Cultural, Historic, and 

Tribal Resources Technical 

Memorandum

Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail 

Corridor Service Program

May 2021
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program 

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum 

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum 

May 2021 | i

Contents

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

1.1 Study Approach...................................................................................................................... 1-1

2 Program Location and Description................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Program Location................................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Program Description............................................................................................................... 2-1

2.2.1 Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)...................................................... 2-1

2.2.2 Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus) .............................................................. 2-2

2.2.3 Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third Track)....................... 2-2

2.3 Construction ........................................................................................................................... 2-3

2.3.1 Western Section........................................................................................................ 2-3

2.3.2 Eastern Section......................................................................................................... 2-3

2.4 Operation................................................................................................................................ 2-3

3 Regulatory Framework ..................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Federal ................................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Federal Railroad Administration................................................................................ 3-1

3.1.2 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 United States 

Code 3001(3)A-D)..................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.3 NEPA......................................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.4 National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106 ..................................................... 3-2

3.1.5 National Register of Historic Places.......................................................................... 3-2

3.1.6 The Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and 

Historic Preservation (48 Code of Federal Regulations 44716) ............................... 3-3

3.1.7 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic 

Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and 

Reconstructing Historic Buildings, 1995 (36 Code of Federal Regulations 68)........ 3-3

3.1.8 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 .................................. 3-3

3.2 State ....................................................................................................................................... 3-4

3.2.1 Assembly Bill 4239.................................................................................................... 3-4

3.2.2 Assembly Bill 52........................................................................................................ 3-4

3.2.3 CEQA ........................................................................................................................ 3-5

3.2.4 California Register of Historical Resources............................................................... 3-5

3.2.5 Office of Historic Preservation................................................................................... 3-6

3.2.6 Public Resources Code............................................................................................. 3-6
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum 

May 2021 | ii

3.3 Regional ................................................................................................................................. 3-7

3.3.1 County of Riverside General Plan............................................................................. 3-7

3.3.2 County of San Bernardino General Plan................................................................... 3-7

3.4 Consultation under Section 106 and Assembly Bill 52 .......................................................... 3-8

4 Methodology..................................................................................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Approach ................................................................................................................................ 4-1

4.1.1 Potential Tier 2/Project-Level Analysis Considerations ............................................ 4-2

4.2 Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area ......................................................................... 4-4

4.3 Data Sources.......................................................................................................................... 4-4

5 Existing Conditions for Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area .............................................. 5-1

5.1 Prehistory ............................................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1.1 Terminal Pleistocene (12,000 years BP to 10,000 BP)............................................. 5-1

5.1.2 Paleoindian Period (10,000 BP to 7600 BP)............................................................. 5-1

5.1.3 Early Archaic Period (7600 BP to 2000 BP) ............................................................. 5-2

5.1.4 Late Prehistoric Period (2000 BP to 1769 AD) ......................................................... 5-2

5.2 Historic Period (1769 AD to Present)..................................................................................... 5-4

5.2.1 Riverside County....................................................................................................... 5-4

5.2.2 San Bernardino County............................................................................................. 5-6

5.2.3 Railroad ..................................................................................................................... 5-7

5.3 Cultural Resources Identified ................................................................................................. 5-8

6 Consultation, Public Participation and Outreach.............................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Summary of Consultation with Native American Tribes (All Build Alternative Options)......... 6-1

6.1.1 Section 106 Tribal Consultation ................................................................................ 6-1

6.1.2 Assembly Bill 52 Tribal Consultation......................................................................... 6-9

6.2 Public Participation and Outreach........................................................................................ 6-10

7 Environmental Consequences ......................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 No Build Alternative................................................................................................................ 7-1

7.2 Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3...................................................................................... 7-1

7.2.1 Western Section........................................................................................................ 7-1

7.2.2 Eastern Section......................................................................................................... 7-2
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program 

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum 

May 2021 | iii

8 Tier 2 Environmental Review Considerations .................................................................................. 8-1

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

Tables

Table 6-1. Native American Tribes Identified by the Native American Heritage Commission................... 6-2

Table 6-2. Section 106 Native American Consultation Summary (All Build Alternative Options).............. 6-5

Table 6-3. Consulting Parties in the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study 

Area............................................................................................................................................. 6-10

Figures

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

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

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

Figure 5-1. Known Historical Resource Sites within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study 

Area............................................................................................................................................. 5-11

Appendices

Appendix A. Identified Cultural Resources

Appendix B. California Historical Resource Status Codes (National Register of Historic 

Places/California Register of Historical Resources)

Appendix C. Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes

Appendix D. Section 106 Federal Railroad Administration Invitation to Consult Letters

Appendix E. Assembly Bill 52 Consultation Correspondence
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program 

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum 

May 2021 | iv

Abbreviations/Acronyms

AB Assembly Bill

APE area of potential effects

Caltrans California Department of Transportation

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

corridor Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor

CRHR California Register of Historical Resources

EIR environmental impact report

EIS environmental impact statement

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

LAUS Los Angeles Union Station

NAHC Native American Heritage Commission

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

OHP Office of Historic Preservation

PRC Public Resources Code

Program Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Corridor Service Program

RCTC Riverside County Transportation Commission

ROW right-of-way

SDP Service Development Plan

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer

SPRR Southern Pacific Railroad Company

TCR Tribal Cultural Resources
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program 

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum 

May 2021 | 1-1

1 Introduction

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 

Division of Rail and Mass Transportation, and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) 

are proposing the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program (Program) to 

establish daily intercity passenger rail service between Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) in Los 

Angeles County, California and the City of Coachella in Riverside County, California. This cultural, 

historic, and tribal resources technical memorandum evaluates cultural, historic, and tribal resources 

along the 144-mile Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (Program Corridor) in support 

of a programmatic Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)/Environmental Impact Report (EIR). 

The evaluation of potential cultural, historic, and tribal effects resulting from the Program includes:

• Cultural resources

• Historic resources

• Tribal cultural resources (TCR)

1.1 Study Approach

This evaluation was prepared pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and will be incorporated into the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation.

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered NEPA/CEQA process (e.g., Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to 

complete the environmental review of the Program, under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

1508.28 (titled “Tiering”), CEQA Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”), and 

Section 15170 (titled “Joint EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process often 

applied to environmental review for complex transportation projects.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum 

May 2021 | 1-2

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the Service Development Plan 

(SDP), are the first steps in the tiered environmental review process. Based on the decisions made 

in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR and SDP, future site-specific proposals of infrastructure improvements 

will be evaluated through one or more Tier 2/Project-level environmental clearance processes. A 

description of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, SDP, and Tier 2/Project-level analysis processes are 

further discussed below:

• Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR: The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluates potential environmental 

impacts of the No Build Alternative and three Build Alternative Options broadly within the 

Program Corridor. The Program Corridor provides a flexible regional context for the best 

location of an enhanced passenger rail system while providing opportunities for the Build 

Alternative Options to account for engineering and environmental constraints. The Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects 

within the Tier 1/Program Study Area for specific environmental resources. The 

resource-specific study areas generally represent the potential area where rail infrastructure 

improvements and station facilities could be implemented and constructed but does not 

represent the precise location or footprint of the improvement or facility. 

• SDP: The SDP defines the Program’s service mode, estimated ridership to include demand 

and revenue forecasts, operational strategy, station and access analysis, operating and 

maintenance costs, required infrastructure improvements and capital programming, and 

public benefits analysis necessary to implement the proposed intercity passenger rail 

service. As part of the SDP process, the site-specific infrastructure improvement 

requirