillarum 

browni

E/E(FP)/- The Pacific Coast from San Francisco to Baja 

California; winters in Mexico; when feeding, 

follows schools of fish and is sometimes seen as 

far north as southern Oregon. Prefers 

undisturbed nest sites on open or sparsely 

vegetated, sandy, or gravelly shores on beaches 

or near shallow-water estuaries where it often 

feeds; has reportedly also nested on landfills and 

paved areas.

None. No suitable habitat in 

the Study Areas.

No

Ferruginous hawk

 Buteo regalis

-/-/BCC,WL Winter range spans most of California except the 

higher elevations of the Sierra Nevada and 

northern Coast Ranges; does not nest in 

California. Forages most commonly in grasslands 

and shrublands; also forages in agricultural fields.

Moderate. Suitable winter 

foraging habitat present. A 

few records in the region.

No

Golden eagle

 Aquila chrysaetos

-/FP/BCC,WL Foothills and mountains throughout California. 

Uncommon nonbreeding visitor to lowlands such 

as the Central Valley. Nest on cliffs and 

escarpments or in tall trees overlooking open 

country. Forages in annual grasslands, chaparral, 

and oak woodlands with plentiful medium and 

large-sized mammals.

Low-Moderate. Could nest in 

tall trees in Study Areas if 

present but typical nesting 

habitat not likely present. 

Suitable foraging habitat is 

present

Yes
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-30

Common and 

Scientific Names

Statusa

(Federal/

State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and General 

Habitat Description

Species Potential to 

Occur in Study Area

CNDDB 

Occurrences in 

Study Area (Y/N)

Grasshopper sparrow

 Ammodramus 

savannarum

-/SSC/- Breeding range spans much of the Central Valley 

and California coast, but populations are typically 

localized and disjunct; most individuals migrate, 

although some may be present year-round. 

Nests and forages in dense grasslands; favors a 

mix of native grasses, forbs, and scattered 

shrubs.

Low-Moderate. Suitable 

habitat present but only one 

occurrence in the region.

No

Great blue heron

 Ardea herodias

-/-/- Year-round range spans most of California except 

the eastern portion of the State and the highest 

elevations; winter range expands to include 

eastern California. Nests colonially in tall trees; 

forages in freshwater and saline marshes, 

shallow open water, and occasionally cropland or 

low, open upland habitats, such as pastures.

High. Suitable foraging and 

nesting habitat is present. 

Only one rookery reported in 

the region, yet species 

typically goes unreported. 

No

Least Bell’s vireo

 Vireo bellii pusillus

E/E/- Formerly a common and widespread summer 

resident throughout Sacramento and San Joaquin 

valleys, and in the coastal valleys and foothills 

from Santa Clara County south, but its numbers 

have drastically declined, and the species has 

vanished from much of its California range. 

Nests and roosts in low riparian thickets of 

willows and shrubs, usually near water but 

sometimes along dry, intermittent streams; other 

associated vegetation includes cottonwood trees, 

blackberry, mulefat, and mesquite (in desert). 

Occurred historically in the Salinas Valley. There 

are CNDDB records around Paso Robles. 

Low-Moderate. Suitable 

habitat is present. Species is 

rare but there are recent 

sightings in the region.

Yes
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-31

Common and 

Scientific Names

Statusa

(Federal/

State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and General 

Habitat Description

Species Potential to 

Occur in Study Area

CNDDB 

Occurrences in 

Study Area (Y/N)

Merlin

 Falco columbarius

-/-/WL Winter range encompasses most of California 

except the highest elevations; does not breed in 

California. Forages in a wide variety of habitats, 

but in the Central Valley is most common around 

agricultural fields and grasslands

Moderate. Suitable winter 

foraging habitat present. A 

few records in the region.

No

Prairie falcon

 Falco mexicanus

-/-/BCC,WL Year-round range includes eastern California, the 

Coast Ranges, and much of southern California; 

winter range expands to include the Delta, 

Central Valley, and coastal California. Forages 

most commonly in grasslands and low 

shrublands; also forages in agricultural fields.

High. Suitable habitat is 

present and numerous records 

in the region.

Yes

Purple martin

 Progne subis

-/SSC/- Breeding range includes the Sierra Nevada, 

Cascade Range, portions of the Coast Ranges and 

coast, and parts of southern California; 

extirpated from the Delta, and nesting in the 

Central Valley has been reduced to 

transportation structures in and around the city 

of Sacramento. Nests in tree cavities, bridges, 

utility poles, lava tubes, and buildings; forages in 

foothill and low montane oak and riparian 

woodlands, and less frequently in coniferous 

forests and open or developed habitats.

Low. Potentially suitable 

habitat is present but the 

species is rare in the region.

No
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-32

Common and 

Scientific Names

Statusa

(Federal/

State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and General 

Habitat Description

Species Potential to 

Occur in Study Area

CNDDB 

Occurrences in 

Study Area (Y/N)

Tricolored blackbird

 Agelaius tricolor

-/SSC/- Year-round resident throughout the Central 

Valley and the central and southern coasts, with 

additional scattered locations throughout 

California. Nests colonially in large, dense stands 

of freshwater marsh, riparian scrub, and other 

shrubs and herbs; forages in grasslands and 

agricultural fields. 

Moderate. Suitable habitat is 

present but the species is rare 

in the region.

Yes

White-tailed kite

 Elanus leucurus

-/FP/- Lowland areas west of Sierra Nevada from the 

head of the Sacramento Valley south, including 

coastal valleys and foothills to western San Diego 

County at the Mexico border. Low foothills or 

valley areas with valley or live oaks, riparian 

areas, and marshes near open grasslands for 

foraging.

High. Suitable habitat is 

present and species is 

relatively common in the 

region.

Yes

Yellow warbler

 Dendroica petechial 

brewsteri

-/SSC/BCC Range includes coastal and northern California 

and the Sierra Nevada below approximately 

7,000 feet; mostly extirpated from the southern 

Sacramento and San Joaquin valleys. Nests and 

forages in early successional riparian habitats.

Moderate. Suitable habitat is 

present yet the species is rare 

in the region.

Yes
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-33

Common and 

Scientific Names

Statusa

(Federal/

State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and General 

Habitat Description

Species Potential to 

Occur in Study Area

CNDDB 

Occurrences in 

Study Area (Y/N)

Mammals

American badger

 Taxidea taxus

-/SSC/- In California, badgers occur throughout the state 

except in humid coastal forests of northwestern 

California in Del Norte and Humboldt Counties. 

Badgers occur in a wide variety of open, arid 

habitats but are most commonly associated with 

grasslands, savannas, mountain meadows, and 

open areas of desert scrub; the primary habitat 

requirements for the species appear to be 

sufficient food (burrowing rodents), friable soils, 

and relatively open, uncultivated ground.

High. Suitable habitat is 

present and species is 

common in the region.

Yes

Big-eared kangaroo rat

 Dipodomys venustus 

elephantinus

-/SSC/- Found in Monterey and San Benito counties. 

Occurs in chaparral-covered slopes of the 

southern part of the Gabilian Range in the 

vicinity of Pinnacles.

Low. Study areas are outside 

of the species known range.

No

Giant kangaroo rat

 Dipodomys ingens

E/E/- Current population fragmented into six major 

geographic units: Ciervo-Panoche in western 

Fresno and eastern San Benito counties; 

Kettleman Hills in southwestern Kings County; 

San Juan Creek Valley in eastern San Luis Obispo 

County; the Lokenr area, Elk Hills in western Kern 

County; Carrizo Plain in eastern San Luis Obispo 

County; and Cuyama Valley along the eastern 

Santa Barabara-San Luis Obispo County line. 

Occurs in annual grasslands and shrub 

communities with sandy-loam soils, typically with 

sparse vegetation.

Low. Study areas are outside 

of the species known range

No
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-34

Common and 

Scientific Names

Statusa

(Federal/

State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and General 

Habitat Description

Species Potential to 

Occur in Study Area

CNDDB 

Occurrences in 

Study Area (Y/N)

Hoary bat

 Lasiurus cinereus

-/-/M Ranges widely, but populations in the Central 

Valley are most likely non-reproductive or 

migratory. Typically roosts alone in a variety of 

broadleaf tree species such as cottonwood and 

sycamore; also found roosting in conifers. May 

be found in a range of vegetation and roost 

substrates during migration.

Moderate. Suitable habitat is 

present but there are few 

records in the region.

No

Pallid bat

 Antrozous pallidus

-/SSC/H Occurs throughout California except the high 

Sierra from Shasta to Kern County and the 

northwest coast, primarily at lower and mid 

elevations. Occurs in a variety of habitats from 

desert to coniferous forest. Most closely 

associated with oak, yellow pine, redwood, and 

giant sequoia habitats in northern California and 

oak woodland, grassland, and desert scrub in 

southern California. Relies heavily on trees for 

roosts.

Moderate-High. Suitable 

habitat is present and there 

are multiple records in the 

region.

No

Salinas pocket mouse

 Perognathus inornatus 

psammophilus

-/SSC/- Found in the Salinas Valley in Monterey and San 

Luis Obispo counties. Occurs in annual 

grasslands and desert shrub communities with 

fine-textured, sandy, friable soils.

Moderate-High. Potentially 

suitable habitat is present and 

there are multiple records in 

the region.

No

San Joaquin kit fox

 Vuples macrotis 

mutica

E/T/- Occurs primarily in the southern San Joaquin 

Valley but is also found in Carrizo Plain, the inner 

portions of the Coast Range between Santa Clara 

County and San Luis Obispo County, and there 

are records in Contra Costa, Alameda, and San 

Joaquin Counties. The species occurs in 

grasslands and alkali scrub.

High. Suitable habitat is 

present and there are several 

records within the region and 

in the Study Areas.

Yes
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-35

Common and 

Scientific Names

Statusa

(Federal/

State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and General 

Habitat Description

Species Potential to 

Occur in Study Area

CNDDB 

Occurrences in 

Study Area (Y/N)

San Joaquin pocket 

mouse

 Perognathus inornatus 

inornatus

-/-/- Year-round range spans the San Joaquin Valley, 

Delta, Sacramento Valley through Colusa County, 

and portions of the southern Coast Ranges. 

Inhabits grassland and scrub habitats with friable 

soils.

Low-Moderate. Suitable 

habitat is present but only one 

record within the region.

Yes

Townsend’s big-eared 

bat

 Corynorhinus 

townsendii

-/SSC/H Year-round range spans most of California except 

the highest elevations of the Sierra Nevada south 

of Lake Tahoe. This species may use several 

alternate roost sites (Woodruff and Ferguson 

2005). Typically roosts in colonies of fewer than 

100 individuals in caves or mines; occasionally 

roosts in buildings or bridges, and rarely, hollow 

trees; forages in all habitats except alpine and 

subalpine, although most commonly in mesic 

forests and woodlands.

Low. No typical roosting

habitat is present in the Study 

Areas but may use them for 

foraging. Only a few records 

in the region.

No
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-36

Common and 

Scientific Names

Statusa

(Federal/

State/

Other)

Geographic Distribution and General 

Habitat Description

Species Potential to 

Occur in Study Area

CNDDB 

Occurrences in 

Study Area (Y/N)

Western mastiff bat

 Eumops perotis 

californicus

-/SSC/H Year-round range spans most of California, with 

records absent from the northwest and 

northeast portions of the State. Typically roosts 

in crevices in cliffs and rocky outcrops, in colonies 

of fewer than 100 individuals. May also roost in 

bridges, caves and buildings that allow sufficient 

height and clearance for dropping into flight. 

There is at least one record of this species 

roosting in an untrimmed palm tree. Forages in a 

variety of grassland, shrub, and wooded habitats, 

including riparian and urban areas, although 

most commonly in open, arid lands.

Low. No suitable roosting 

habitat is present in the Study 

Areas but may use them for 

foraging. Only one record in 

the region.

No

a Status explanations:

Federal

E = Listed as endangered under the federal ESA.

T = Listed as threatened under the federal ESA.

C = Species for which USFWS has on file sufficient information on biological vulnerability and threat(s) to support issuance of a proposed rule to list, but 

issuance of the proposed rule is precluded.

D = Delisted 

— = No listing status.

State

E = Listed as endangered under CESA.

T = Listed as threatened under CESA.

D = Delisted

FP = Fully protected 

SSC = Species of Special Concern

— = No listing status.

Other

BCC = USFWS - Bird of Conservation Concern

 WL = California Department of Fish and Wildlife - Watch List

 H = Western Bat Working Group – High level of concern

 M = Western Bat Working Group – Medium level of concern

b National Marine Fisheries Service Southwest Regional Office, 2007
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-37

Rivers and Creeks

The most prominent river in the study area is the Salinas River. No proposed 

improvements components would involve crossing the Salinas River. Other streams 

in the study area include San Marcos Creek, Santa Margarita Creek, Yerba Buena 

Creek, and San Lorenzo Creek. The areas around each creek are considered 

potential wildlife habitat. 

Wetlands and Waters

Wetlands are considered a unique biological resource for both sensitive plant and 

wildlife communities. A wetland is defined by meeting one of the following three 

jurisdictional criteria: presence of wetland hydrology, predominance of hydrophytic 

(literally, water-loving) plants, and presence of hydric soils. According to USFWS’s 

inventory of wetlands (the NWI) four types of wetlands and waters are present in 

the study area. Wetlands include freshwater emergent wetlands, freshwater 

forested/shrub wetlands; waters includes freshwater ponds and riverine 

environments (see Figure 3.13-3). The two types of wetlands present in the study 

area are described below. 

Freshwater Emergent Wetlands are characterized by erect, rooted aquatic plants 

that thrive under frequent flood conditions. In wetter areas, this includes common 

cattail, tule bulrush, river bulrush, and arrowhead. On the drier margins of these 

wetlands, big leaf sedge, baltic rush, redroot nutgrass and saltgrass can be found. 

Freshwater emergent wetlands occur in virtually all exposures and slopes, however 

they are most often found on level to gently rolling topography.21

Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetlands often occur adjacent to riverine habitats. 

They are characterized by woody vegetation, including broad-leaved deciduous.22

There are situations where riverine and freshwater pond habitats could possess 

emergent vegetation and thus be classified as wetlands. Nonetheless, all of the 

waters assessed herein are afforded the same protection under the CWA. 

Habitat Conservation Plans and Habitat Reserves 

There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans in the study area. The Big Sandy 

Wildlife Area, occupying two sections of land in the study area, is a reserve under 

the jurisdiction of the CDFW. CDFW has not to date adopted any plan to more 

specifically regulate resources within Big Sandy.23 

 

21 Mayer and Laudenslayer, 1988, p. 124

22 Cowardin et al., 1979

23 Personal Communication with Bob Stafford on March 8, 2013
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-38

3.13.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.13.4.1 No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative represents the continuation of existing operations and 

physical components, and assumes the perpetuation of existing freight and 

passenger service. Under the No Build Alternative, passenger rail operations 

between Salinas and San Luis Obispo would not change. Coast Starlight service 

would continue through the corridor. Pacific Surfliner service to southern California 

would continue to originate/terminate in San Luis Obispo. The only physical 

improvement component expected under the No Build Alternative would be the 

installation of PTC along the Corridor, which would provide increased safety for 

freight and passenger trains. PTC equipment would likely be installed within the 

existing railroad ROW, likely in close proximity to the rail bed. These are highly 

developed areas that are unlikely to contain protected species or sensitive habitat 

areas. As a result, the No Build Alternative would be unlikely to result in any 

substantial new impacts to biological resources. 

3.13.4.2 Build Alternative

Construction-Period Effects

Table 3.13-3 summarizes potential temporary construction-period effects for Build 

Alternative components. Critical habitat for special-status species is typically 

recorded in acreages for terrestrial or wetland habitat and linear feet for 

watercourses, such as streams and river.

Certain proposed physical components improvements, including such as curve 

realignments and new or extended sidings, may in some cases would diverge 

substantially from the existing railroad ROW. Construction (and as described further 

below, operation) of such these physical components improvements would require 

staging areas on adjacent lands that may be protected for sensitive vegetation, 

special-status species, critical habitat for protected species, wetlands, or nonjurisdictional waters. Access routes to construction sites and construction staging 

areas could disturb biological resources by traveling through and potentially 

damaging these sensitive habitats. These uses would be temporary, lasting for the 

duration of construction. Where possible, these protected areas would be returned 

to pre-construction conditions. rehabilitated.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-39

Table 3.13-3 Build Alternative: Potential Construction-Period Biological Resource Impacts

Build Alternative 

Components

Sensitive Vegetation 

Communities 

(Type/Acreage)

Number of 

Special Status 

Species

Critical Habitat 

Area 

(Species/Acreage)

Wetlands and Waters

(Acres)

Non Wetland 

Jurisdictional 

Waters (linear 

feet)

Salinas Powered Switch None None None None None

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #1 None None None None None

Spence Siding Extension 0.1 freshwater emergent 

wetland

10 animal 

species None

Freshwater Emergent 

Wetland – 0.09

Riverine – 0.03

129 linear feet

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #2 None None None None None

Gonzales Powered Switch None None None None None

Soledad Powered Switch None None None None None

Soledad New Passenger 

Station None None None None None

Harlem/Metz Curve 

Realignments

52.8 ac grassland

0.1 ac riverine

1.0 ac valley foothill riparian

30 animal 

species

6 plant species

None Riverine – 0.13 302 linear feet
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-40

Build Alternative 

Components

Sensitive Vegetation 

Communities 

(Type/Acreage)

Number of 

Special Status 

Species

Critical Habitat 

Area 

(Species/Acreage)

Wetlands and Waters

(Acres)

Non Wetland 

Jurisdictional 

Waters (linear 

feet)

Chalone Creek New Siding 

21.9 ac grassland

0.1 coastal oak woodland

0.7 ac freshwater emergent 

wetland

1.2 ac valley foothill riparian

29 animal 

species

4 plant species

None

Freshwater Emergent 

Wetland – 0.66 None

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #3 None None None None None

Coburn Curve 

Realignments

32.2 ac grassland

0.1 ac riverine

24 animal 

species

1 plant species

None Riverine – 0.12 61 linear feet 

King City Siding Extension

4.0 ac grassland

0.1 ac freshwater emergent 

wetland

21 animal 

species

3 plant species

None Freshwater Emergent 

Wetland – 0.05 133 linear feet

King City New Passenger 

Station None None None None None

King City Powered Switch None None None None None

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #4 None None None None None

MP 165 Curve Realignment

21.8 ac grassland

0.2 freshwater forested/shrub 

wetland

0.5 ac freshwater pond

24 animal 

species

3 plant species

None

Freshwater 

Forested/Shrub Wetland 

– 0.24

Freshwater Pond – 0.49

403 linear feet
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-41

Build Alternative 

Components

Sensitive Vegetation 

Communities 

(Type/Acreage)

Number of 

Special Status 

Species

Critical Habitat 

Area 

(Species/Acreage)

Wetlands and Waters

(Acres)

Non Wetland 

Jurisdictional 

Waters (linear 

feet)

San Lucas New Siding 

8.9 ac grassland

0.8 ac valley foothill riparian

26 animal 

species

2 plant species

None None None

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #5

None None None None None

MP 172 Track Realignment

8.5 ac grassland

0.8 ac valley foothill riparian

26 animal 

species

3 plant species

None None 785 linear feet

San Ardo Powered Switch None None None None None

Getty/Bradley Curve 

Realignments

54.3 ac grassland

1.3 ac blue oak woodland

0.9 ac coastal scrub

0.7 ac freshwater pond

3.5 ac riverine

11.7 ac valley foothill riparian

36 animal 

species

4 plant species

None

Freshwater Pond – 0.65

Riverine – 3.49

1,636 linear feet

Bradley Siding Extension

34.1 ac grassland

0.7 ac riverine

4.5 ac valley foothill riparian

35 animal 

species

3 plant species

Vernal pool fairy 

shrimp – 5 ac Riverine – 0.73 109 linear feet

Bradley Powered Switch) None None None None None

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #6 None None None None None
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-42

Build Alternative 

Components

Sensitive Vegetation 

Communities 

(Type/Acreage)

Number of 

Special Status 

Species

Critical Habitat 

Area 

(Species/Acreage)

Wetlands and Waters

(Acres)

Non Wetland 

Jurisdictional 

Waters (linear 

feet)

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #7

None None None None None

McKay/Wellsona Curve 

Realignments

6.0 ac blue oak woodland

12.4 ac coastal oak woodland

12.6 ac freshwater emergent 

wetland

1.2 ac freshwater 

forested/shrub wetland

0.1 ac riverine

16 animal 

species

10 plant species

None

Freshwater Emergent 

Wetland – 12.57

Freshwater 

Forested/Shrub Wetland 

– 1.22

Riverine – 0.11

None

McKay East Powered 

Switches None None None None None

Wellsona New Siding

4.5 ac grassland

8.8 ac blue oak woodland

14.4 ac coastal oak woodland

11.7 ac freshwater emergent 

wetland

1.6 ac freshwater 

forested/shrub wetland

0.1 ac riverine

32 animal 

species

9 plant species

South-Coast 

California 

steelhead – 66 

linear feet

Freshwater Emergent 

Wetland – 11.68

Freshwater 

Forested/Shrub Wetland 

– 1.65

Riverine – 0.15

123 linear feet

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #8 None None None None None
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-43

Build Alternative 

Components

Sensitive Vegetation 

Communities 

(Type/Acreage)

Number of 

Special Status 

Species

Critical Habitat 

Area 

(Species/Acreage)

Wetlands and Waters

(Acres)

Non Wetland 

Jurisdictional 

Waters (linear 

feet)

Wellsona/Paso Robles 

Curve Realignments

8.8 ac grassland

2.3 ac blue oak woodland

1.0 ac coastal oak woodland

26 animal 

species

8 plant species

None None None

Templeton Siding

7.3 ac grassland

1.2 ac blue oak woodland

0.5 ac freshwater emergent 

wetland

2.1 freshwater forested/shrub 

wetland

0.8 ac riverine

0.3 ac valley foothill riparian

30 animal 

species

8 plant species

None

Freshwater Emergent 

Wetland – 0.52

Freshwater 

Forested/Shrub Wetland 

– 2.11

Riverine – 0.77

267 linear feet

Templeton/Henry Curve 

Realignments

1.7 ac grassland

2.5 ac blue oak woodland

0.1 ac blue oak-foothill pine

6.2 ac coastal oak woodland

3.3 ac unknown shrub type

23 animal 

species

8 plant species

None None None

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #9 None None None None None
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-44

Build Alternative 

Components

Sensitive Vegetation 

Communities 

(Type/Acreage)

Number of 

Special Status 

Species

Critical Habitat 

Area 

(Species/Acreage)

Wetlands and Waters

(Acres)

Non Wetland 

Jurisdictional 

Waters (linear 

feet)

Henry/Santa Margarita 

Curve Realignment

44.5 ac grassland

25.1 ac blue oak-foothill pine

1.6 ac coastal oak woodland

10.1 ac coastal scrub

3.4 ac freshwater emergent 

wetland

3.3 ac freshwater 

forested/shrub wetland

1.1 ac freshwater pond

4.8 ac riverine

0.9 ac valley oak woodland

33 animal 

species

19 plant species

California redlegged frog – 0.001 

ac

South-Coast 

California 

steelhead – 1,362 

linear feet

Freshwater Emergent 

Wetland – 3.40

Freshwater 

Forested/Shrub Wetland 

– 3.34

Freshwater Pond – 1.14

Riverine – 4.75

5,719 linear feet

Santa Margarita Powered 

Switch None None None None None
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-45

Build Alternative 

Components

Sensitive Vegetation 

Communities 

(Type/Acreage)

Number of 

Special Status 

Species

Critical Habitat 

Area 

(Species/Acreage)

Wetlands and Waters

(Acres)

Non Wetland 

Jurisdictional 

Waters (linear 

feet)

Cuesta Second Main Track

10.2 ac grassland

5.4 ac blue oak woodland

14.8 ac coastal oak woodland

2.1 ac coastal scrub

0.1 ac freshwater emergent 

wetland

6.7 ac freshwater 

forested/shrub wetland

1.4 ac riverine

1.5 ac valley oak woodland

29 animal 

species

23 plant species

California redlegged frog – 46 ac

Freshwater Emergent 

Wetland – 0.14

Freshwater 

Forested/Shrub Wetland 

– 6.67

Freshwater Pond – 0.04

Riverine – 1.41

5,986 linear feet

Upgrades to Existing 

Alignment Section #10 None None None None None

Source: ICF, 2013
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-46

Generally, construction of any of the proposed physical components improvements

that would be placed within in the existing railroad ROW (i.e., rail and track 

upgrades, signal upgrades, and powered switches) would result in little or no impact 

to adjacent protected lands and special status species, as such because construction

work would take place entirely within the existing rail transportation corridor ROW. 

Therefore, all of the existing alignment areas listed in the Table below are noted as 

having no sensitive biological resources.

As identified in Table 3.13-3 above, many of the proposed Build Alternative physical

components improvements that would require use of land outside of the existing 

railroad ROW have greater potential to impact biological resources. Most of the 

temporary impact areas for curve realignments and the second mainline include 

substantial areas of land not currently in transportation use. Some of these areas

host sensitive habitats and protected species, of note is the including the critical 

habitat areas of the California Red-Legged Frog located within the area of the 

proposed second mainline near Cuesta Grade and that of the South-Coast California 

Steelhead located within the Henry/Santa Margarita Curve Realignment. Temporary

impacts associated with one from the curve realignment at Getty/Bradley have the 

potential to intrude into the river during construction. As discussed above,

construction activities have the potential to introduce dust, noise, fuel, and other 

disturbances that could indirectly affect species within the vicinity of the project 

alignment. The measures listed below would avoid or minimize any potential 

indirect effects, and the identification and implementation of specific mitigation 

measures necessary for each project component will occur as part of subsequent 

project-level environmental review.

Operational Effects

Permanent impact areas comprise the potential footprint of the new component

improvement or extended ROW necessary for the specific improvement

component.

For those elements the components of the Build Alternative that could be 

constructed within or immediately adjacent to the railbed, impacts to biological 

resources and wetlands are not considered would not be considered significant

because it is unlikely that sensitive biological resources are located within the 

railbed, due to train operations, and unsuitable habitat such as rocks, dirt, and the 

railway itself. This is expected to These Build Alternative components include track 

and signal upgrades and new powered switches. There is some potential for 

biological resources to be present outside of the railbed but within the railroad 

ROW. New stations are also expected to have non-significant impacts to biological 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-47

resources, since they are located in urban areas and mostly surrounded by 

developed lands.

Outside of the railroad ROW, curve realignments, several sidings, and siding 

extensions could have permanent impacts to biological resources. This assessment 

is intended to represent worst case conditions; conservative (i.e., large) impact 

buffers were used and the maximum potential footprint for each of the components 

improvements was assumed. Table 3.13-4 summarizes the potential permanent 

impacts to biological resources that are associated with the various components of 

the Build Alternative.

As summarized in Table 3.13-4 below, potential permanent impacts are most likely 

associated with would most likely occur from the curve realignments and second 

mainline, as each would require lands outside the existing railroad ROW where 

sensitive biological resources are or are suspected of being present. 

The second mainline has the potential to impact approximately 26 acres of 

California red-legged frog habitat, several special-status species, and almost 20 

acres of sensitive vegetation communities. The Bradley siding extension may impact 

up to 7 acres of vernal pool fairy shrimp habitat and as many as 36 special-status 

animal species. The Harlem/Metz curve realignments may impact over 15 acres of 

sensitive vegetation communities and 26 special-status animal species. The 

McKay/Wellsona curve realignments and the Wellsona new siding may each impact 

over 7 acres of freshwater emergent wetlands, and several special-status species. 

Additional potential biological resource impacts would result from the various other

physical improvements components.

There is considerable uncertainty whether some or all of the Build Alternative 

improvements components would be carried forward. Physical improvements

components likely to be carried forward are those that most cost-effectively 

improve rail service. Elements Components of the Build Alternative that would 

require substantial biological permitting and/or mitigation would likely be deemed 

less feasible and less cost-effective than elements without conditions such 

hindrances. Information in this document Program EIS/EIR will be useful in the 

future preparation of detailed design plausibility for various improvements. 

While future design efforts are likely to make every effort to develop alignment and 

improvement options that will include options to minimize impact to these 

resources to the extent feasible, in some cases, construction and operation of the 

proposed physical improvements components could permanently remove or alter 

habitat outside of the existing railroad ROW and could result in 

significant/substantial effects on protected species and/or their habitat.
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-48

Table 3.13-4 Build Alternative: Potential Operational Biological Resources Impacts

Build Alternative 

Component

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

(Type/Acreage)

Number of Special 

Status Species

Critical Habitat 

Area 

(Species/Acreage/

Linear Feet)

Wetlands and 

Waters (Acres)

Non Wetland 

Jurisdictional 

Waters (linear 

feet)

Salinas Powered 

Switch None None None None None

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #1 

None None None None None

Spence Siding 

Extension None 5 animal species None

Pond – 0.00

Riverine – 0.01

83 linear feet

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #2 

None None None None None

Gonzales Powered 

Switch None None None None None

Soledad Powered 

Switch None None None None None

Soledad New 

Passenger Station None None None None None

Harlem/Metz Curve 

Realignments

15.0 ac grassland

0.3 ac valley foothill riparian

26 animal species

5 plant species

None None None

Chalone Creek New 

Siding 

10.4 ac grassland

0.6 ac freshwater emergent wetland

1.1 ac valley foothill riparian

28 animal species

2 plant species

None

Freshwater 

Emergent 

Wetland – 0.60

None

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #3

None None None None None
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-49

Build Alternative 

Component

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

(Type/Acreage)

Number of Special 

Status Species

Critical Habitat 

Area 

(Species/Acreage/

Linear Feet)

Wetlands and 

Waters (Acres)

Non Wetland 

Jurisdictional 

Waters (linear 

feet)

Coburn Curve 

Realignments 5.5 ac grassland

19 animal species

1 plant species

None None None

King City Siding 

Extension 3.5 ac grassland

18 animal species

3 plant species

None None 100 linear feet

King City New 

Passenger Station None None None None None

King City Powered 

Switch None None None None None

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #4

None None None None None

MP 165 Curve 

Realignment

6.3 ac grassland

0.1 ac freshwater forested/shrub 

wetland

0.2 ac freshwater pond

24 animal species

3 plant species

None

Freshwater 

Forested/Shrub 

Wetland – 0.13

Freshwater Pond 

– 0.15

100 linear feet

San Lucas New 

Siding 

7.7 ac grassland

0.9 ac valley foothill riparian

26 animal species

2 plant species

None None None

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #5

None None None None None

MP 172 Track 

Realignment

1.4 ac grassland 19 animal species

2 plant species

None None 150 linear feet

San Ardo Powered 

Switch None None None None None
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-50

Build Alternative 

Component

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

(Type/Acreage)

Number of Special 

Status Species

Critical Habitat 

Area 

(Species/Acreage/

Linear Feet)

Wetlands and 

Waters (Acres)

Non Wetland 

Jurisdictional 

Waters (linear 

feet)

Getty/Bradley Curve 

Realignments

16.2 ac grassland

0.3 ac riverine

3.8 ac valley foothill riparian

35 animal species

3 plant species

None Riverine – 0.26 417 linear feet

Bradley Siding 

Extension

48.0 ac grassland

0.3 ac riverine

3.7 ac valley foothill riparian

36 animal species

3 plant species

Vernal pool fairy 

shrimp – 7 ac Riverine – 0.27 109 linear feet

Bradley Powered 

Switch) None None None None None

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #6

None None None None None

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #7

None None None None None

McKay/ Wellsona 

Curve Realignments

2.4 ac blue oak woodland

4.6 coastal oak woodland

7.2 ac freshwater emergent wetland

0.7 freshwater forested/shrub wetland

13 animal species

10 plant species

None

Freshwater 

Emergent 

Wetland – 7.20

Freshwater 

Forested/Shrub 

Wetland – 0.65

Riverine 0.00

None 

McKay East 

Powered Switches None None None None None
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-51

Build Alternative 

Component

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

(Type/Acreage)

Number of Special 

Status Species

Critical Habitat 

Area 

(Species/Acreage/

Linear Feet)

Wetlands and 

Waters (Acres)

Non Wetland 

Jurisdictional 

Waters (linear 

feet)

Wellsona New 

Siding

3.2 ac grassland

6.1 ac blue oak woodland

8.1 coastal oak woodland

7.2 ac freshwater emergent wetland

0.8 ac freshwater forested/shrub 

wetland

30 animal species

9 plant species

South-Coast 

California steelhead 

– 61 linear feet

Freshwater 

Emergent 

Wetland – 7.20

Freshwater 

Forested/Shrub 

Wetland – 0.82

Riverine – 0.04

124 linear feet

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #8

None None None None None

Wellsona/ Paso 

Robles Curve 

Realignments

3.8 ac grassland 22 animal species

7 plant species

None None None

Templeton Siding

7.3 ac grassland

1.5 ac blue oak woodland

0.7 ac freshwater emergent wetland

0.8 ac freshwater forested/shrub 

wetland

0.4 ac valley foothill riparian

28 animal species

8 plant species

None

Freshwater 

Emergent 

Wetland – 0.67

Freshwater 

Forested/Shrub 

Wetland – 0.84

Riverine – 0.05

226 linear feet

Templeton/ Henry 

Curve Realignments

0.6 ac grassland

0.6 ac blue oak woodland

2.1 ac coastal oak woodland

0.7 ac unknown shrub type

23 animal species

8 plant species None None None

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #9

None None None None None
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-52

Build Alternative 

Component

Sensitive Vegetation Communities 

(Type/Acreage)

Number of Special 

Status Species

Critical Habitat 

Area 

(Species/Acreage/

Linear Feet)

Wetlands and 

Waters (Acres)

Non Wetland 

Jurisdictional 

Waters (linear 

feet)

Henry/Santa 

Margarita Curve 

Realignment

13.3 ac grassland

6.1 ac blue oak-foothill pine

2.7 ac coastal scrub

0.8 ac cropland

1.4 ac freshwater emergent wetland

0.4 ac freshwater forested/shrub 

wetland

0.1 ac freshwater pond

0.1 ac riverine

0.0 ac unknown shrub type

1.7 ac urban

33 animal species

19 plant species

None

Freshwater 

Emergent 

Wetland – 1.37

Freshwater 

Forested/Shrub 

Wetland – 0.36

Freshwater Pond 

– 0.11

Riverine – 0.08

305 linear feet

Santa Margarita

Powered Switch None None None None None

Cuesta Second Main 

Track

8.9 ac grassland

2.4 ac blue oak woodland

6.7 ac coastal oak woodland

1.2 ac coastal scrub

0.7 ac freshwater forested/shrub 

wetland

0.1 ac riverine

0.6 ac valley oak woodland

28 animal species

23 plant species

California red-legged 

frog – 26 ac

Freshwater 

Forested/Shrub 

Wetland – 0.69

Riverine – 0.09

749 linear feet

Upgrades to 

Existing Alignment 

Section #10

None None None None None

Source: ICF, 2013
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-53

3.13.4.3 Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would include the same service as the Build Alternative 

and would retain all corridor-wide and almost all of the same physical components. 

The only differences are that the Preferred Alternative would include modified 

footprints for the King City siding extension and station, and would exclude each of 

the four curve realignments within San Luis Obispo County. Additionally, the 

Preferred Alternative includes a 27 mile “island” of CTC between MP 202 and 229 

(McKay to Santa Margarita). 

Accordingly, effects on biological resources and wetlands under the Preferred 

Alternative would be the same as under the Build Alternative except for the areas 

where the modified or excluded components are located. The discussions below 

assess biological resource and wetlands effects from modified or excluded 

components. The results in Tables 3.13-5 and 3.13-6 below reflect the revised

methodology discussed above in Section 3.13.2. 

Construction-Period Effects

Under the Preferred Alternative, fewer components are proposed that would 

require construction activity outside of the existing railroad ROW. The Preferred 

Alternative excludes 4 curve realignments in San Luis Obispo County, reducing

construction-period impacts to biological resources, including special-status species

and wetlands. 

As shown in Table 3.13-5, the City of King siding extension is not expected to have 

any direct impact or encroachment to critical habitat areas or wetlands during 

construction. Additionally, there are fewer special-status plant and animal species

and fewer sensitive vegetation communities identified for the City of King siding 

extension. Similar to the Build Alternative, construction activities associated with 

the King City siding have the potential to introduce dust, noise, fuel, and other 

disturbances that could indirectly affect species within the vicinity of the project 

alignment. The measures listed below would avoid or minimize any potential 

indirect effects, and the identification and implementation of specific mitigation 

measures necessary for each project component will occur as part of subsequent 

project-level environmental review.

Implementation of the island CTC would not require any heavy machinery or 

intensive construction activity. Accordingly, no substantial new construction-period

affects are anticipated to biological resources and wetlands under the Preferred 

Alternative.
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-54

Table 3.13-5 Preferred Alternative: New Potential Construction-Period 

Biological Resource Impacts 

Build 

Alternative 

Component

Sensitive 

Vegetation 

Communities 

(Type/Acreage)

Number of 

Special 

Status 

Species

Critical Habitat 

Area 

(Species/Acreage)

Wetlands and 

Waters (Acres)

Non Wetland 

Jurisdictional 

Waters 

(linear feet)

King City Siding 

Extension

3.0 ac grassland

18 animal 

species

1 plant 

species

None 0 0

King City New 

Passenger Station None None None 0 0

McKay/Wellsona

Curve 

Realignments

None. This component is not part of the Preferred Alternative.

Wellsona/Paso 

Robles Curve 

Realignments

None. This component is not part of the Preferred Alternative.

Templeton/Henry 

Curve 

Realignments

None. This component is not part of the Preferred Alternative.

Henry/Santa 

Margarita Curve 

Realignment

None. This component is not part of the Preferred Alternative.

Source: ICF, 2015

Operational Effects

Outside of the railroad ROW, physical components such as curve realignments and 

the second mainline could have permanent impacts to biological resources. The 

Preferred Alternative excludes 4 curve realignments in San Luis Obispo County, all of 

which had identified potential permanent impacts to biological resources and 

wetlands. Given the removal of these curve realignments, permanent impacts to 

biological resources would be reduced in these locations. 

The City of King siding extension has fewer potential operational impacts to specialstatus plant species, sensitive vegetation communities, and non-wetland 

jurisdictional waters compared to the Build Alternative (refer to Table 3.13-5 and

3.13-6). Furthermore, because the Preferred Alternative excludes 4 curve 

realignments assessed in the Build Alternative, overall potential permanent impacts 

to biological resources would be reduced under the Preferred Alternative. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-55

The island CTC would be constructed within the railroad ROW and the King City 

station would be located entirely within urban landscape; therefore, no impacts to 

biological resources or wetlands are anticipated as a result of these physical 

components.

Table 3.13-6 Preferred Alternative: New Potential Operational Biological 

Resource Impacts 

Preferred 

Alternative

Component

Sensitive 

Vegetation 

Communities 

(Type/Acreage)

Number 

of 

Special 

Status 

Species

Critical Habitat 

Area 

(Species/Acreage)

Wetlands and 

Waters (Acres)

Non Wetland 

Jurisdictional 

Waters 

(linear feet)

King City Siding 

Extension

2.7 ac grassland

18 animal 

species

1 plant 

species

None 0 0

King City New 

Passenger Station None None None 0 0

McKay/Wellsona 

Curve 

Realignments

None. This component is not part of the Preferred Alternative.

Wellsona/Paso 

Robles Curve 

Realignments

None. This component is not part of the Preferred Alternative.

Templeton/Henry 

Curve 

Realignments

None. This component is not part of the Preferred Alternative.

Henry/Santa 

Margarita Curve 

Realignment

None. This component is not part of the Preferred Alternative.

Source: ICF, 2015

3.13.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION 

STRATEGIES

Individual improvements comprising the Build Alternative should be designed to 

minimize impacts to biological resources along the Corridor. The measures listed 

below are applicable to the Build and Preferred Alternatives and have been 

identified at this preliminary stage to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate any 

potentially significant impacts. The identification and implementation of specific 
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-56

mitigation measures necessary for each project component will occur as part of 

subsequent project-level environmental review. Additional avoidance, 

minimization, and mitigation measures may also be identified during that review.

Individual components comprising the Build and Preferred Alternative should be 

designed to minimize impacts to biological resources along the Corridor. 

MIN-BIO-1. Field surveys would should be conducted to determine the extent and 

type of general and sensitive biological resources, including focused surveys 

following resource agency protocols for special- status species. 

MM-BIO-2. Biological Resources Management Plans (BRMP) would should be 

prepared to specify the design and implementation of biological resources 

mitigation measures, including habitat replacement and revegetation, protection 

during construction, performance (growth) standards, maintenance criteria, and 

monitoring requirements. USFWS, CDFW, and USACE would review Draft BRMPs. 

The primary goal of a BRMP is to ensure the long- term perpetuation of the existing 

diversity of habitats in the study area and adjacent urban interface zones. BRMPs 

will contain the following:

 Specific measures to ensure the protection of sensitive amphibian, mammal, 

bird, and plant species during construction activities. 

 Identification and quantification of habitats that will be removed, as well as the 

locations where these habitats are to be restored or relocated. 

 Procedures for vegetation analyses of adjacent protected habitats to estimate 

their relative composition; site preparation (clearing, grading, weed eradication, 

soil amendment, topsoil storage); irrigation, planting (container plantings, 

seeding); and maintenance (weed control, irrigation system checks, replanting). 

This information would be used to determine the requirements for revegetation 

areas. 

 Proposed sources of plant materials and methods of propagation. 

 Specific parameters for the determination of the amount of replacement habitat 

for temporary disturbance areas. 

 Specification of parameters for maintenance and monitoring of re-established 

habitats, including weed control measures, frequency of field checks, and 

monitoring reports for temporary disturbance areas. 

 Specification of performance standards for growth of re-established plant 

communities and cut-and-fill slopes. 

 Remedial measures to be taken if performance standards are not met. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-57

 Procedures and requirements to monitor all restoration/replacement efforts. 

 Measures to preserve topsoil and control erosion control. 

 Design of protective fencing around Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESAs) and 

construction staging areas. 

 Identification of location and quantities of gallinaceous guzzlers (catch 

basin/artificial watering structures, if needed); specification of monitoring of 

water levels in guzzlers. 

 Location of trees that are designated as protected for wildlife habitat (roosting 

sites) and locations for planting of replacement trees. 

 Identification of the purpose, type, frequency, and extent of chemical use for 

insect and disease control operations as part of vegetative maintenance within 

sensitive habitat areas. 

 Specific monitoring programs for sensitive species during construction. 

 Specific procedures to ensure the protection of sensitive species identified for 

preservation. These measures may include, but are not limited to, erosion and 

siltation control measures, protective fencing guidelines, dust control measures, 

grading techniques, construction area limits, and biological monitoring 

requirements. 

 Provisions for biological monitoring during construction activities that ensure

the compliance and success of the proposed protective measures. The 

monitoring procedures would (1) identify specific locations of wildlife habitat 

and sensitive species to be monitored; (2) identify the frequency of monitoring, 

monitoring methodology (for each habitat and sensitive species to be 

monitored); (3) list required qualifications of biological monitor(s); and (4) 

identify reporting requirements. 

MM-BIO-3. Mitigation techniques to protect plant and wildlife species would may

include, but would not be limited to on- and/or off-site revegetation/restoration of 

plant species, and purchase of credits from existing mitigation banks. Requirements 

for mitigation ratios would vary depending on the character of the impacted plant 

community and whether or not it provides notable habitat for sensitive plant or 

wildlife species. Regulatory agencies would be consulted to determine appropriate 

mitigation ratios. Relocation of plants, seed collection, plant propagation, outplanting to a suitable mitigation site, and participation in an existing HCP would
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-58

could be employed to mitigate for impacted plant species.

24 Restoration of suitable 

breeding and foraging habitat, purchase of credits from an existing mitigation bank, 

and participation in an existing HCP would could mitigate for impacted wildlife 

species. 

Whenever possible, on-site mitigation would be preferred to off-site. Off-site 

mitigation would must be located within the same watershed or in close proximity 

to the impact area, where feasible.

MIN-BIO-4. Minimization measures would may include, but not be limited to, preconstruction focused surveys and construction monitoring. Prior to construction, 

focused surveys would should be conducted for sensitive plant and wildlife species 

identified as occurring in the study area. Locations of sensitive plant/wildlife species 

observed would be mapped on construction drawings. Research would must be 

conducted on appropriate methods to use on a species-by-species basis (i.e.,

transplantation, germination from seed, greenhouse propagation), and construction 

could would be phased around the breeding season for sensitive wildlife species

(See also BRMP information above.) 

MIN-BIO-5. Specific measures would be developed to minimize or avoid the 

propagation of weeds during construction and operation. Potential preventive 

measures during construction could include identification of areas with existing 

weed problems and measures to control traffic moving out of those areas (e.g., 

cleaning of construction vehicles, limitations on movement of fill). Mitigation for 

operational impacts would be developed similarly. 

MIN-BIO-6. Field studies would identify locally significant wildlife 

movement/migration corridors beyond those discussed in this programmatic 

document and provide data to assist in the design of bridges and wildlife crossings 

at crucial travel route points. Wildlife crossings would be designed to mimic natural 

corridors and must be sufficiently attractive to encourage wildlife use. Where 

feasible, overcrossings and undercrossings for wildlife would be appropriately 

vegetated to afford cover and other species requirements. Functional corridors 

would be established to provide connectivity to protected land zoned for uses that 

provide wildlife permeability. Corridors would be designed using the following 

procedure: 

 

24 An HCP is a planning document required as part of an application for an incidental take permit. They 

describe the anticipated effects of the proposed taking, how those impacts will be minimized or 

mitigated, and how the HCP is to be funded.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

3.13-59

 Identify the habitat areas the corridor is designed to connect;

 Determine several species of interest from the species present in these areas;

 Evaluate the relevant needs of each selected species;

 For each potential corridor, evaluate how the area will accommodate 

movement according to the needs of each species of interest;

 Map the corridors;

 Design a monitoring program.

MM-BIO-7. Delineation of jurisdictional waters and wetlands would be conducted to 

determine the extent of USACE and CDFW jurisdiction, and consultation with these 

agencies to determine appropriate mitigation would occur. 

 The amount of mitigation required would be assessed on an acreage basis, with 

ratios depending upon the nature and condition of the jurisdictional areas 

located within the impact areas. Whenever appropriate and feasible, on-site 

mitigation would be preferred. Off-site mitigation should be located within the 

same watershed or as close in proximity to the area of impact as possible.

Mitigation options for unavoidable impacts to state and federal jurisdictional 

waters would include on- or off-site restoration, creation, or enhancement, 

mitigation banking, or in-lieu fee payments, as described below:

 Restoration – Return degraded habitat to a pre-existing condition. 

 Creation – Conversion of a persistent non-wetland habitat into wetland (or 

other aquatic) habitat. The created habitat may be self-sustaining or 

dependent upon artificial irrigation. 

 Enhancement – Increase one or more functions of a replacement habitat

through activities such as plantings or non-native vegetation eradication. 

 Passive Revegetation – Allow a disturbed area to naturally revegetate without 

intervention or plantings. 

 Mitigation Banking – Purchase of units of previously restored or enhanced 

wetland or waters habitat within a larger managed conservation area. These

units are often known as “credits” and are typically sold by the acre. 

 In-Lieu Fee Program – A monetary payment would be made to an entity 

approved by an agency that provides habitat conservation or restoration. For 

example, the Nature Conservancy may receive in-lieu fee payments for impacts 

in all watersheds. 

 Current federal and state policy emphasizes a "no net loss" of wetlands habitats 

policy, which is usually achieved through restoration of areas subject to 
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-60

temporary impacts or creation of wetlands to offset permanent impacts. 

However, according to the January 27, 2003, Special Public Notice for

Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines, USACE favors the use of approved 

mitigation banks or in-lieu fee programs in the event that these programs would

result in a net increase in regional or watershed benefit over on-site 

compensatory mitigation. Approved mitigation and in-lieu fee programs include 

measures designed to ensure the no net loss of wetlands policy is met.

The strategies presented herein, including provisions for further study to obtain 

additional data and refine site-specific mitigation measures, can be expected to 

substantially lessen or avoid impacts to biological resources and wetlands. Impacts 

to biological resources and wetlands will be reduced through subsequent 

environmental review, ongoing consultation with resource agencies, the 

requirements associated with the permit-acquisition process for segments of the rail 

improvements, and compliance with those permit terms and conditions. Until these 

plans and provisions have been implemented, potential impacts to biological 

resources and wetlands should be considered significant and unavoidable under 

CEQA.

3.13.6 SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS

Some plant and wildlife species require specific habitat elements that cannot be 

detected at the scale of this assessment. It is assumed that Further detailed analysis 

will be conducted prior to implementing any elements components of the Build or 

Preferred Alternative in order to conclusively determine the presence of biological 

resources in affected areas. 

Consultation and possibly permits may be necessary from federal and state resource 

agencies prior to implementing specific elements of the Build or Preferred

Alternative. The consultation and permit process would result in the development 

of site-specific avoidance and minimization strategies. For example, permits under 

the CWA require the USACE to identify the “least environmentally damaging 

practicable alternative” or “LEDPA.” 

The discussion of potential impacts to various biological resources presented herein 

has relied primarily on the available GIS database, other GIS tools, and review of 

available literature. While these sources can be expected to present an accurate 

overview of natural resources conditions in the corridor, they may not exactly 

correspond to actual field conditions. In order to obtain more reliable assessments 

of potential impacts to biological resources, further environmental studies should 

be conducted prior to implementing elements components of the Build or Preferred

Alternative.
Spence Siding Chualar

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

h

i

g

f

e

d

b

c

a

Sensitive Vegetation Communites

Figure 3.13-1a

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Agriculture

Annual Grassland

Barren

Blue Oak Woodland

Blue Oak-Foothill Pine

Coastal Oak Woodland

Coastal Scrub

Cropland

Lacustrine

Mixed Chaparral

Unknown Shrub Type

Urban

Valley Foothill Riparian

Valley Oak Woodland

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1a

±

1:36,000
C

New Chalone Creek

Greenfield

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

h

i

g

f

e

d

b

c

a

Sensitive Vegetation Communites

Figure 3.13-1b

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Agriculture

Annual Grassland

Barren

Blue Oak Woodland

Blue Oak-Foothill Pine

Coastal Oak Woodland

Coastal Scrub

Cropland

Lacustrine

Mixed Chaparral

Unknown Shrub Type

Urban

Valley Foothill Riparian

Valley Oak Woodland

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1b

±

1:36,000
Coburn

Coburn

King City Siding

Greenfield

King

City

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

h

i

g

f

e

d

b

c

a

Sensitive Vegetation Communites

Figure 3.13-1c

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Agriculture

Annual Grassland

Barren

Blue Oak Woodland

Blue Oak-Foothill Pine

Coastal Oak Woodland

Coastal Scrub

Cropland

Lacustrine

Mixed Chaparral

Unknown Shrub Type

Urban

Valley Foothill Riparian

Valley Oak Woodland

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1c

±

1:36,000
Realign Tracks at MP 165

King City Siding

San L

King

City

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

h

i

g

f

e

d

b

c

a

Sensitive Vegetation Communites

Figure 3.13-1d

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Agriculture

Annual Grassland

Barren

Blue Oak Woodland

Blue Oak-Foothill Pine

Coastal Oak Woodland

Coastal Scrub

Cropland

Lacustrine

Mixed Chaparral

Unknown Shrub Type

Urban

Valley Foothill Riparian

Valley Oak Woodland

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1d

±

1:36,000
Realign Tracks at MP 172

San Lucas Siding

UV198

San

Lucas

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

h

i

g

f

e

d

b

c

a

Sensitive Vegetation Communites

Figure 3.13-1e

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Agriculture

Annual Grassland

Barren

Blue Oak Woodland

Blue Oak-Foothill Pine

Coastal Oak Woodland

Coastal Scrub

Cropland

Lacustrine

Mixed Chaparral

Unknown Shrub Type

Urban

Valley Foothill Riparian

Valley Oak Woodland

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1e

±

1:36,000
Getty/Bradley

Getty/Bradley

Getty/Bradley

Bradley Siding

Bradley

£¤101 £¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

h

i

g

f

e

d

b

c

a

Sensitive Vegetation Communites

Figure 3.13-1f

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Agriculture

Annual Grassland

Barren

Blue Oak Woodland

Blue Oak-Foothill Pine

Coastal Oak Woodland

Coastal Scrub

Cropland

Lacustrine

Mixed Chaparral

Unknown Shrub Type

Urban

Valley Foothill Riparian

Valley Oak Woodland

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1f

±

1:36,000
Wellsona/Paso Robles

McKay/Wellsona

McKay/Wellsona

McKay/Wellsona

Wellsona Siding

San

Miguel

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

h

i

g

f

e

d

b

c

a

Sensitive Vegetation Communites

Figure 3.13-1g

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Agriculture

Annual Grassland

Barren

Blue Oak Woodland

Blue Oak-Foothill Pine

Coastal Oak Woodland

Coastal Scrub

Cropland

Lacustrine

Mixed Chaparral

Unknown Shrub Type

Urban

Valley Foothill Riparian

Valley Oak Woodland

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1g

±

1:36,000
Templeton/Henry

Templeton Siding

UV46

Atascadero

El Paso de

Robles (Paso

Robles)

Templeton

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

h

i

g

f

e

d

b

c

a

Sensitive Vegetation Communites

Figure 3.13-1h

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Agriculture

Annual Grassland

Barren

Blue Oak Woodland

Blue Oak-Foothill Pine

Coastal Oak Woodland

Coastal Scrub

Cropland

Lacustrine

Mixed Chaparral

Unknown Shrub Type

Urban

Valley Foothill Riparian

Valley Oak Woodland

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1h

±

1:36,000
Henry/Santa Margarita

Henry/Santa Margarita

Second Main Line

Atascadero

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

h

i

g

f

e

d

b

c

a

Sensitive Vegetation Communites

Figure 3.13-1i

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Agriculture

Annual Grassland

Barren

Blue Oak Woodland

Blue Oak-Foothill Pine

Coastal Oak Woodland

Coastal Scrub

Cropland

Lacustrine

Mixed Chaparral

Unknown Shrub Type

Urban

Valley Foothill Riparian

Valley Oak Woodland

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 1i

±

1:36,000
Spence Siding Chualar

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Critical Habitat Figure 3.13-2a

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Legend

Biological Study Area

Critical Habitat

California red-legged frog

Vernal pool fairy shrimp

South-Coast California steelhead

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 2a

±

1:36,000
C

New Chalone Creek

Greenfield

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Critical Habitat Figure 3.13-2b

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Legend

Biological Study Area

Critical Habitat

California red-legged frog

Vernal pool fairy shrimp

South-Coast California steelhead

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 2b

±

1:36,000
Coburn

Coburn

King City Siding

Greenfield

King

City

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Critical Habitat Figure 3.13-2c

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Legend

Biological Study Area

Critical Habitat

California red-legged frog

Vernal pool fairy shrimp

South-Coast California steelhead

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 2c

±

1:36,000
Realign Tracks at MP 165

King City Siding

San L

King

City

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Critical Habitat Figure 3.13-2d

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Legend

Biological Study Area

Critical Habitat

California red-legged frog

Vernal pool fairy shrimp

South-Coast California steelhead

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 2d

±

1:36,000
Realign Tracks at MP 172

San Lucas Siding

UV198

San

Lucas

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Critical Habitat Figure 3.13-2e

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Legend

Biological Study Area

Critical Habitat

California red-legged frog

Vernal pool fairy shrimp

South-Coast California steelhead

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 2e

±

1:36,000
Getty/Bradley

Getty/Bradley

Getty/Bradley

Bradley Siding

Bradley

£¤101 £¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Critical Habitat Figure 3.13-2f

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Legend

Biological Study Area

Critical Habitat

California red-legged frog

Vernal pool fairy shrimp

South-Coast California steelhead

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 2f

±

1:36,000
Wellsona/Paso Robles

McKay/Wellsona

McKay/Wellsona

McKay/Wellsona

Wellsona Siding

San

Miguel

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Critical Habitat Figure 3.13-2g

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Legend

Biological Study Area

Critical Habitat

California red-legged frog

Vernal pool fairy shrimp

South-Coast California steelhead

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 2g

±

1:36,000
Templeton/Henry

Templeton Siding

UV46

Atascadero

El Paso de

Robles (Paso

Robles)

Templeton

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Critical Habitat Figure 3.13-2h

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Legend

Biological Study Area

Critical Habitat

California red-legged frog

Vernal pool fairy shrimp

South-Coast California steelhead

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 2h

±

1:36,000
Henry/Santa Margarita

Henry/Santa Margarita

Second Main Line

Atascadero

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

Critical Habitat Figure 3.13-2i

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Legend

Biological Study Area

Critical Habitat

California red-legged frog

Vernal pool fairy shrimp

South-Coast California steelhead

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 2i

±

1:36,000
Spence Siding Chualar

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

i

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters Figure 3.13-3a

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Legend

Biological Study Area

Wetlands

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/

Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Riverine

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 3a

±

1:36,000
C

New Chalone Creek

Greenfield

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

i

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters Figure 3.13-3b

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Legend

Biological Study Area

Wetlands

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/

Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Riverine

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 3b

±

1:36,000
Coburn

Coburn

King City Siding

Greenfield

King

City

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

i

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters Figure 3.13-3c

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Legend

Biological Study Area

Wetlands

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/

Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Riverine

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 3c

±

1:36,000
Realign Tracks at MP 165

King City Siding

San L

King

City

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

i

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters Figure 3.13-3d

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Legend

Biological Study Area

Wetlands

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/

Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Riverine

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 3d

±

1:36,000
Realign Tracks at MP 172

San Lucas Siding

UV198

San

Lucas

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

i

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters Figure 3.13-3e

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Legend

Biological Study Area

Wetlands

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/

Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Riverine

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 3e

±

1:36,000
Getty/Bradley

Getty/Bradley

Getty/Bradley

Bradley Siding

Bradley

£¤101 £¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

i

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters Figure 3.13-3f

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Legend

Biological Study Area

Wetlands

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/

Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Riverine

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 3f

±

1:36,000
Wellsona/Paso Robles

McKay/Wellsona

McKay/Wellsona

McKay/Wellsona

Wellsona Siding

San

Miguel

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

i

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters Figure 3.13-3g

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Legend

Biological Study Area

Wetlands

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/

Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Riverine

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 3g

±

1:36,000
Templeton/Henry

Templeton Siding

UV46

Atascadero

El Paso de

Robles (Paso

Robles)

Templeton

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

i

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters Figure 3.13-3h

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Legend

Biological Study Area

Wetlands

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/

Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Riverine

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 3h

±

1:36,000
Henry/Santa Margarita

Henry/Santa Margarita

Second Main Line

Atascadero

£¤101

£¤101

Coast Corridor Improvements EIR/EIS

i

f

c

a

b

d

e

g

h

Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters Figure 3.13-3i

±

0 1,500 3,000 6,000

Feet

Legend

Biological Study Area

Wetlands

Freshwater Emergent Wetland

Freshwater Forested/

Shrub Wetland

Freshwater Pond

Riverine

Project Components

Existing Alignment

Realignments

Sidings

Source: ICF International, 2013

Page 3i

±

1:36,000
Coast Corridor

3.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands Final Program EIS/EIR

3.13-64

Page intentionally left blank
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.14 Growth Inducement

3.14-1

3.14 GROWTH INDUCEMENT

This section discusses the potential growth-inducing effects that could result from 

the No Build Alternative and action alternatives Build Alternative. 

The analysis considers regional and local population and employment growth trends 

in evaluating the potential for the alternatives to influence these trends, either 

directly or indirectly. As population and employment growth are closely linked to 

land use regulations, please also refer to Section 3.5, Land Use and Planning. 

Growth inducing effects of the Build Alternative action alternatives would be most 

prominent around existing and proposed stations, because these areas would see 

increases or new passenger ridership; it would have the potential to spur economic 

activity. As a result, this discussion is focused on the growth issues in areas 

immediately surrounding the existing and proposed stations (described in Chapter 

2.0, Alternatives). 

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

Program EIS/EIR and provides responses to each comment. Of all comments 

received, 4 are related to the issue of growth in the Draft Program EIS/EIR (A-3.64 

through A-3.66, and A-3.72). Specifically, all of these comments relate to elements 

of the Preferred Alternative, analysis of which is included in Section 3.14.4.3. 

3.14.1 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

3.14.1.1 Federal

Federal Railroad Administration

Under its Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts, FRA states that an EIS 

should address the number and kinds of available jobs to be affected by an 

alternative, impacts to local government services and revenue, and impacts on 

commerce in communities within the immediate study area. In cases where 

displacement of housing is involved, FRA stipulates an assessment of the availability 

and adequacy of relocation housing. FRA guidance also suggests analysis of the 

positive and negative consequences of each alternative on growth in the community 

and its surrounding metropolitan area, specifically near existing business districts 

and the immediate study area.
Coast Corridor

3.14 Growth Inducement Final Program EIS/EIR

3.14-2

3.14.1.2 State

CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 states that an EIR shall “...discuss the ways in which 

the proposed project could foster economic or population growth, or the 

construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding 

environment.” 

3.14.1.3 Local

Monterey County General Plan

The Monterey County General Plan contains goals and policies related to promoting 

appropriate and orderly growth and development. This includes growth areas in 

areas where adequate level of services and facilities exist or can be assured to be 

concurrent with growth and development. Policies also aim to encourage major 

industrial and commercial centers to accommodate future rail support facilities and 

to promote transit-oriented development around existing and future rail stations.1

City of Salinas General Plan

The City of Salinas General Plan (2002) contains policies aiming to maintain a 

circulation system that meets the current and future needs of the community, 

including collaboration with Amtrak to provide commuter rail service. Continued 

maintenance and expanded use of the City’s Intermodal Transportation Center is 

included as a priority. Implementation of the Build Alternative would potentially 

increase ridership of the Coast Corridor, thus would allow for expanded usage of the 

existing Salinas Intermodal Transportation Center, consistent with city policy. 

City of Soledad General Plan

The Soledad Downtown Specific Plan (2012) contemplated conceptual plans for a 

proposed new passenger rail station (identical to the station included here as part of 

the Build Alternative). In its environmental review of the specific plan as a whole, 

the city concluded that future placement of a multi-modal train station in Soledad 

would be consistent with the Coast Daylight Implementation Plan.2 Furthermore, a 

train station would create an environment that attracts tourists and locals 

throughout the region.3

 

1 Monterey County, 2010, p. LU-3, CIRC-11

2

City of Soledad,2012b, p. 4.4-9

3

City of Soledad, 2012a, p. 2-2
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.14 Growth Inducement

3.14-3

City of King (King City) General Plan

King City adopted the First Street Corridor Master Plan, in which the city 

contemplated a number of land use changes, including conceptual plans for a 

passenger rail station. Accordingly, the city encourages the return of passenger 

service to King City as it would serve to benefit the community in terms of economic 

opportunities as well as reestablishing the historic downtown area.4As described in 

Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, since publication of the Draft EIS/EIR the City of King has 

adopted draft revised plans for the Multi-Modal Transportation Center – Conceptual 

Design ((MMTC) (2014)). 

San Luis Obispo County General Plan

The San Luis Obispo General Plan includes goals and policies encouraging the use of 

strategic growth principles in development that create a range of housing choices, 

mixed land uses, preserve open space, and focus development in urban areas. 

Strategic growth strategies are to be implemented when planning and reviewing 

new development proposals.5

City of El Paso de Robles (Paso Robles) General Plan

The City of El Paso de Robles General Plan contains policies and action items aimed 

at establishing a safe, balanced, efficient, and multimodal circulation system, 

focusing on the mobility of people, and preserving the city’s character. The 

expansion of Amtrak rail service is encouraged and included as an Action Item 

included within a policy to promote regional, interstate, and intra-state rail service.6

City of San Luis Obispo General Plan

The San Luis Obispo General Plan supports rail transportation as an energy efficient 

travel option. General plan policies support the increased availability of rail service 

for travel within the county, within the state, and among states. Daily train service 

with departures and arrivals in the morning and evening, connecting San Luis 

Obispo with points north and south is also encouraged within the general plan.7

 

4

City of King, 2013, p. 29, p. 82

5

San Luis Obispo County, 2009, 4-4, 4-16

6

City of El Paso de Robles, 2011

7

City of San Luis Obispo, 2006
Coast Corridor

3.14 Growth Inducement Final Program EIS/EIR

3.14-4

3.14.2 METHODS OF EVALUATION

This analysis qualitatively assesses the direct and indirect growth potential of the 

alternatives. The study area for this analysis is mostly focused on areas immediately 

surrounding existing and proposed station areas, as they are the railroad’s 

“interfaces” where growth effects are most likely to be realized. However, other 

areas are also assessed. Please also refer to Section 3.5, Land Use and Planning,

which addresses the potential for community impacts, a closely related 

consideration. 

Direct growth effects are those caused by any alternative occurring at the same 

time and place. Direct growth effects include any permanent jobs directly 

associated with an alternative, as well as any displacement of housing related to the

from construction or operation of the proposed rail facilities project components. 

Indirect growth effects are considered to be reasonably foreseeable effects caused 

by the Build Alternative action alternatives, typically occurring later in time or 

further in distance from the project. These include positive or negative growth in 

population numbers and/or patterns, positive or negative growth in local or regional 

economic vitality, and associated alterations in land use patterns that could occur 

with implementation of the Build Alternative action alternatives. Removal of 

existing obstacles to growth would also be considered indirect growth effects. 

“Removal of obstacles to growth” would include the extension of public services and 

utilities to a previously undeveloped area, where the provision of such services 

could have a foreseeable increase in population and/or economic growth. 

3.14.3 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties have experienced gradual population, 

housing, and employment growth over the past several decades. Local agricultural 

and tourism industries are leading employment sectors in these counties.

The Build Alternative action alternatives propose new passenger stations in the City 

of Soledad and King City and increased passenger rail activity at existing train 

stations in Salinas, Paso Robles, and San Luis Obispo. The stations are the only 

direct “interfaces” between the rail system and people and comprise the most 

realistic engines of growth. Therefore, this analysis focuses primarily on the station 

areas and their surrounding communities.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.14 Growth Inducement

3.14-5

City of Salinas

According to the 2010 US Census, Salinas had a population of 150,498. The Salinas 

General Plan Final Program EIR (2002) projects the population at the time of 

buildout of the General Plan (between 2030 – 2040) to be approximately 213,063 

living in 58,056 housing units, which is an increase of 49 and 48 percent, 

respectively, over existing conditions. Based on development assumptions and 

historic growth rates, it is projected that by 2020, approximately 184,000 people will 

reside in 50,100 dwelling units and that 90,300 employment opportunities will exist 

in the planning area.8

City of Soledad

According to the 2010 US Census, Soledad had a population of 25,738. A year 

earlier, the City’s 2009 Housing Element Update projected the population to 

increase to 33,760 by 2020. The Soledad General Plan EIR build-out scenario 

determined there is potential for the city to grow to 57,000 people by the year 

2040.9 The city further projects a total of 22,000 jobs and 14,000 dwelling units by 

2040.10 A substantial complement of projected growth is associated with the city’s 

Downtown Specific Plan, adopted in 2012. Existing development of the downtown

area includes 437 housing units and 1,722 residents. Buildout of the Downtown 

Specific Plan is expected to yield 570 housing units and 1,828 people by the year 

2032.11 

City of King 

According to the 2010 US Decennial Census, King City had a population of 12,874. 

King City anticipates the total population to increase to 24,726 people by 2035.12 

According to the First Street Master Plan, King City is growing at 4 percent per year, 

and is looking to add an additional 800 homes to the downtown area. Growth 

would encourage an increase manufacturing and service industries. A multi-modal 

transit center is also anticipated to spur commercial and retail developments on the 

First Street Corridor.13

 

8

City of Salinas, 2002b, Population and Housing

9

City of Soledad, 2005b, p. IV-4

10 City of Soledad, 2005b, p. 5.11-5

11 City of Soledad, 2012b, p. 2-62-13

12 City of King City. 2013,. First Street Corridor Master Plan. Pg32

13 King City, 2013, p. 21
Coast Corridor

3.14 Growth Inducement Final Program EIS/EIR

3.14-6

City of El Paso de Robles 

According to the 2010 US Census, the City of Paso Robles population was 29,793 

people. The Paso Robles Land Use Element population planning threshold for future 

development was 44,000 persons.14 This number includes existing dwelling units 

plus all proposed maximum number of potential dwelling units authorized by the 

Land Use Element (with a 2.7 persons per household occupancy rate). Areas for 

housing growth have been identified in both the east and west sides of the city. The

west region includes the city’s historic core and the existing transit center station. 

As of December 2010, capacity for over 6,000 new units was identified for the 

areas.15

City of San Luis Obispo

According to the 2010 US Census, the City of San Luis Obispo population was 45,115 

people. During workdays, the city’s population increases to an estimated 70,000 

persons, accounting for the largest concentration of jobs in the County. From 1992-

2010 the rate of housing production in San Luis Obispo slightly exceeded the rate of 

population growth. Between 1990 and 2008, the city added about 2,700 residents, 

an increase of about seven percent. During the same period, the city’s housing 

stock grew by about 1,400 units, and increase of about eight percent.16 The San Luis 

Obispo Land Use Element anticipates a population of 56,750 people by 2029.17 

3.14.4 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

3.14.4.1 No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative represents the continuation of existing operations and 

physical components, and assumes the perpetuation of existing freight and 

passenger service. The only proposed physical improvement component would be 

the implementation of PTC along the corridor, including modification to signaling 

and communications equipment. These PTC related changes are not expected to 

result in any growth related impacts because they would neither directly nor 

 

14 City of El Paso de Robles, 2012, p. LU-1

15 City of El Paso de Robles, 2011b, 

16 City of San Luis Obispo, 2010, Housing Element

17 City of San Luis Obispo, 2010, pp. 1-23
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.14 Growth Inducement

3.14-7

indirectly lead to any substantial increases in jobs, housing, or other growth-related 

factors at existing or proposed station areas or other locations along the rail 

corridor. 

According to the SDP, freight rail operations are likely to increase from 2 daily 

freight trains today to 4 daily trains in 2020 into 2040. Though not contemplated 

directly in the SDP, the proposed Phillips 66 Company Rail Spur Extension Project 

(pending approval by the County of San Luis Obispo), would, if constructed, allow 

for 5 weekly oil trains that would travel the entirety of the existing Salinas to San 

Luis Obispo rail corridor. 

Implementation of these projects could occur regardless of whether or not any of 

the proposed physical components improvements comprising the Build Alternative

action alternatives are ultimately constructed.

The No Build Alternative may result in regional job growth related to increased 

freight activity, but such growth would likely be negligible insofar as freight trains 

traversing the Salinas to San Luis Obispo corridor typically have start and endpoints 

outside this corridor.

3.14.4.2 Build Alternative

An adverse, direct growth effect would occur if the anticipated growth associated 

with from the Build Alternative would exceed growth projections at local and/or 

regional levels. An adverse indirect growth effect would occur if the Build 

Alternative would involve the removal of obstacles to growth, result in negative 

growth associated with local and/or regional economic vitality, and/or substantial 

positive or negative growth in population numbers or patterns. 

Construction-Period Effects 

Direct Impacts

Implementation of the Build Alternative would result in temporary employment 

opportunities associated with designing and constructing one or more of the

proposed improvements project components. Possible job opportunities include 

contractor, engineer, management professional, and city planning-related positions. 

The anticipated degree of growth such growth of job opportunities is likely 

correlated correlates with the size and complexity of the Build Alternative

components improvement(s) carried forward into design and construction (as well 

as any required environmental mitigation). Moreover, except for direct 

construction positions, many of these job opportunities could be fulfilled outside 

the Salinas to San Luis Obispo corridor area. 
Coast Corridor

3.14 Growth Inducement Final Program EIS/EIR

3.14-8

Some of the curve realignments included in the Build Alternative would require the 

temporary/permanent acquisition and/or conversion of various lands. These 

activities could have growth-related effects if residential lands are involved. 

Conversion of residential lands to a transportation use could have a negative effect 

on growth. 

The Henry/Santa Margarita curve realignment was identified as having the potential 

to could potentially result in the acquisition of residential property if this particular 

component improvement is selected to move forward. In the event that the 

component improvement cannot be designed to avoid take of residential 

properties, minor growth-related effects could occur. Consequently, such effects 

would be considerable for affected property owners. However, Any potential 

acquisition would require compliance with numerous federal and state property 

acquisition regulations. Nevertheless, The area of the Henry/Santa Margarita curve 

realignment is not densely populated and the growth-related impacts would be low. 

Indirect Impacts

Construction of the Build Alternative in essence, is a direct project activity. 

Construction activities associated with the proposed improvements would not occur 

indirectly; therefore, there would not result in any indirect construction growthrelated effects because all of the potential impacts are considered direct effects. 

Operational Effects

Direct Impacts

Direct operational impacts of the Build Alternative are effects that would be directly 

caused by implementation of proposed project improvements components over the 

long-term. 

The Build Alternative proposes reinstitution would reinstitute the Coast Daylight

passenger rail service. The additional service would require several permanent jobs 

to operate and service trains, as well as to manage proposed new and existing 

stations. 

No train service facility is located in the Salinas to San Luis Obispo portion of the 

Coast Corridor, so the potential creation of would be minimal for operations or 

service jobs to be created between Salinas and San Luis Obispo would be minimal. 

The closest maintenance area is in Los Angeles County. Potential new stations could 

introduce employment opportunities in Soledad and King City. Given the 

anticipated train schedule (2 daily trains initially increasing to 4 daily trains by 2040), 

there is little likelihood of substantial low potential for stations to directly affect

employment resulting. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.14 Growth Inducement

3.14-9

In all, the passenger rail aspect of the Build Alternative would result in little direct

employment-related growth effects in the Monterey and San Luis Obispo County 

areas. 

The anticipated direct growth effects around the existing and proposed station 

areas might best be characterized as beneficial or at least community-desired 

effects. Both Soledad and King City have made the proposed stations centerpieces 

of adopted downtown revitalization strategies. Additionally, the Cities of Salinas, 

Paso Robles, and San Luis Obispo have supported intermodal transportation 

development to meet the current and future needs of the community. Therefore, 

the Build Alternative proposed improvements components are consistent with city

goals to increase rail service and expand usage of transportation facilities. None of 

the proposed project components would have a substantial direct impact to growth; 

therefore, no growth inducement would occur under the Build Alternative.

Indirect Impacts

Implementation of the Build Alternative would result in indirect growth related 

effects, particularly in areas surrounding the new proposed stations in Soledad and 

King City, as well as in Salinas, Paso Robles, and San Luis Obispo.

The City of Soledad set forth goals to revitalize its downtown in its 2012 Downtown 

Specific Plan. The Specific Plan identifies a proposed passenger rail station site and 

also encourages opportunities for economic development to spur economic vitality 

in Soledad. Similarly, King City’s First Street Corridor Master Plan includes 

conceptual plans for a proposed passenger rail station. As further described in 

Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, since publication of the Draft EIS/EIR the City of King has 

adopted draft revised plans for the Multi-Modal Transportation Center – Conceptual 

Design ((MMTC) (2014)). Accordingly, these plans have been incorporated into the 

Preferred Alternative and discussed in Section 3.14.4.3 below.

New passenger stations and increased service and the Coast Daylight Starlight

service throughout the corridor would attract additional passengers and potentially 

attract development in and around all station areas. As a result, the Build 

Alternative could indirectly result in increased economic activity around both 

existing and proposed new station areas. Increased economic activity in these areas 

may indirectly influence population growth, development patterns, and tourism in

the nearby area. 
Coast Corridor

3.14 Growth Inducement Final Program EIS/EIR

3.14-10

3.14.4.3 Preferred Alternative

The Preferred Alternative would include the same service as the Build Alternative 

and would retain all corridor-wide and almost all of the location-specific physical 

components. The only differences are that the Preferred Alternative incorporates 

revised draft plans for the King City station (includes a modified footprint for the 

King City siding extension, and would exclude each of the four curve realignments 

within San Luis Obispo County. Additionally, the Preferred Alternative explicitly 

includes the aforementioned 27 mile “island” of CTC between MP 202 and 229 

(McKay to Santa Margarita). 

Accordingly, effects to growth inducement for the Preferred Alternative would be 

the same as the Build Alternative except where the modified or excluded

components are located. The discussions below assess traffic and travel effects of

modified or excluded components. 

Construction-Period Effects 

Under the Preferred Alternative, construction activities would be similar to those 

described under the Build Alternative. Proposed curve realignments in San Luis 

Obispo County are excluded from the Preferred Alternative. Some of these curve 

realignments considered in the Build Alternative would have required the 

temporary/permanent acquisition and/or conversion of various lands. As described,

these activities could have growth impacts to the effected residential properties. 

Conversion of residential lands to a transportation use could have a negative effect 

on growth. Accordingly, construction-period growth effects would be expected to 

be lower for the Preferred Alternative than the Build Alternative. 

Operational Effects

In the Preferred Alternative, Coast Daylight service would operate in the same 

capacity as in the Build Alternative and would have the same potential to induce 

planned, beneficial growth as the Build Alternative. None of the modified or 

excluded components would have a substantial impact to growth; therefore, no 

new growth inducement would occur with the Preferred Alternative.

3.14.5 AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION 

STRATEGIES

The individual improvements comprising the Build Alternative should be designed to 

minimize direct and indirect adverse growth related effects along the Corridor. As 

noted above, the extent of adverse growth-related effects would be limited to any 

required acquisition and permanent conversion of residential lands into 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.14 Growth Inducement

3.14-11

transportation uses. As components of the Build Alternative move forward into 

design, avoidance/or minimization of such acquisitions should be an important 

consideration. 

The following strategy has been identified at this preliminary stage to avoid, 

minimize, and/or mitigate any potentially significant impacts.

The individual components should be designed to minimize direct and indirect 

adverse growth effects along the Corridor. The measure listed below is applicable 

to the Build and Preferred Alternatives and has been identified at this preliminary 

stage to avoid, minimize, and/or mitigate any potentially significant impacts. The 

identification and implementation of specific mitigation measures necessary for 

each project component will occur as part of subsequent project-level 

environmental review. 

MIN-GR-1. New station development would be coordinated early in project-level

reviews with local jurisdictions. This would ensure that land use plans and controls 

can be revised and implemented in conjunction with any new station development.

3.14.6 SUBSEQUENT ANALYSIS

Prior to implementing any individual improvements components of the Build 

Alternative action alternatives, site specific evaluation would should be conducted

for the need for property acquisition, including the potential for displacement of 

homes or businesses or substantial conflict with locally adopted land use policies. 

Any homes or businesses with the potential for displacement could will be studied 

through a relocation impact analysis. Additional environmental assessment and 

design development to determine alignment options during future studies will 

ensure a more precise evaluation of site-specific impacts and mitigation 

effectiveness.
Coast Corridor

3.14 Growth Inducement Final Program EIS/EIR

3.14-12

Page intentionally left blank
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation

3.15-1

3.15 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS EVALUATION

This section evaluates the potential for the Build Alternative action alternatives, in 

combination with other past, present and future reasonably foreseeable projects, to 

result in or contribute to cumulative environmental effects. A cumulative impact 

includes the total effect on a natural resource, ecosystem, or human community 

that is attributable to past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future 

activities/actions of federal, nonfederal, public, or private entities. Cumulative 

impacts may also include the effects of natural processes and events, depending on 

the specific resource in question. Cumulative impacts include the total of all 

impacts on a particular resource that have occurred, are occurring, and will likely 

occur as a result of any action or influence, including the direct and indirect effects 

of a federal activity. Accordingly, there may be different levels of cumulative 

impacts on different environmental resources. 

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

Program EIS/EIR and provides responses to each comment. Of all the comments 

received, there were several reference issues pertinent to the cumulative analysis. 

Responses to each comment are provided in Chapter 5.0; this section includes 

analysis of the Preferred Alternative that responds to several of these comments. 

3.15.1 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS

Federal

Under NEPA, a cumulative impact on the environment results from the incremental 

impact of an action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 

future actions, regardless of what agency (federal or nonfederal) or person 

undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts may result from individually 

minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 

State

Under CEQA, cumulative impacts are defined as two or more individual effects, 

which, when considered together, are considerable or that compound or increase 

other environmental impacts. The cumulative impact from several projects is the 

change in the environment that results from the incremental impact of the project 

when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable 
Coast Corridor

3.15 Cumulative Impacts Final Program EIS/EIR

3.15-2

probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but 

collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time (CEQA Guidelines 

Section 15355).

Consistent with Section 15130(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, the discussion of 

cumulative impacts in this program-level Program EIS/EIR focuses on significant and 

potentially significant cumulative impacts. Per Section 15130(b) of the CEQA 

Guidelines: 

“The discussion of cumulative impacts shall reflect the severity of the 

impacts and their likelihood of occurrence, but the discussion need not 

provide as great a detail as provided for the effects attributable to the 

project alone. The discussion should be guided by the standards of 

practicality and reasonableness, and should focus on the cumulative impact 

to which the identified other projects contribute rather than the attributes 

of other projects which do not contribute to the cumulative impact.”

A project’s contribution to a cumulative impact may be considered less than 

significant if it is implementing a plan or program designed to avoid the cumulative 

impact or if it will implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure designed 

to alleviate the cumulative impact. 

3.15.1.1 Methods of Evaluation

The cumulative analysis describes the potential for the alternatives, in combination 

with related past, present and future projects, to result in cumulatively adverse 

environmental effects. Each analysis considers the area of cumulative analysis and 

identifies the relevant past, present, and future related to the potential cumulative 

impact. The evaluation identified whether the cumulative impact would be 

substantial and whether the contribution from a project alternative to a substantial 

cumulative impact would be considerable. 

Past, Present, and Foreseeable Actions and Projects 

Considered in the Cumulative Analysis

Between Salinas and San Luis Obispo, the areas of the Coast Corridor and US 101 

have served as important north-south routes for people and vehicles for more than 

two centuries. The relatively narrow and flat Salinas Valley facilitated the growth of 

El Camino Real dating back to the Mission Period in the late 18th century. Much of 

this historic route is now incorporated into either US 101 or nearby adjacent streets. 

The Coast Corridor railroad is located in generally close proximity to US 101 for 

much of its length, particularly between Salinas and Soledad. Railroads have 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation

3.15-3

operated along most of the Salinas Valley since the late 19th century. A continuous 

rail route from San Francisco to Los Angeles was completed just before the turn of 

the 20th century.1

This cumulative impacts discussion takes into account this past history, the 

proposed action, and other reasonably foreseeable future actions and projects. 

Given the programmatic nature of this analysis, the future foreseeable actions have 

been drawn from two main categories - land development and transportation 

projects. 

Land development projects are likely to occur in and near the communities along 

the railroad. For the purposes of evaluating land development in the corridor 

between Salinas and San Luis Obispo, this analysis draws on the environmental 

reviews of the respective county General Plans (Monterey and San Luis Obispo) and, 

where more fine-grained analysis is appropriate, environmental reviews of locally 

adopted plans. 

In addition, this analysis takes into account planned and programmed 

transportation improvement projects in the vicinity of the existing Coast Corridor 

rail alignment, US 101, and major local roadways. Therefore, proposed projects 

near US 101 are relevant to assess cumulative impacts for this program-level 

environmental document. These projects were obtained by review of federal and 

regional transportation improvement plans for Monterey and San Luis Obispo 

Counties. 

Table 3.15-1 below summarizes the list of nearby projects assessed in this 

cumulative analysis. Since publication of the Draft Program EIS/EIR, one project has 

been added to the list of nearby projects included in the cumulative analysis. 

It should also be noted that additional information has become available for one 

cumulative project, the Phillips 66 Rail Spur Extension Project. In November 2014, 

the County of San Luis Obispo published a recirculated Draft EIR for this project. 

Accordingly, the cumulative analysis in Section 3.15.2 below includes updated 

information drawn from the recirculated Draft EIR for the Phillips 66 project.

 

1

Ryan and Breschini, 2010
Coast Corridor

3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation Final Program EIS/EIR

3.15-4

Table 3.15-1 Planned and Programmed Transportation Improvements, Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties

ID Number Project Title Project Description Project Location

Related Regional Projects

NA California High-Speed Rail Construct a high-speed rail system running from San 

Francisco to Los Angeles/Anaheim via the Central 

Valley, and later to Sacramento and San Diego

San Francisco/Sacramento to Los 

Angeles/San Diego

NA Phillips 66 Company Rail Spur 

Extension (Phillips 66) Project

Philips 66 proposes to modify the existing rail spur 

currently on the southwest side of the Santa Maria 

Refinery (SMR). The proposal would add up to 5 

weekly trains that would likely from Utah, North 

Dakota, and/or Canada (based on market economics 

and other factors), entering the Coast Corridor 

somewhere from the north (likely Gilroy) and then 

arriving at the SMR. 

Nipomo (San Luis Obispo County)

Monterey County

NA Downtown Addition Specific Plan, 

City of King

Adopted specific plan for a 110 acre area immediately 

adjacent to proposed City of King passenger station 

calling for up to 650 housing units and over 190,000 

square feet of retail development

Immediately adjacent to proposed 

City of King passenger station site 

on east side of railroad, downtown 

City of King

CT014 US 101 - Airport Blvd. I/C East Reconstruct interchange on the eastern portion of US 

101/Airport Boulevard

US 101 at Airport Boulevard in 

Salinas

CT017 US 101 Improvements through 

Salinas 

Analyze Salinas General Plan buildout traffic along the 

US 101 corridor through Salinas, determine mainline 

improvements to address long term needs and 

construct improvements.

Between Russell/Espinosa Road 

and Harris Road in Salinas
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation

3.15-5

ID Number Project Title Project Description Project Location

CT018 US 101 - Harris Road/Eastside 

Connector 

Construct new Interchange on US 101 at Harris Road 

and construct 4 lane connector between Harris Road 

and Williams Road.

From US 101 at Harris Road to 

Williams Road in Salinas.

CT019 US 101 - South County Frontage 

Roads

Construct Frontage Roads from Harris Road to Chualar, 

then to Soledad

US 101 between Harris 

Road/Abbott Street (Salinas) and 

Soledad

GON008 Alta Street Widen and reconstruct roadway From Gonzales city limits to US 101 

interchange – approx. 2 miles

GON012 US 101 5th St Bridge Widening Widen 5th Street over US 101 US 101 at 5th Street, Gonzales

GON013 US 101/Gloria Road Interchange Reconstruct US 101/Gloria Rd Interchange US 101 at Gloria Rd., Gonzales

GRN019 US 101 – Walnut Avenue 

Interchange 

Relocate and replace existing US 101/Walnut Avenue 

Interchange

US 101 at Walnut Avenue, 

Greenfield

GRN023 Pine Avenue Overcrossing at 101 Construct new bridge over US 101 to improve E-W 

traffic flow

US 101 at Pine Avenue, Greenfield

KCY013 US 101 – First street interchange Extend San Antonio over railroad tracks from lone oak 

to US 101/First street interchange

King City

SNS045 Airport Boulevard Improvements Widen Airport Blvd. from Elks Lodge to US 101 and 

extend bike lanes

Airport Blvd. from Elks Lodge to US 

101, Salinas

SNS084 Salinas Intermodal Transportation 

Center Station Improvements

Upgrades to passenger service terminal and freight 

buildings

Salinas train station

SOL023 US 101 North Soledad 

Interchange 

Modify North Soledad interchange on US 101 and 

construct ramp improvements

US 101 and Front Street (Moranda 

Road), Soledad

SOL024 US 101 South Interchange Modify South Soledad interchange on US 101 and 

construct ramp improvements

US 101 and Front Street (Santa 

Lucia Drive) , Soledad
Coast Corridor

3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation Final Program EIS/EIR

3.15-6

ID Number Project Title Project Description Project Location

SOL025 US 101 – Camphoria Interchange Install new interchange at Camphoria-Gloria Road US 101 and Camphoria Gloria 

Road, Soledad

SOL026 SR 146- Bypass to US 101 Construct a new road from SR 146/Metz Road at City 

Limits to Los Coches Drive, to South US 101 

interchange

City of Soledad

SOL036 Camphoria Gloria Road Construct to 4 lanes From US 101 to Orchard Lane 

Extension, Soledad

SOL044 Frontage Road Construct to 4 lanes From Front Street to Camphoria

Gloria Road, Soledad

TAM018 Rail Capital Improvements Includes station, platform, rail yard, track and parking 

improvements for the rail extension to Salinas project

Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and 

Monterey Counties

TAM007 Rail Operations Operating costs to run two round trips per day 

between Gilroy and Salinas

Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, San Benito, 

and Monterey Counties

San Luis Obispo County

22300000243 Cuesta Grade to Santa Margarita 

Median Barrier 

In SLO County, collision reduction project to install 

concrete median barrier and improve the intersection 

at Tassajara Creek Road to improve traffic safety and 

reduce cross median collisions.

US 101

22300000297 North Cuesta Grade Wildlife 

Fencing Project

On Route 101 From 0.1 mile south of the Cuesta Grade 

0verhead to 1.5 miles north of the Santa Margarita 

Creek Bridge and on Highway 58 from the Route 

101/58 Separation to 0.9 miles east of the Route 

101/58 Separation, to install black vinyl clad chain link 

fencing for routing of wildlife to safe under highway 

culvert crossings for enhancing wildlife connectivity 

and reduce collisions.

US 101
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation

3.15-7

ID Number Project Title Project Description Project Location

22300000302 Paso Robles Median Barrier Near Paso Robles, from South Paso Robles Overhead to 

Route 46; construct concrete median barrier. 

US 101

22300000303 Cuesta Grade North Retaining 

Wall

Near San Luis Obispo, from 3.4 to 3.7 miles south of 

Route 58; construct retaining wall. US 101

22300000331 101 Pavement Rehabilitation near 

Atascadero

In San Luis Obispo County, near Atascadero, 

rehabilitate 18.4 lane miles of pavement, dig out and 

repair areas of failure, seal cracks larger than 0.02 ft., 

and overlay existing pavement with 0.20 ft.

conventional Asphalt Concrete (AC) along US 101 from 

north of Traffic Way UC to Vineyard Drive OC.

US 101

22300000340 North County Shoulder 

Improvements 

Remove and replace shoulders from San Marcos Creek 

Bridge to San Luis Obispo/Monterey County lines. US 101

22300000342 North Paso Robles Rehab 

In San Luis Obispo county, in and near San Miguel, 

from San Marcos Creek Bridge to the Monterey County 

line, also in Monterey County (PM 0 - 1.9); pavement 

rehabilitation.

US 101

22300000438

US 101 Collision Reduction at 

Various Locations

In and near the city of San Luis Obispo, from Santa 

Maria River Bridge to Cuesta overhead at various 

locations; construct roadside paving, access gates, 

weed barriers and relocate facilities. US 101

22300000439

US 101 Collision Reduction at 

Various Locations (North County)

In and near Atascadero, from Cuesta overhead to 

South Camp Roberts overhead, at various locations, 

construct roadside paving, access gates, weed barriers 

and relocate facilities. US 101

22300000440 US 101 Roadway Preservation 

In the city of San Luis Obispo, from San Luis Obispo 

Creek Bridge to 0.3 miles south of Santa Fe Bridge 

undercrossing, rehabilitate pavement. US 101
Coast Corridor

3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation Final Program EIS/EIR

3.15-8

ID Number Project Title Project Description Project Location

22300000443

Tassajara Median Barrier 

Landscape Mitigation 

In SLO County near Santa Margarita from 0.8 miles 

south to 0.7 miles north of Tassajara creek road; 

landscape mitigation. US 101

22300000522

US 101 Highway Planting 

Rehabilitation 

In SLO County, replace irrigation pressure and lateral 

supply lines, repair booster pump and motor covers 

and install appropriate replacement plantings on Route 

101 at various locations from 0.2 mile south of Tefft 

Street Overcrossing to 0.2 mile north of Avila Road 

Overcrossing. US 101

22300000523

US101/SR58 Off ramp 

reconfiguration 

In SLO County, near Santa Margarita, reconfigure 

Route 101 southbound off-ramp to Route 58 to abate 

illegal left-turn movements at Route 101 southbound 

off-ramp terminus. US 101

Sources: Transportation Agency for Monterey County, 2010; SLOCOG, 2013
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation

3.15-9

3.15.2 CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS

The cumulative impacts analysis follows the same order of environmental topics as 

Chapter 3.0, Affected Environment. 

In considering cumulative effects at the program level, there is no substantial 

difference between the Build and Preferred Alternatives and, unless otherwise 

noted, for purposes of analysis the past and future projects are the same. In 

general, the Preferred Alternative would result in fewer/lesser impacts than the 

Build Alternative in the areas where components have been modified or excluded. 

For the purposes of this analysis, the following discussions summarize the effects of 

the action alternatives as equally applicable to both the Build and Preferred 

Alternatives unless otherwise noted. 

The No Build Alternative is mentioned only when there are potential cumulative 

impacts that could result from not proceeding with either action alternative the 

Build Alternative. Where the No Build Alternative would not result in impacts by 

2020, or where the existing conditions would not change (or future conditions were 

considered too speculative to predict), the No Build Alternative is not addressed

3.15.2.1 Traffic and Travel

Area of Cumulative Analysis: The area of cumulative analysis for effects related to

on traffic and travel include the US 101 corridor, the existing Coast Corridor railroad,

roadways around existing and proposed train stations, and other major roadways 

between San Luis Obispo and Salinas. 

Summary of Build Alternative Action Alternative Impacts: The Build Alternative 

traffic and travel analysis determined that Construction of many of the proposed 

physical improvements components would have potential to temporarily disrupt 

freight and passenger rail; but these effects would be temporary limited to active 

construction periods. Based on the analysis included in the SDP, the railroad 

between Salinas and San Luis Obispo can accommodate projected future levels of 

both freight and passenger traffic without significant disruption of on-time service. 

Near existing and proposed passenger station areas, automobile traffic is 

anticipated to increase with the introduction of proposed Coast Daylight passenger 

rail service near existing passenger stations in Salinas, Paso Robles, and San Luis 

Obispo, and at proposed stations in Soledad and King City. Despite these localized 

effects, increased passenger rail ridership is anticipated to result in small reductions 

in vehicle miles traveled/automobile traffic on US 101. 
Coast Corridor

3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation Final Program EIS/EIR

3.15-10

Present and Future Projects: Present and future projects that could affect traffic 

and travel include transportation and land development projects in Monterey and 

San Luis Obispo counties, including the Phillips 66 Project and the City of King’s 

Downtown Addition Specific Plan, each of which are discussed in more detail below. 

Potential for Cumulative Effects: The Build Alternative action alternatives, when

combined with other transportation and land use development projects, may result 

in increased traffic levels near existing and proposed station areas that could 

worsen level of service at key intersections and thus cumulatively affect traffic in 

these locations. The potential for cumulative traffic impacts effects is considered 

below for land development projects, roadway transportation projects, and rail 

transportation projects. It should be noted that recommended mitigation and 

avoidance strategies outlined in Section 3.1, Traffic and Travel of this Final Program 

EIS/EIR would be incorporated in future development of any particular component 

of the action alternatives Build Alternative to lessen any traffic or travel impacts. 

Similarly, the construction and operation of anticipated transportation and land 

development projects would likely be required to abide by similar environmental 

review processes as the Build Alternative action alternatives and would be expected 

to incorporate similar mitigation measures regarding traffic and travel. Therefore, 

the Build Alternative would not contribute considerably to any cumulative impact 

related to traffic/transportation.

Land Use Projects: In particular, The City of Soledad identified cumulative traffic 

impacts regarding from new traffic in the downtown area generated as part of its 

Downtown Master Plan. This cumulative impact was based on the entire program 

of land development, one component of which was a rail passenger station and 

passenger train service identical to those elements of the action alternatives Build 

Alternative considered here. The action alternatives Build Alternative would not 

result in any new, not previously disclosed cumulative impact in the Soledad station 

area. However, buildout of the Downtown Master Plan (including the new 

passenger station and additional service) would result in a cumulative traffic impact 

Similarly, the City of King concluded that a cumulative traffic impact would result 

from implementation of the Downtown Addition Specific Plan. The Downtown 

Addition Specific Plan emphasizes residential and commercial uses that are intended 

to capitalize on its adjacency to the proposed City of King rail passenger station. In 

its EIR for the Downtown Addition Specific Plan (2008), the City of King concluded 

that buildout of the Downtown Addition area would result in a cumulative traffic 

impact at the intersection of Broadway Circle and the US 101 NB ramp (located 

approximately 1 mile west of the proposed City of King passenger station). 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation

3.15-11

Additionally, as described in Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, since publication of the Draft 

EIS/EIR the City of King has adopted draft revised plans for the Multi-Modal 

Transportation Center – Conceptual Design ((MMTC) (2014)).

The action alternatives are focused on making rail system improvements. The 

Soledad and City of King land use projects were based in part of a presumption of 

passenger rail expansion and related rail system improvements. The key land use 

components of the action alternatives are the new station areas in Soledad and the 

City of King. Both cities identified potential cumulative effects on traffic resulting 

from buildout of respective downtown plans. The action alternatives -- assuming 

they incorporate expanded passenger rail service with stops in these cities -- would 

not be adding any intensity or density to these projects beyond that which has been 

previously analyzed at conceptual levels. Therefore, the action alternatives would 

not contribute considerably to any cumulative land development impact. 

Roadway Transportation Projects: Other roadway projects in the vicinity entail 

operational- and safety-related improvements to US 101 and other major roadways. 

While construction may include impacts such as temporary detours and lane 

closures, most of the construction work would occur within or immediately adjacent 

to the roadway. Once these improvements are implemented, they would be 

consistent with existing roadway use. Therefore, the action alternatives Build 

Alternative combined with other transportation projects in the Central Coast region

would not cumulatively affect traffic or travel in the study area. 

Rail Transportation Projects: Phillips 66 proposes to modify has proposed to 

improve and make operational the existing rail spur to its Santa Maria refinery 

(SMR) near the community of Nipomo to allow accommodate up to five weekly 

trains delivering crude oil. It is anticipated that some of the oil trains would travel 

from points north and east, entering the Coast Corridor at San José and traveling 

south to the SMR. However, oil trains could also arrive at the SMR via a southern 

route that would not use any portion of the Coast Corridor between Salinas and San 

Luis Obispo. 

It is expected that the majority of the trains would travel south on the Coast 

Corridor to the SMR, likely entering the corridor at San Jose. All but one existing 

siding (Templeton) are of sufficient length to accommodate the proposed Phillips 66 

trains. A draft EIR for the Phillips 66 project did not identify any substantial impacts 

to on-time train performance and did not identify any need for any new physical rail 

facilities necessary in the Salinas to San Luis Obispo area. The additional freight 

traffic associated with the Phillips 66 proposal is consistent with anticipated longterm increases in freight traffic as considered in the Coast Corridor SDP. Given that 

the Build Alternative would improve elements of the existing rail infrastructure, and 
Coast Corridor

3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation Final Program EIS/EIR

3.15-12

would likely create and increase the length of multiple sidings, potentially including 

the Templeton Siding, the Build Alternative combined with the Phillips 66 Project 

and other potential increases in freight rail using the corridor, would not result in a 

cumulative impact.

The recirculated Draft EIR noted that three of the existing rail sidings between 

Salinas and San Luis Obispo (Bradley, McKay, and Templeton) are currently too short 

to accommodate the anticipated length of proposed oil trains. The action 

alternatives would extend the length of two of these insufficient sidings (Bradley 

and Templeton) such that oil trains could be accommodated. The recirculated Draft 

EIR concludes that there would be no cumulative rail traffic effect, the conclusion 

based in part on the SDP’s analysis of future freight traffic on the Coast Corridor. 

Notwithstanding the lack of a cumulative or even project-level rail effect, the Draft 

EIR includes a mitigation measure calling for the project applicant (Phillips 66) to 

coordinate with UPRR in the scheduling of oil trains to minimize potential 

interference with all passenger trains on the Coast Corridor (existing Coast Starlight 

and Surfliner trains and prospective Coast Daylight). 

Accordingly, since the action alternatives are intended to allow for expansion of 

passenger rail without disruption to existing or projected levels of freight traffic and 

the Phillips 66 project recirculated Draft EIR includes mitigation to coordinate with 

UPRR to reduce passenger rail conflicts, no cumulative effect regarding rail traffic

would result.

3.15.2.2 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Area of Cumulative Analysis: The area of cumulative analysis for effects to air 

quality and GHG emissions includes the North Central Coast and San Luis Obispo 

County Air Basins.

Summary of Build Alternative Action Alternative Impacts: The action alternatives

would be constructed in two different air basins that are in attainment for most 

criteria pollutants, but are both subject to substantial emissions from previously 

developed roadway and railroad systems. The Build Alternative action alternatives

would potentially result in new air quality and GHG emissions from construction of 

any or all of the physical components improvements and from increased train

operations (locomotive emissions). These emissions would be somewhat lower for 

the Preferred Alternative compared to the Build Alternative because it would 

exclude four curve realignment areas in San Luis Obispo County. However, the Build 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation

3.15-13

Alternative both action alternatives would potentially offset some of these 

emissions over time as increased rail passenger ridership associated with on the 

Coast Daylight would result in small reductions in regional air pollutant emissions

and GHGs. 

Present and Future Projects: Present and future projects that could affect air 

quality include other land development and transportation projects within the 

cumulative analysis area (the respective air basins), the construction or operation of 

which would result in increased regional emissions. 

Potential for Cumulative Effects: With regard to regional effects, neither County 

concluded that General Plan buildout would result in cumulative air quality or GHG

emissions impacts. 

In the EIR for its Downtown Specific Plan, the City of Soledad concluded that specific 

plan buildout (which included -- but was not limited to -- the proposed passenger 

station and reinstitution of railroad passenger service) would contribute 

considerably to a cumulative adverse impact on regional air quality. Because this 

previously identified cumulative impact is directly related to proposed station area 

and railroad service included as part of the Build Alternative action alternatives, the 

action alternatives would not contribute any further to this cumulative impact. 

The recirculated Draft EIR for the Phillips 66 project concluded that operations of 

new oil trains accessing the Santa Maria Refinery would result in cumulatively 

considerable emissions of NOX and GHGs. As described in Section 3.2, the action 

alternatives would result in reduced regional VMT and would decrease regional 

emissions of air pollutants. 

Overall, the Build Alternative action alternatives, when combined with planned and 

programmed transportation improvement projects, may affect air quality and GHG

emissions in the two counties and the larger region over time. The planned and 

programmed transportation improvements are heavily focused on capacity 

optimizations of existing roadways in the project vicinity. No widening or other 

physical expansion of US 101 is planned, although some local streets in the vicinity 

of US 101 are planned to be widened or expanded. Operations of improved 

roadways could result in an increase in VMT and correlating increases in vehicle 

emissions. 

Construction of these transportation improvements as well as of and anticipated

land development projects would entail one-time, construction-period emissions of 

air pollutants and GHGs. Project-specific environmental reviews of these 

components improvements would likely incorporate conditions of approval and/or 

mitigation measures intended to limit construction-related period emissions. 

Therefore, there would not likely be a cumulative impact related to construction
Coast Corridor

3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation Final Program EIS/EIR

3.15-14

emissions. Operations of improved roadways could result in an increase in vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT) and related increases in vehicle emissions. 

As noted above, the Build Alternative presents some action alternatives are likely to 

result in some small potential reductions in emissions of air pollutants and GHGs

through an expected mode shift from automobile to passenger rail. Passenger rail 

has considerably lower GHG emissions per passenger mile than other modes, 

including aircraft, passenger cars and light-duty trucks. 

Recommended mitigation and avoidance strategies outlined in Section 3.2, Air 

Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions, would be incorporated in future design and 

environmental documentation of any particular component of the Build Alternative

action alternatives moved forward for construction. Similarly, the construction and 

operation of anticipated transportation and land development projects would likely 

be required to abide by similar environmental review processes as the Build 

Alternative action alternatives and would be expected to incorporate similar 

mitigation measures for air quality and GHG emissions.

Therefore, the Build Alternative action alternatives would not contribute 

considerably to any cumulative impact related to air quality or GHG emissions. 

3.15.2.3 Noise and Vibration

Area of Cumulative Analysis: The area for cumulative analysis includes 

approximately a 1⁄4-mile radius from individual components of the Build Alternative

action alternatives. This area is based on the extent to which potentially significant 

noise and vibration can travel from the existing railroad and proposed physical

improvements components. 

Summary of Build Alternative Action Alternative Impacts: Existing roadways and 

railways are major contributors to ambient noise and vibration levels. Generally, 

noise will continue to grow as population increases and use of these existing 

highways and railroads increases. The Coast Corridor study area travels through 

many agricultural areas with low population density as well as urban and developed 

areas action alternatives would increase noise and vibration levels to sensitive

receptors in these areas, owing to expanded passenger rail service and physical 

improvements particularly when trains sound their horns, travel at faster speeds, or 

where the tracks are realigned closer to residential areas. The Build and Preferred 

Alternatives differ notably in the potential to result in noise on nearby sensitive 

receptors. The Preferred Alternative excludes four curve realignments in populated 

areas of San Luis Obispo County; the Draft Program EIS/EIR concluded the potential 

for these curve realignments to result in potential noise effects. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation

3.15-15

Present and Future Projects: Present and future projects that have noise and 

vibration impacts include other land development and transportation projects 

within the cumulative analysis area, where the construction or operation of which 

would result in increased noise and vibration. The City of King’s Downtown Addition

Specific Plan noted the potential for a cumulative effect to result from automobile 

traffic noise along San Antonio Drive approximately 1/2-mile north of the proposed 

passenger station. Given this distance, the action alternatives would be unlikely to 

contribute considerably to this cumulative effect. 

Potential for Cumulative Effects: A substantial portion of the existing railroad 

alignment between Salinas and San Luis Obispo is located within 1⁄4 mile of US 101, 

so rail and traffic noise can combine to result in cumulative effects. 

Similar to the Build Alternative as a whole components of the action alternatives, 

proposed transportation improvements, and planned land development projects 

would be phased in over time. Construction noise associated with any Build 

Alternative action alternative components selected for implementation along with

noise associated with the construction of transportation improvements and land 

development projects would be unlikely to combine into cumulatively significant 

impacts. 

In terms of operational impacts, the proposed transportation improvements would 

likely facilitate higher traffic volumes and would result in higher noise levels at 

locations in close proximity to US 101. Where these improvements are in close 

proximity to both the railroad/proposed improvements and sensitive receptors, 

there is the potential for railroad and highway noise to combine into a cumulatively 

significant impact. 

The Build Alternative’s action alternatives’ major noise contribution would be the 

noise associated with passing trains - 2 per day in the opening year and up to 4 per 

day in the horizon year of 2040. From any point along the railroad, train passings 

would be relatively short duration events - about 1 minute per train, or up to 4 

minutes per day. If constructed, the Phillips 66 project could add 5 weekly oil trains 

(of about 80 cars in length) to the portion of the Coast Corridor between Salinas and 

San Luis Obispo. These passings would be longer than those of shorter passenger 

trains, but were not found to result in cumulative noise effects per the recirculated 

Draft EIR. In contrast, roadway transportation noises increases would likely occur 

for much longer durations - potentially several hours. Given the short duration of 

passing trains and associated noise, the Build Alternative’s action alternatives’

contribution would likely not be cumulatively considerable. 
Coast Corridor

3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation Final Program EIS/EIR

3.15-16

Similarly, train activity at the existing and proposed stations would result in changes 

in the noise and vibration environment at these locations. However, trains would 

be traveling at relatively low speeds in and out of the station areas for relatively 

few, short durations and would thus be unlikely to result in any cumulatively 

significant effect. 

Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures consistent with the strategies 

outlined in Section 3.3, Noise and Vibration would likely be incorporated in future 

development of any particular component of the Build Alternatives action

alternatives to lessen any noise or vibration-related impacts. Similarly, the 

construction and operation of anticipated transportation and land development 

projects would likely be required to subject to CEQA and/or NEPA environmental 

review and would thus be expected to incorporate feasible measures to avoid or 

lessen any identified noise and vibration impacts. 

Therefore, the Build Alternative action alternatives would not contribute 

considerably to any cumulative impact related to noise or vibration. 

3.15.2.4 Energy

Area of Cumulative Analysis: The area of analysis for energy cumulative effects 

includes Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties and the Central California region as 

a whole. 

Summary of Build Alternative Action Alternative Impacts: The Build Alternative 

action alternatives would result in construction energy usage for the manufacture of 

materials and the use of heavy equipment, construction worker travel to and from 

active work sites, and potential construction-related detours. The Build Alternative

action alternatives would also include expansion of passenger rail service, which 

would require energy resources (petroleum products) for locomotive power. 

Present and Future Projects: Present and future projects that could have energy 

impacts include any other development projects within the cumulative analysis 

area, where the construction or operation of which would result in the consumption 

of energy.

Potential for Cumulative Effects: The Build Alternative action alternatives, along 

with existing and anticipated transportation and land development projects would 

result in the consumption of energy resources. 

Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties have planned and programmed several 

transportation improvement projects that would require energy resources for 

construction and would facilitate increased operational energy consumption 

through increased road VMT. Planned land use development projects would 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation

3.15-17

require energy resources during both construction and operation. Together, the 

Build Alternatives action alternatives with other transportation and land use 

development projects could constitute significant cumulative energy impacts. 

However, the Build Alternative action alternatives would ultimately reduce

transportation energy consumption by increasing passenger ridership and by 

increasing the efficiency of the existing railroad operations. 

Recommended mitigation and avoidance strategies outlined in Section 3.4, Energy

would be incorporated in the design and development of any particular component 

of the Build Alternative action alternatives to lessen any energy consumption 

impacts. Similarly, the construction and operation of anticipated transportation and 

land development projects would likely be required to abide by similar 

environmental review processes as the action alternatives and would thus be 

expected to incorporate similar mitigation measures.

Therefore, the Build Alternative action alternatives would not contribute 

considerably to any cumulative impact related to energy usage. 

3.15.2.5 Land Use and Planning

Area of Cumulative Analysis: The area of cumulative analysis for effects to land use

and planning includes Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties, particularly the 

communities in proximity to the existing railroad and the Build Alternative action

alternatives (including Salinas, Chualar, Gonzales, Soledad, Greenfield, King City, San 

Ardo, Bradley, San Miguel, Paso Robles, Atascadero, Templeton, Santa Margarita, 

and San Luis Obispo). 

Summary of Build Alternative Action Alternative Impacts: Land use patterns along 

the Salinas to San Luis Obispo portion of the railroad have been generally stable for 

several decades. Development has largely been focused within established 

communities. With a few notable exceptions, outside existing communities, lands 

are generally in agricultural/viticultural use, institutional use, or open space. 

Construction activities could result in temporary land use impacts and could include 

road closures and traffic detours, which could in turn disrupt access to public 

facilities, emergency vehicle access, and pose potential physical barriers to 

communities and business districts.

All curve realignments, as well as several sidings and extensions, would require 

acquisition of lands outside the existing railroad ROW and the conversion of these 

lands to railroad use. Acquisition of adjacent agricultural, residential, and open 

space lands would result in an incompatible land use, and could result in 

environmental justice impacts.
Coast Corridor

3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation Final Program EIS/EIR

3.15-18

Present and Future Projects: Present and future projects that could affect land use 

and planning include transportation and land development projects in Monterey 

and San Luis Obispo counties.

Potential for Cumulative Effects: The Build Alternative action alternatives, in 

combination with related transportation and land development projects could 

contribute to cumulative impacts to land use, communities, property, and 

environmental justice. 

In terms of land use compatibility, the Build Alternative action alternatives would 

help foster planned development around proposed station areas in Soledad and 

King City. Increased passenger rail service could also help reinforce the visitorserving land uses patterns around existing train stations in Salinas and Paso Robles. 

The San Luis Obispo station area is primarily residential in character, but also 

includes some visitor-serving mixed-use development along Osos Street, which 

could be reinforced by the Build Alternative the increased passenger rail activity 

that the action alternatives would introduce. Therefore, within established 

communities, the action alternatives Build Alternative would have complementary 

and beneficial effects to land use compatibility. 

Outside of established communities, curve realignments and siding improvements

could result in the permanent conversion of lands from agricultural, residential, or 

open space uses into transportation use. Some siding improvements and the bulk 

of other physical components improvements would be constructed immediately 

along the existing rail line or within the railroad ROW. 

In contrast, planned land development and transportation projects are less likely to 

result in land use conversions. Land development projects face generally welldefined urban growth boundaries and/or local limitations on the conversion of 

agricultural lands. Planned transportation improvements primarily involve 

operational enhancements that would not require substantial additional ROW or 

direct conversion of residential, commercial, or agricultural land uses to 

transportation uses. 

As the extent to which the Build Alternative might The Draft Program EIS/EIR noted 

that the Build Alternative could result in a cumulatively significant land use impact 

if one or more of the curve realignments is ultimately constructed and would 

convert substantial residential related to the possible construction of curve 

realignments, particularly those that would result in substantial conversion of 

residential and/or agricultural lands to a transportation use. The Preferred 

Alternative excludes four curve realignments in San Luis Obispo County that had 

potential to incorporate residential and agricultural lands into transportation use. 

Accordingly, the Preferred Alternative would result in somewhat less potential for 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation

3.15-19

cumulative effects than the Build Alternative. The Preferred Alternative retains 

curve realignments in Monterey County. Other sections of this Final Program 

EIS/EIR note the potential for the Monterey County curve realignments to result in 

substantial effects on agricultural lands. Project-level design refinements and 

funding availability would determine if any of any carried forward curve 

realignments would ultimately result in conversion to non-agricultural use and if any 

cumulative impact would occur. 

Similarly, property impacts are unlikely for most of the anticipated land 

development and programmed transportation projects improvements. Land 

development projects generally proceed only with the consent of the property 

owner and would be unlikely to result in the use of private property. Programmed 

transportation projects are set planned to generally occur within or immediately 

adjacent to the area’s existing transportation facilities. As no major roadway 

expansion projects are included in the list of programmed improvements

transportation projects, the potential for substantial conversion of private property 

is minimal. 

In contrast, certain components of the Build action alternatives have a much greater 

potential to require property acquisition. These components include curve 

realignments and other features for which only schematic plans have been 

developed; final plans could require acquisition of land outside the existing railroad 

ROW. Since the extent to which the Build action alternatives might result in 

property acquisition is unknown, it is assumed the Build action alternatives could 

result in a cumulatively significant property impact if one or more of the curve 

realignments are deemed necessary and property acquisition proceeds accordingly. 

As noted above, the Preferred Alternative omits four San Luis Obispo County curve 

realignments, thus substantially reducing the need for land acquisition/property 

impacts in San Luis Obispo County. Project-level design refinements and funding 

availability will determine if any of the curve realignments would ultimately result in 

private property acquisition and if any cumulative impact would occur. 

3.15.2.6 Aesthetics and Visual Resources

Area of Cumulative Analysis: The area of cumulative analysis for effects to visual 

resources and aesthetics includes the viewshed, or the visible environment, 

surrounding the Build Alternative action alternatives’ study area. The Build 

Alternative action alternatives entail about 130 miles of railroad and 

existing/proposed station areas, all in relative proximity to the US 101 corridor

between Salinas and San Luis Obispo. 
Coast Corridor

3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation Final Program EIS/EIR

3.15-20

Summary of Build Action Alternative Impacts: The visual analysis determined that

construction and operation of some of the proposed physical components 

improvements could result in visual impacts. In general, construction impacts 

include the temporary visual presence of construction equipment, light and glare 

impacts from any nighttime construction work, and disturbed natural land cover 

that would recover to its original undisturbed form once construction is complete. 

Operational impacts include physical changes to the additional passenger and 

freight rail cars over time, existing land cover, particularly where new track 

alignments would convert existing land cover in residential and open space areas to 

railroad use. 

The Build Alternative, in combination with related transportation and land 

development projects could contribute to cumulative visual impacts. 

Present and Future Projects: Present and future projects that could affect 

aesthetics and visual resources include transportation and land development 

projects in Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties. 

Potential for Cumulative Effects: According to the Monterey County General Plan 

EIR, future growth within Monterey County would result in intensification of existing 

urban land uses, as well as conversion of open space into urban land uses. The 

General Plan EIR concluded that the conversion of undeveloped land to urban uses, 

future land development projects would obstruct views of scenic areas and would 

result in a significant cumulative impact to visual character and quality in the 

County. 

In considering the potential of the Build Alternative action alternatives to combine 

with land development and transportation projects to result in cumulative visual 

impacts, it is important to note that proposed the transportation projects would

have negligible visual impacts because the improvements would largely occur within 

or immediately adjacent to existing transportation corridors, resulting in relatively 

little overall change in visual character or quality. The Phillips 66 project could 

result in additional rail transport activity, but such these activities are consistent 

with the visual context of the rail corridor and would be unlikely to result in 

substantial/significant visual effects. Additionally, Build Alternative action 

alternative improvements components such as track and signal upgrades, new 

powered switches, and new sidings and siding extensions, would also largely occur 

within or adjacent to the existing railway ROW and would result in minimal visual

effects. 

However, curve realignments would result in some conversion of agricultural, open 

space, and residential lands to rail transportation use. Such This conversion could 

permanently alter the visual character of affected areas. Recommended mitigation 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation

3.15-21

and avoidance strategies outlined in Section 3.6, Aesthetics and Visual Resources,

would be incorporated in the design and development of any particular component 

of the Build Alternative to lessen any visual character/quality impacts. The 

Preferred Alternative excludes four curve realignments in San Luis Obispo County, 

thereby reducing the potential of the Preferred Alternative to result in cumulative 

visual impacts between McKay and Santa Margarita. 

Since both the Build and Preferred Alternatives retain curve realignments in 

Monterey County, as the extent to which the Build Alternative might result in such 

conversion is unknown, it is assumed here that the Build Alternative action 

alternatives could result in a cumulatively significant visual impact if one or more of 

the curve realignments is ultimately constructed and would convert substantial 

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

refinements and funding availability would determine if any of the curve 

realignments would ultimately result in such conversion and if any cumulative 

impact would occur. 

Recommended mitigation and avoidance strategies outlined in Section 3.6, 

Aesthetics and Visual Resources would be incorporated in the design and 

development of any particular component of the action alternatives to reduce any 

visual character/quality impacts. Similarly, the construction and operation of 

anticipated transportation and land development projects would likely be required 

to abide by similar environmental review processes as the Build Alternative and 

would be expected to incorporate similar mitigation measures.

3.15.2.7 Agricultural and Forest Resources

Area of Cumulative Analysis: The area considered for cumulative impacts to 

farmlands includes Monterey and San Luis Obispo Counties, as described in Section 

3.7, Agricultural and Forest Resources.

Summary of Build Action Alternative Impacts: Many of the components of the

Build Alternative action alternatives would require construction outside the existing 

railroad ROW outside urban areas and, in several locations, would require the 

temporary use of farmland during construction and/or the permanent conversion of 

farmland. 

Summary of Present and Future Projects: Present and future projects that could 

affect agriculture and forest resources include transportation and land development 

projects in Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties, particularly those occurring 

outside of urban areas.

Potential for Cumulative Effects: According to the Monterey County General Plan 

EIR, buildout of the General Plan would cumulatively contribute to conversion of 

Important Farmland to non-agricultural uses. Some farmland conversion is also 
Coast Corridor

3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation Final Program EIS/EIR

3.15-22

anticipated in San Luis Obispo County, but very little Prime Farmland conversion is 

expected in either county, owing to strong farmland protection measures each 

county has adopted. The City of King identified a cumulatively considerable effect 

on agriculture in its EIR for the Downtown Addition Specific Plan. The City found 

that implementation of the Specific Plan could considerably contribute to the 

conversion of agricultural lands. In addition, the recirculated Draft EIR for the 

Phillips 66 project identifies a potential significant and unavoidable effect on 

agricultural lands. In the event of an oil train derailment and/or spill, the effect 

would occur along the UPRR mainline (including, but not limited to, the portion 

between Salinas and San Luis Obispo). 

The action alternatives would not contribute considerably to either of these effects. 

In the City of King, the action alternatives include a passenger station that would be 

located within the urbanized area of the City and would not result in any conversion 

of farmland. The revised draft plans for the City of King’s siding extension have the 

potential to indirectly affect agricultural lands north of the City, but these effects 

would be limited or avoided entirely if the siding extension can be located within 

the railroad ROW. 

The action alternatives contemplate expanded passenger rail service along the 

Coast Corridor. The risk of agricultural damage resulting from the potential 

derailment of a passenger train would be far less than that which could result from 

the derailment of an oil train. This is because an oil train would carry up to 80 rail 

cars of crude oil or related products; a passenger train would typically carry only 

enough fuel to power the locomotive. Accordingly, a passenger train derailment 

presents far less risk to adjacent agricultural lands than an oil train derailment or 

spill; the action alternatives would not contribute considerably to this cumulative 

impact. 

Proposed transportation improvements projects would largely take place within the 

footprint of US 101 or other adjacent roadways in the region and would be unlikely 

to combine with the Build Alternative action alternatives to result in any significant 

cumulative effect to agricultural or forest lands. Furthermore, Build Alternative the 

action alternatives' components, improvements such as track and signal upgrades, 

new powered switches, sidings and siding extensions, would also largely occur 

within or adjacent to the existing railway ROW and would have little effect to

agricultural land. 

Curve realignments would result in conversion of agricultural lands to rail 

transportation use. The conversion would permanently alter the affected areas and

could contribute to agricultural conversion effects from other land development 

projects in the region. The action alternatives include differing levels of curve 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation

3.15-23

realignments. The Preferred Alternative has four fewer curve realignments than the 

Build Alternative. Both action alternatives include curve realignments in Monterey 

County. All of the proposed curve realignments in Monterey County would be 

located in highly agricultural areas; the conversion of any Monterey County 

farmland would be considered a significant and unavoidable impact. The extent to 

which the Build Alternative action alternatives might result in conversion is 

unknown, it is assumed here that the Build Alternative action alternatives could 

result in a cumulatively significant impact on farmlands if one or more of the curve 

realignments is ultimately constructed and would convert substantial areas of 

agricultural land to a transportation use. Project-level design refinements and 

funding availability would determine if any of the curve realignments would 

ultimately result in such conversion and if any cumulative impact would occur. 

Recommended mitigation and avoidance strategies outlined in Section 3.7,

Agricultural and Forest Resources, would be incorporated in the design and 

development of any particular component of the Build Alternative action 

alternatives to lessen any farmland related impacts. However, loss of Prime 

Farmland impacts cannot be mitigated to a less-than-significant level even though 

conservation easements and other measures may lessen the impact. 

3.15.2.8 Public Utilities and Services

Area of Cumulative Analysis: The area considered for cumulative effects to utilities 

and public services correspond to the service areas of the particular utility and 

public service (police and fire) providers.

Natural gas providers PG&E and SCE respectively serve substantial portions of 

northern and southern California. Electricity is provided by PG&E, whose service 

area extends from Shasta County to Santa Barbara County. Water and wastewater 

services are provided by a combination of local special districts and private 

companies whose service areas extend well beyond the immediate boundaries of 

the project study area. Police and fire services are provided either by County 

agencies, whose jurisdiction spans the entirety of the affected counties, or by local 

agencies, who serve incorporated communities along the project corridor.

Summary of Action Alternative Impacts: 

Utility conflicts: Proposed new and/or extended sidings, along with the proposed 

second mainline, have the potential to conflict with existing utility transmission 

facilities in and around the existing railroad ROW. 
Coast Corridor

3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation Final Program EIS/EIR

3.15-24

Utility usage: Some components of the Build Alternative action alternatives would 

require connections to public utilities such as water, electricity, and natural gas. 

Proposed new stations would likely be the most utility intensive Build Alternative

components; powered switches and signaling mechanisms would also require 

electricity. 

Public service demand generation: The vast majority of physical components

improvements comprising the Build Alternative action alternatives, such as railroad 

sidings/extensions or curve realignments, would have a neutral effect on increasing 

demand for public services like fire and police. In contrast, proposed new stations 

could require increased police and fire services; increased ridership at existing 

stations could also increase demand for public services. 

Present and future projects that could affect utilities and public services include 

transportation and land development projects not only in Monterey and San Luis 

Obispo counties, but potentially points well beyond when considering gas and 

electric providers, which operate across multiple regions in the state.

Present and Future Projects: Present and future projects that could affect public 

utilities and services include transportation and land development projects in 

Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties. 

Potential for Cumulative Effects: In terms of utility conflicts, the components of the 

action alternatives Build Alternative that would require construction of new linear 

facilities either inside or outside the railroad ROW may conflict with existing 

pipelines, electrical transmission lines, communication facilities, or other linear 

utilities. The severity of these impacts can usually be lessened substantially through 

a combination of careful design, avoidance, and/or protection-in-place policies, as 

called for in the mitigation strategies discussion presented here in discussed in 

Section 3.8, Public Utilities and Services. Similarly, future transportation projects 

may require construction/grading in or near existing transportation facilities like US 

101, where similar utility conveyances can be found. As it is reasonable to expect 

that Because other projects would be subject to similar mitigation to avoid or 

minimize any utility conflicts, there would be no cumulatively significant impact 

regarding utility conflicts. 

Regarding electric and gas utilities, the Build Alternative action alternatives would, 

in combination with planned/anticipated land development in the Central Coast 

region, result in additional demand for electricity and natural gas. The Build 

Alternative action alternatives would require additional utilities primarily at 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation

3.15-25

proposed stations and electric power specifically for signal upgrades and switching 

equipment. Similarly, Demand for water and wastewater services would also 

increase as a result of planned land development combined with the Build 

Alternative action alternatives.

Demand for police and fire services would likely increase from both planned 

transportation and land development projects. Proposed transportation 

enhancements projects would facilitate additional vehicle travel on US 101 and 

adjacent roadways thus increasing. This increase in vehicle travel has the potential 

to result in an increased frequency of accidents on US 101 due to a heavier flow of 

traffic, and thus could lead to an increased demand for emergency response 

services. Additional railroad freight traffic as well as all and land development called 

for in adopted local plans would similarly increase demand for emergency response. 

In particular, the Phillips 66 project, per its recirculated Draft EIR, would result in 

significant and unavoidable project-level and cumulatively considerable effects on 

emergency response services in the event of an oil train derailment, spill, or similar 

emergency. 

Individual rail components improvements, such as curve realignments and the 

second mainline, would have no foreseeable connection to increased demand for 

public services. New or expanded station areas could incrementally contribute to 

increased demands for public services (police response, emergency services, etc.). 

However, the anticipated increase in station area activity would be modest, even in 

the two communities where new stations are planned. Neither of the 

environmental documents for the Soledad or King City station area/downtown plans 

indicated any significant effect to public services as a result of plan implementation. 

Anticipated increases in passenger activity at the Salinas and San Luis Obispo 

stations are not at such high levels that substantial public services impacts could 

occur. even in the two communities where new stations are planned. Neither of 

the environmental documents for the Soledad or King City station area/downtown 

plans indicated any significant effect to public services as a result of plan 

implementation. Anticipated increases in passenger activity at the Salinas and San 

Luis Obispo stations are not at such high levels that substantial public services 

impacts could occur. It is unlikely that implementation of the Build Alternative

action alternatives in conjunction with other planned development projects would 

result in a cumulative impact to emergency services; however, future project-level 

review will include coordination with emergency service providers to ensure no 

significant impacts would occur. 
Coast Corridor

3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation Final Program EIS/EIR

3.15-26

Disruption of utility services could occur as a result of potential conflicts with 

electric transmission lines, natural gas pipelines, oil pipelines, wastewater and water 

utilities, and other utilities during construction of other roadway improvement 

projects (US 101 and local roads). However, measures would be taken to avoid 

potential conflicts in advance to the extent feasible and practical; therefore, few 

additional conflicts are expected from future transportation improvements. 

Recommended mitigation and avoidance strategies outlined in Section 3.8, Public 

Utilities and Services, of this Final Program EIS/EIR would be incorporated in future 

development of any particular component of the Build Alternative action 

alternatives to lessen impacts on utilities and public services. Similarly, the 

construction and operation of anticipated transportation and land development 

projects would likely be required to abide by similar environmental review 

processes as the Build Alternative action alternatives and would be expected to 

incorporate similar mitigation measures regarding for utilities and public services.

Therefore, the cumulative impact related to utilities and public service providers 

operating in the Central Coast region would not be substantial.

3.15.2.9 Hazardous Materials and Wastes

Area of Cumulative Analysis: The area of cumulative analysis considered for 

hazardous materials effects includes the areas identified within 1/8-mile radius 

around the Build Alternative study area, including major roadways between Salinas 

and San Luis Obispo. 

Summary of Build Alternative Action Alternative Impacts: Overall, there is 

potential risk to uncover hazardous materials near roadways and agricultural areas 

within the entire Coast Corridor study area, because of the potential for aerially 

deposited lead and particulate matter deposited from vehicles (both automobiles 

and trains), as well as pesticide use along the railroad and along roadways. As a 

result, construction activities may encounter contaminated soil containing pesticide 

or herbicide residue, aerially deposited lead, or other soil or groundwater 

contaminants. Furthermore, database searches identified both active- and closedstatus hazardous sites within the study area.

The Build Alternative action alternatives would not result in sustained, long-term, 

routine transportation of hazardous materials. However, the Phillips 66 project 

proposes increased use of the railroad for transport of crude oil, a potentially 

hazardous substance if mishandled. Since the action alternatives would not 

routinely transport hazardous materials, they would not contribute considerably to 

any related cumulative effect.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation

3.15-27

Present and future projects that would cumulatively risk exposure to hazardous 

materials or wastes include other transportation and land use development

projects. The construction of both types of projects, similar to the Build Alternative

action alternatives, would require the use of materials that could be considered 

hazardous if used, stored, or transported improperly. Such materials are strictly 

regulated by federal, state, and local laws specifically to ensure they do not result in 

a gradual increase in toxins in the environment. Both counties reinforce these 

regulations by requiring that construction and operation be conducted pursuant to

in accordance with applicable standards and regulations. These are implemented as 

part of normal development review and construction permitting procedures and 

typically reduce project-specific impacts to a less-than-significant level. 

Present and Future Projects: Present and future projects that could have hazardous 

material and waste impacts include transportation and land development projects 

in Monterey and San Luis Obispo counties, as well as the Phillips 66 project. 

Potential for Cumulative Effects: Compliance with federal, state, and local 

regulations concerning the storage and handling of hazardous materials and waste 

would reduce the potential for significant public health and safety impacts from 

hazardous materials to occur. Therefore, future development would not affect the 

number of people exposed to risks of hazardous materials. 

Risks of encountering a recorded hazardous waste site are location-specific and 

would not contribute to (in an additive sense) the impacts on other sites. The 

present and future projects within close proximity to the study area are generally 

geographically disperse and it is not anticipated that they would use quantities of 

hazardous materials that would combine in a way that would endanger human or 

environmental health. However, other transportation projects may encounter 

contaminated soil containing pesticide or herbicide residue, aerially deposited lead, 

or other soil or groundwater contaminants along major roadways. 

The Phillips 66 project, if approved, would add up to five weekly freight trains 

carrying crude oil through the entirety of the Salinas to San Luis Obispo corridor. 

This would be in addition to existing freight traffic that includes periodic transport of 

oil from San Ardo south to refineries in the Los Angeles area. The action 

alternatives would not transport large quantities of hazardous materials by rail and 

would not contribute considerably to any cumulative effect. The Build Alternative 

would not contribute to any increase in freight rail or more specifically the transport 

of hazardous materials by rail.

Overall, hazardous materials are regulated by state and federal laws specifically to 

ensure that they do not result in a gradual toxification of the environment. 

Recommended mitigation strategies identified in Section 3.9, Hazardous Materials
Coast Corridor

3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation Final Program EIS/EIR

3.15-28

and Wastes, would lessen the adverse effects to hazardous materials as a result. 

Similar mitigation measures would be implemented as part of the present and 

future projects to alleviate potential adverse effects to hazardous materials. Each 

individual project would be required to conduct subsequent environmental analysis

to investigate and report any findings of contaminated soil or groundwater. 

Therefore, it is not anticipated that there would be any cumulative impact related to 

hazardous materials or wastes. 

3.15.2.10 Cultural and Paleontological Resources

Area of Cumulative Analysis: The cumulative context for cultural resources are 

transportation and land use development projects in both counties that could 

potentially affect archaeological, historical, or paleontological resources. 

Summary of Build Alternative Action Alternative Impacts: The Build Alternative

action alternatives propose physical components improvements near potentially 

historic and archaeological sites, as well as some and paleontological sensitive 

areas. 

Present and Future Projects: Present and future projects that would cumulatively 

affect cultural and/or paleontological resources include other transportation and 

land use development projects that would affect the same cultural or 

paleontological sites as the Build Alternative action alternatives. 

Potential for Cumulative Effects: Both County General Plan EIRs concluded that 

build out (encompassing both land development and circulation improvements) 

would not result in any significant cumulative impact to cultural resources. 

Cumulative impacts to cultural historical resources can occur when development of 

an area results in the removal of a substantial number of historic structures,

archaeological sites, or paleontological resources that when taken in combination 

could degrade the physical historical record of an area. 

Cultural resources - both known and unknown-- are protected by a number of 

federal, state, and local regulations, reinforced by goals, policies, and mitigations 

associated with each county’s general plan as well as the planning documents of 

county transportation agencies. Furthermore, recommended mitigation and 

avoidance strategies outlined in Section 3.10, Cultural and Paleontological 

Resources, of this program level EIS/EIR would be incorporated in future 

development of any particular component of the Build Alternative action 

alternatives to lessen any impacts on these resources. Similarly, the construction 

and operation of anticipated transportation and land development projects would 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation

3.15-29

be required to abide by similar environmental review processes as the Build 

Alternative action alternatives and would be expected to incorporate similar 

mitigation measures. Therefore, there would be no cumulatively significant impact 

to cultural resources. 

3.15.2.11 Geology, Soils, and Minerals

Area of Cumulative Analysis: The area considered for cumulative effects related to

for geology and soils includes any proposed land development or transportation 

projects in the vicinity of the Build Alternative action alternatives. 

Summary of Build Alternative Action Alternative Impacts: Geology and soilsrelated hazards exist within and near the Coast Corridor rail alignment, as well as 

where Build Alternative physical components improvements are proposed. These

hazards include varying degrees of surface fault rupture, ground shaking, 

liquefaction, corrosive and/or expansive soils, and landslides. The Build Alternative

action alternatives are not expected to have any significant impacts related to 

geology and soils with the implementation of avoidance and minimization 

measures.

Present and Future Projects: As environmental effects to geology and soils are 

located in the same geologic setting, both present and future transportation and 

land development projects would be exposed to similar hazards. 

Potential for Cumulative Effects: The respective General Plan EIRs noted that future 

build-out and urbanization would result in greater exposure of persons and property 

to geologic and soil hazards, but that adherence to goals and policies, as well as 

County and local building codes and other mitigation measures, would not combine 

to result in a cumulative impact related to geology and soils. 

Cumulative geology and soils impacts could occur if a significant number of people 

and/or a significant amount of property would be exposed to any one or more 

geologic/soils hazards, landslides, seismic shaking, ground failure, and many others. 

It is unlikely that the Build Alternative action alternatives, in combination with 

projected land development and transportation projects, would result in a 

cumulatively significant impact related to geology/soils hazards or mineral 

resources. This is due to the enactment of a number of federal, state, and local 

regulations, as well as several adopted goals, policies, and mitigations associated 

with in local general plans that individually and collectively aim to reduce geology 

and soils related impacts on all land development and transportation projects. 

Similarly, mineral resources are protected at the local level. Future transportation 
Coast Corridor

3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation Final Program EIS/EIR

3.15-30

projects are generally planned for existing transportation corridors and land use 

projects for urbanized areas; as such, neither type of project would be likely to 

result in limitation of access to important mineral resources. 

Recommended mitigation and avoidance strategies outlined in Section 3.11,

Geology, Soils, and Minerals, of this Final Program EIS/EIR would be incorporated in 

future development of any particular component of the Build Alternative action 

alternatives to lessen any impacts on these resources. Similarly, the construction 

and operation of anticipated transportation and land development projects would 

likely be required to abide by similar environmental review processes as the Build 

Alternative action alternatives and would be expected to incorporate similar 

mitigation measures. Therefore, there would be no cumulatively significant impact 

to geology, soils, or minerals. 

3.15.2.12 Hydrology and Water Resources 

Area of Cumulative Analysis: The area of cumulative analysis for hydrology

resources includes the Build Alternative action alternatives study area identified 

plus and nearby and related watersheds. These include the Salinas River and its 

tributary drainages. In addition, regional groundwater basins are also part of the 

cumulative study area. 

Summary of Build Alternative Action Alternative Impacts: The Build Alternative

action alternatives could result in potential impacts to surface waters through 

runoff during construction activities, operation-related pollution in areas 

immediately adjacent to surface waters, and potential surface water crossings as 

further described below. The Build Alternative action alternatives would have 

relatively little potential to deplete groundwater resources or impede groundwater 

recharge. 

Present and Future Projects: Present and future projects that could contribute to 

cumulative impacts to the identified water resources within the area of cumulative 

analysis include transportation and development.

Potential for Cumulative Effects: According to the Monterey County General Plan 

EIR, general plan buildout would result in significant and unavoidable cumulative 

hydrological impacts related to from the loss of area available for groundwater 

recharge, water quality deterioration, and water supply. In contrast, the EIR for the 

San Luis Obispo County Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) reduced the 

amount of allowable development from what had been previously allowed thereby 

reducing potential in order to reduce impacts related to groundwater depletion and 

other water quality impacts. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation

3.15-31

In evaluating whether the Build Alternative action alternatives would contribute 

considerably to cumulative hydrological impacts, it is important to note that the 

Build Alternative neither action alternative would not directly result in any major 

new demand for water resources because they would not create any new housing 

units, any new maintenance facilities, or new commercial or industrial users, all of 

which could be substantial users of water. Moreover, the Build Alternative’s action 

alternatives’ effects to surface waters can be avoided or minimized through careful 

design. The Build Alternative action alternatives would not result in a substantial 

number of new stream crossings. The Preferred Alternative, in its inclusion of the 

revised draft plan for the City of King siding extension, reflects the proposed design. 

The revised draft plan would extend the siding only on the north side of the existing 

siding, avoiding a southern extension which would have required a stream crossing 

and be located within a 100-year flood plain. Recommended mitigation and 

avoidance strategies outlined in Section 3.12, Hydrology and Water Resources, of 

this program level Program EIS/EIR would be incorporated in future development of 

any particular component of the Build Alternative action alternatives to lessen any 

impacts on these resources. Similarly, the construction and operation of anticipated 

transportation and land development projects would be required to abide by similar 

environmental review processes as the Build Alternative action alternatives and 

would be expected to incorporate similar mitigation measures. Therefore, there 

would be no cumulatively significant impact to hydrology and water resources. 

3.15.2.13 Biological Resources and Wetlands

Area of Cumulative Analysis: The area of cumulative analysis for biological 

resources includes the study area identified for the Build Alternative plus action 

alternatives and any immediately adjacent lands and waterways containing sensitive 

biological resources (sensitive habitats or protected plant or animal species).

Summary of Build Alternative Action Alternative Impacts: The biological resources 

and wetlands analysis determined that the Build Alternative action alternatives

would have a heightened potential to result in temporary or permanent impacts 

directly proportional to the extent to which components of the Build Alternative

diverge substantially from the existing railroad ROW onto lands that include

sensitive vegetation, special-status species, critical habitat for protected species, 

wetlands, or non-jurisdictional waters. For example, one of the proposed curve 

realignments could the Build Alternative includes a proposed curve realignment

(McKay/Wellsona) that could entail use of lands within a designated wildlife area 

(Big Sandy) along the Salinas River near Camp Roberts. However, if some or all of 

this curve realignment can be designed to avoid or minimize its intrusion into the 
Coast Corridor

3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation Final Program EIS/EIR

3.15-32

wildlife area, the extent of potential impact would be reduced considerably. The 

Preferred Alternative omits this entire curve realignment and would avoid an

intrusion on the wildlife area. 

Present and Future Projects: Present and future projects that could contribute to 

cumulative impacts to the identified biological resources within the area of 

cumulative analysis include planned transportation and development projects.

Cumulative Effects: Neither County’s general plan EIR identified any significant 

cumulative impact related to buildout of their respective general plans. However,

the Build Alternative action alternatives, in combination with other land 

development and transportation projects in the area, could result in significant 

threats to protected plant or animal species or their habitats if significant new 

barriers to wildlife movement were created or if substantial areas of wetlands were 

converted or otherwise compromised. 

Cumulative impacts to these resources are highly unlikely to occur in part due to a 

broad array of federal, state, and local regulations, as well as several adopted goals, 

policies, and mitigations associated with in local general plans that individually and 

collectively aim to protect biological resources like these from harm, degradation, or 

other diminishment. Moreover, the Build Alternative action alternatives and other 

transportation projects in the area are planned in areas that are largely previously 

developed - existing roadways and railroads. Land development projects are 

generally concentrated within urbanized areas, away from both biological and 

agricultural resources. The aforementioned federal, state, and local regulations 

would act together to avoid or minimize such effects cumulative impacts to 

biological resources including wetlands. 

Wildlife movement in the vicinity of the Build Alternative action alternatives occurs 

within and along the major waterways, including the Salinas River and tributaries. 

The Build Alternative action alternatives in combination with future transportation 

improvements projects would primarily affect existing linear facilities and would not 

create new barriers to wildlife movement. Land development projects that are 

concentrated in urban areas would have the least potential to interfere with wildlife 

movement; however, certain types of projects outside urban areas (solar farms, oil 

and gas fields, and other large-scale projects) could result in new barriers to wildlife 

movement. A review of projects in planning stages in each county indicates that 

some such of these facilities are being proposed but at substantial distances (at 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation

3.15-33

least 25 miles east) from the railroad ROW.

2

 Furthermore, even if these large-scale 

developments were to result in a significant cumulative impact, the contribution of 

the Build Alternative action alternatives would not be considerable for the reasons 

articulated herein, including because of their distance from the railroad ROW. 

As elements of the Build Alternative action alternatives move forward for further 

design and construction, they would be subject to the recommended mitigation and 

avoidance strategies outlined in Section 3.13, Biological Resources and Wetlands,

of this Program EIS/EIR in the form of project-specific mitigation measures. 

Similarly, the construction and operation of anticipated transportation and land 

development projects would be required to abide by similar environmental review 

processes as the Build Alternative and would be expected to incorporate similar 

mitigation measures. Therefore, there would be no cumulatively significant impact 

to biological resources and wetlands.

3.15.2.14 Growth Inducement

Area of Cumulative Analysis: The area for cumulative analysis of growth inducing 

impacts includes all three existing stations in the study area (Salinas, Paso Robles, 

and San Luis Obispo), as well as the two proposed station areas in King City and 

Soledad. This area is centered around existing and proposed stations insofar as 

stations comprise the main potential for a passenger railroad project to directly or 

indirectly affect population, employment, or economic growth. 

Summary of Build Alternative Action Alternative Impacts: The Build Alternative

action alternatives would have the potential to result in minor but beneficial 

growth-related effects in and around the existing and proposed station areas. The 

proposed new stations would be located in communities that have endorsed the 

stations as components of larger downtown revitalization and growth plans

(including Soledad’s Downtown Specific Plan and the City of King’s Downtown 

Addition Specific Plan, First Street Corridor Master Plan, and West Broadway Master 

Plan). Given the nature of existing and proposed passenger rail service, such growth 

is more likely to be within the realm of visitor-serving and tourism related uses. 

Existing and proposed passenger rail service would not have schedules suited to 

 

2

In Monterey County, the proposed California Flats Solar project would create a 280 megawatt solar 

energy facility on 1,900 acres in the southeastern corner of Monterey County. This project area is 

about 25 miles northeast of Paso Robles. Additionally, a 550 megawatt solar power plant is proposed 

and a 250 megawatt solar power plant has been approved in the Carrizo Plain area of San Luis Obispo 

County. The Carrizo Plain area is separate from the Coast Corridor rail alignment by more than 50 

miles and rugged mountain terrain. 
Coast Corridor

3.15 Cumulative Impacts Evaluation Final Program EIS/EIR

3.15-34

commuting; therefore, there would be relatively little potential for substantial 

transit-oriented development associated with access to major employment centers. 

However, increased rail activity as a result of the reintroduction of Coast Daylight 

service would also bring about locally-desired, visitor-serving activity and growth 

potential in the existing Salinas, Paso Robles, and San Luis Obispo station areas. 

Present and Future Projects: A project would be considered growth inducing to the 

extent it facilitated new population or employment growth beyond itself. For 

example, a single residential development would result in a larger population within 

a community but would be considered growth-inducing only if it included elements 

that had the potential to further increase population or employment growth, such 

as extended transportation or service infrastructure. 

Potential for Cumulative Effects: The proposed transportation improvements are 

expected to improve operations on US 101 and existing/adjacent roadways without 

any substantial physical expansion. Other minor roadway improvements would be 

similarly focused on operational enhancements. However, it is envisioned that 

commuter rail service (Capitol Corridor) will eventually be extended to Salinas. The 

advent of commuter service would have the potential to increase the attractiveness 

of the Salinas area to workers in the Silicon Valley area attracted to the generally 

lower housing prices in the Salinas valley relative to those in greater San José. The 

environmental review for the commuter rail extension noted that the potential 

growth-related effects would be beneficial insofar as growth would likely be 

concentrated in and around the proposed station area and the commuter rail 

service would help reduce area transportation related effects. Additionally, the 

Downtown Addition Specific Plan within the City of King projects future 

development near the station area to include an additional 650 housing units and 

over 190,000 square feet of retail. As discussed in Section 3.14, Growth 

Inducement, none of the project components would have a substantial direct 

impact to growth; therefore, no growth inducement would occur under the action 

alternatives. New passenger stations and the Coast Daylight service throughout the 

corridor would attract additional passengers and potentially attract development in 

and around all station areas leading to a possible indirect effect on growth. 

However, such growth is planned for in city documents as cities have made the 

proposed stations the centerpieces of adopted downtown revitalization strategies. 

Taking all of the above into account, there would be no significant and adverse 

cumulative impact related to of growth inducement. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.16 Next Steps in Project Development

3.16-1

3.16 NEXT STEPS IN PROJECT DEVELOPMENT

NEPA

This program-level EIS/EIR assesses environmental impacts that could potentially 

result from implementation of improvements to the Coast Corridor. As outlined in 

Chapter 2.0, Alternatives, the Build Alternative proposes improvements to the 

existing railway and contemplates expanded passenger service (i.e., Coast Daylight 

between Salinas and San Luis Obispo. Of these improvements, some, all, or none 

may eventually be constructed. As such, future project-level environmental analysis 

would be required for any selected improvement prior to permitting, construction, 

and operation. This combined Record of Decision (ROD) and Final Program EIS/EIR

serves two major purposes. The Final Program EIS/EIR includes a complete program 

level assessment of environmental impacts that could potentially result from 

implementation of any of the alternatives and identifies appropriate mitigation 

strategies that will be refined in project-level environmental analysis. The ROD 

selects the Preferred Alternative. Consequently, once approved by the state and 

federal lead agencies, this program-level EIS/EIR would serve as an important source 

of corridor-wide information, particularly with regard to the potential for various 

components of the Build Alternative to result in substantial costs associated with 

the avoidance, minimization, or mitigation of environmental effects. Together, the 

ROD and Final Program EIS/EIR complete the programmatic NEPA review for the 

Coast Corridor Improvements project. 

Lead Agency Roles

SLOCOG and FRA have mutually commenced this program-level EIS/EIR to comply 

with NEPA and CEQA. FRA is the NEPA lead agency; SLOCOG is the CEQA lead 

agency. 

Any future decisions related to advancing and ultimately constructing the proposed 

rail improvements may constitute a federal action if federal funding or other federal 

permits are required and may thus require additional project-level environmental 

review under NEPA. Other federal agencies in addition to FRA may also rely on 

these project-level environmental reviews to support future decision making. In 

preparing this environmental document, FRA has coordinated with the US EPA, 

USAC), the US Army, and the USFWS, among others.

The preparation, circulation, and review of a draft Program EIS/EIR provides for the 

evaluation of the No Build Alternative and Build Alternative; the assessment of all 
Coast Corridor

3.16 Next Steps in Project Development Final Program EIS/EIR

3.16-2

significant/adverse environmental impacts; and the opportunity for public and 

agency input and comments to help inform the decision-making process. 

CEQA

After the final Program EIS/EIR is complete, according to CEQA Guidelines § 15090, 

SLOCOG, as the lead CEQA agency, shall certify that: Regarding programmatic CEQA 

review, as CEQA lead agency, SLOCOG is anticipated to certify the following:

 The Final Program EIS/EIR was completed in compliance with CEQA;

 The Final Program EIS/EIR was presented to the decision-making body of the 

lead agency, and that the decision-making body reviewed and considered the 

information contained in the final EIR prior to approving the project; and 

 The Final Program EIS/EIR reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and 

analysis.

Similarly to the CEQA process, the NEPA lead agency, FRA, shall comply with FRA’s 

Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR § 28545) and may issue a 

Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD is the final step in the NEPA process. 

If SLOCOG makes the above certifications and approves the Preferred Alternative as 

the project, SLOCOG will issue a Notice of Determination (NOD). Issuance of the 

NOD would complete the programmatic CEQA process. 

Of the components that comprise the Preferred Alternative, some, all, or none may 

eventually be constructed. The partner agencies will continue to coordinate with 

the owner of railroad to determine the extent of components needed to allow for 

expanded passenger rail service. The decision to advance specific components will 

be prioritized by funding availability, the efficacy of the given component, and 

timeframe. 

Future Implementation

Any required project-level environmental analysis under NEPA and/or CEQA will 

precede the permitting, construction, and operation of any individual Preferred 

Alternative component. Future implementation of Build Alternative improvements 

would require further design and potentially site-specific environmental review. At 

such a time, this Program EIS/EIR would support future approvals and potential 

financing decisions necessary to implement the proposed improvements by 

identifying environmental constraints that influence development techniques, 

construction recommendations, and mitigation strategies. 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.16 Next Steps in Project Development

3.16-3

Future projects would potentially include one or more of the Build Alternative 

components noted in this Program EIS/EIR. As indicated in the Service Development 

Plan, decisions to move specific components forward would be prioritized by 

funding availability, the efficacy of the given improvement, and timeframe. One or 

more improvements could constitute a project-level proposed action under NEPA if 

a federal action was involved and a project under CEQA. Any proposed project 

would require a detailed project description, construction plans, staging areas, and 

potential property acquisitions in advance. 

Once a project component begins is formalized and begins the project-level 

environmental review process, local agencies, resource planners, and permitting 

authorities would need to be will be involved to ensure that the project’s footprint

impacts are adequately assessed. The applicant project proponent would also need 

to provide appropriate public outreach programs to provide and opportunities for 

input on issues, concerns, potential design refinements, and environmental impacts

processes. 

As determined by site-specific circumstances, future project-level analysis could 

require consultation and involvement of USFWS, CDFW, EPA, USACE, RWQCB, the 

California Department of Parks and Recreation, SHPO, NAHC, and others as 

appropriate. 

According to CEQA Guidelines § 15168(e), when a law other than CEQA requires 

public notice when the agency later proposes to carry out or approve an activity 

within the program and to rely on the Program EIR for CEQA compliance, the notice 

for the activity shall include a statement that:

 The activity is within the scope of the program approved earlier, and 

 The Program EIR adequately describes the activity for the purposes of CEQA. 
Coast Corridor

3.16 Next Steps in Project Development Final Program EIS/EIR

3.16-4

Page intentionally left blank
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.17 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts

3.17-1

3.17 UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACTS/CEQA CONCLUSIONS

This Final Program EIS/EIR represents the first conceptual planning stage of a tiered 

environmental evaluation that analyzes a broad range of potential railway physical 

components improvements and expanded passenger service. Implementation of 

improvements project components would require further site-specific 

environmental analysis. once detailed project descriptions and work plans are 

composed. At the conclusion of the environmental review process Following this 

Program EIS/EIR, SLOCOG, FRA, TAMC, and the railroad owner, Union Pacific 

Railroad UPRR, are expected to continue discussions and negotiations towards an 

agreement regarding what, if any, physical components improvements are 

necessary to allow for the proposed expansion of passenger rail service. 

Each technical chapter resource in this document identifies potential environmental 

impacts that could occur should one or more elements components of the Build 

Alternative action alternatives be constructed. The Summary describes these 

general findings. 

The Build Preferred Alternative looks at the entire comprises a program of physical 

and rail service components improvements. In many cases, one or more individual 

improvements components are the ‘trigger’ result in potential environmental 

impacts, with other improvements components having lesser capacity for 

potentially adverse/significant effects. Careful design of physical components

improvements can potentially avoid/minimize the vast majority of the effects 

discussed in this document. Many potentially adverse/significant impacts described 

in this document can be avoided or minimized by selecting an alignment option a

component that avoids or minimizes impacts on environmental resources through 

refinement to the design or specific location of various track improvements or 

station areas or through incorporation of mitigation measures. 

Overall, expanded passenger rail service may decrease regional emissions of air 

pollutants and GHGs greenhouse gases, while decreasing transportation-related

energy use. However, construction of proposed physical components

improvements would result in temporary, localized emissions and one-time energy 

consumption. 
Coast Corridor

3.17 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Final Program EIS/EIR

3.17-2

New passenger service stations in King City and Soledad may affect circulation on 

local roadways, which may increase congestion, as further discussed below. 

Additionally, much of the Monterey County within the study area is Prime and

protected farmland, as designated by the state. Other land uses include habitat for 

special-status species, protected forest, or wetlands. New alignment options

Certain physical improvements may traverse land use types and alter the 

designated use. Lastly, several of the alignment options and proposed 

improvements may potentially displace residences or businesses.

Whether any of these potential effects will occur depends on the type, number, and 

timing of proposed physical or service components improvements. As these 

components improvements move forward for further design or other refinements, 

the extent to which any of them could result in substantial and/or adverse 

environmental effects will be analyzed through pertinent requirements of CEQA 

and/or NEPA. In essence, all significant effects can potentially be avoided, 

minimized, or mitigated depending on final design plans. 

CEQA and NEPA Significance

Use of the term “significant” differs between NEPA and CEQA. According to CEQ,

the NEPA determination of significance is based on context and intensity. The 

magnitude of the impact is evaluated and described in the environmental 

document. The Program EIS reports all impacts and discusses feasible mitigation. 

Under CEQA, identification on each significant effect on the environment is 

required, according to the CEQA Guidelines § 15126.2. The discussion should 

include relevant specifics of the affected area, resources involved, physical changes, 

significant environmental effects the project might bring, and feasible mitigation. 

According to CEQ, the manner in which the differences between the two processes 

are addressed must take into account that NEPA does not compel mandatory 

findings of significance, and that some impacts determined to be significant under 

CEQA may not be necessarily be determined significant under NEPA. As such, 

mitigation strategies outlined in this program-level EIS/EIR may be appropriate 

under NEPA, but the potential impacts they address may not be considered under 

CEQA.
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.17 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts

3.17-3

3.17.1 UNAVOIDABLE POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT 

IMPACTS

Traffic and Travel

The Build Preferred Alternative contemplates two new passenger stations in King 

City and Soledad. As noted here and in environmental documents adopted/certified 

by these cities, buildout of the station areas (which includes the opening of the 

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

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

Land Use and Planning, Communities and 

Neighborhoods, Property and Environmental Justice

Curve realignments and siding extensions that require substantial land 

conversion/acquisition outside of the railroad ROW associated with the Preferred 

Alternative would commit the land uses and natural resources for an expanded and 

realigned railway in some areas. Future implementation of components

improvements outside the existing ROW and in populated areas would have the 

largest effect on existing land uses and communities. Some of the proposed

physical components improvements would involve displacement of existing 

residents and businesses, many within an environmental justice community, or 

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

The proposed design and engineering aspects of each improvement component are 

conceptual at this time and if carried forward in the future, could be refined to avoid 

some or all potential impacts on existing land uses and communities. 

Agricultural and Forest Resources

Improvements Components requiring land outside of the existing railroad ROW, 

such as curve realignments, new sidings, and siding extensions associated with the 

Build Preferred Alternative would convert Prime Farmland and other protected 

types of farmland to nonagricultural uses. Prime Farmlands are protected by the 

state due to the soil quality and irrigation status of the land. In CEQA, the 

conversion of Prime Farmland to a non-agricultural use cannot be mitigated below a 

level of significance. Thus, any conversion of Prime Farmland to a non-agricultural 

use would be considered an unavoidable impact. 

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

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

include forest land within the Los Padres National Forest . 
Coast Corridor

3.17 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Final Program EIS/EIR

3.17-4

Biological and Wetland Resources

As further described in Section 3.13, Biological Resources and Wetlands, certain 

proposed curve realignments, new sidings, and siding extensions have the potential 

to entail the use of lands outside the existing railroad ROW that are critical habitat 

areas for several protected species (including California red-legged frog and vernal 

pool fairy shrimp), habitat of special-status species, sensitive vegetation 

communities, and wetlands. The evaluation in this document is based on a review

of highly conceptual plans for proposed rail improvements the project components. 

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

potential effects. 

Hydrology and Water Quality

As further described in Section 3.12, Hydrology and Water Resources, certain 

proposed new sidings and siding extensions, curve realignments, and the second 

mainline have the potential to intersect surface waters, potentially resulting in 

hydrological and/or water quality effects. Design refinements of the conceptual 

plans components used in this evaluation could potentially avoid some of all of 

these hydrology and/or water quality impacts. 

Conclusion

Overall, only general statements of potential impacts can be made at this programlevel of review, because since there is considerable uncertainty as to which, if any,

elements components of the Build Preferred Alternative will ultimately be carried 

forward for further design, funding, and eventual construction and operation. As 

noted throughout this document, many of these elements components have only 

conceptual designs to date. Therefore, the analysis herein is based on a review of 

potential effects to considerably sized “buffer” areas, in only a small portion of 

which any actual physical components improvements might be constructed. 

3.17.2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF 

THE ENVIRONMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF LONGTERM PRODUCTIVITY

Implementation of proposed rail improvements project components may result in 

property acquisitions, conversion of Prime Farmland, and potential disruption of 

biological and wetland resources during construction and operation. Future projectlevel environmental review would consider these factors in more detail if any 

specific components improvements are carried forward. While some of the 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.17 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts

3.17-5

proposed improvements project components may disrupt the existing conditions of 

the area, short- and long-term benefits would also result and should be considered 

accordingly. 

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. 

In the short-term, construction activities would likely increase employment 

opportunities, as well as locally purchased materials and services. In the long-term, 

proposed improvements implementation of the project components would likely 

increase the frequency, speed, and reliability of passenger rail while fostering 

greater passenger connectivity to the proposed California High-Speed Rail CA HSR

System and enhancing safety with minimal or no disruption to existing and 

proposed freight rail operations. Implementation of the Build Preferred 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. 

3.17.3 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE EFFECTS 

UNDER CEQA

As discussed, this Program level EIS/EIR evaluates the potential for significant effects 

to occur from any of the proposed Build Preferred Alternative improvements

components. Additionally, if any of the proposed improvements components are 

carried forward, this analysis offers mitigation strategies that could potentially avoid 

or minimize impacts to resources through project design or other measures. 

Accordingly, this Program level EIS/EIR only generally identifies potentially 

significant unavoidable impacts as such consideration because detailed 

consideration would take place during project-level review.

Table S-1, in the Summary of this document, describes the environmental resources 

and potential impacts as a result of the proposed Coast Corridor improvements. 

Depending on which, if any, physical proposed components improvements are 

carried forward, potentially significant and unavoidable impacts may occur at 

various locations within the corridor. Portions of land immediately adjacent to the 

Coast Corridor are habitat for several protected species; therefore, some of the 

proposed improvements components could potentially encroach into such land this 
Coast Corridor

3.17 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Final Program EIS/EIR

3.17-6

habitat. Additionally, proposed project improvements project components may 

require property acquisition and conversion of Prime Farmland. Such occurrences

This could result in future conclusions of significant and unavoidable impacts under 

CEQA. 

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 improvement expected under the No Build Alternative would be the 

installation of PTC along the Corridor, which would provide increased safety for 

freight and passenger trains. No specific plans have been identified, but anticipated 

PTC related improvements outside train-based equipment would most likely take 

the form of communications apparatus (e.g., antennas, signal upgrades). Such 

improvements are anticipated to be placed within the existing railroad ROW and 

would be assumed to have minimal or no effect upon adjacent areas to the railroad 

ROW. As a result, significant and unavoidable impacts would not likely occur under 

the No Build Alternative.

3.17.4 CEQA ENVIRONMENTALLY SUPERIOR ALTERNATIVE

CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(2) requires the selection of an environmentally 

superior alternative. Based on the analysis presented in the Program EIS/EIR 

(described in Table S-1 in the Summary), the No Build Alternative would be the 

environmentally superior alternative because it would have no potential to result in 

any substantial construction period related effects, or acquisition/incorporation of 

any agricultural or biologically valuable land into the railroad corridor. However, as 

further described below, the No Build Alternative does not offer the same potential 

air quality and transportation benefits as the action alternatives. 

CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(e)(2) states that where the No Build Alternative is 

considered the environmentally superior alternative, the EIR shall identify another 

environmentally superior alternative. Accordingly, this Program EIS/EIR also 

considered the Build and Preferred Alternatives. The Build and Preferred 

Alternatives offer similar rail operation components that would result in similar 

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

also collectively enhance rail safety and improve overall rail service reliability 

through a program of corridor-wide track and signal improvements. Both would 

foster connectivity with the CA HSR system. While the Build Alternative would 

potentially entail the incorporation of agricultural and/or biologically valuable land 
Coast Corridor

Final Program EIS/EIR 3.17 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts

3.17-7

into the railroad corridor, various components of the Build Alternative would 

(individually and collectively) enhance safety and enable greater reliability for both 

passenger and freight rail traffic. 

Additionally, the Build Alternative would provide increased capacity to assist in 

meeting mobility challenges and travel demand between San Francisco and Los 

Angeles. Under the No Build Alternative, current and projected future system 

congestion would continue to result in reduced reliability, slower travel speeds, 

increased travel times, and deteriorated air quality. The Build Alternative would 

assist in fostering improved rail connectivity to the proposed California High-Speed 

Rail system and would augment the highway system, creating an interconnected, 

multimodal solution, allowing for enhanced mobility throughout the corridor. As 

demonstrated in this document, the Build Alternative would offer modest but 

measurable improvements in regional air quality insofar as increased rail ridership 

would lead to fewer automotive vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the corridor. 

Therefore, the Build Alternative has been identified as the environmentally superior 

alternative. 

The main difference between the Build and Preferred Alternatives is that the 

Preferred Alternative excludes four curve realignment areas in San Luis Obispo 

County. These curve realignments were not found to offer speed or travel time 

improvements, but the curve realignments had the potential to result in several 

unique and substantial physical environmental effects. Removal of these curve 

realignments reduces substantially the overall potential of the Preferred Alternative 

to result in significant environmental impacts. Therefore, the Preferred Alternative 

is the environmentally superior alternative. 
Coast Corridor

3.17 Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Impacts Final Program EIS/EIR

3.17-8

Page Intentionally Left Blank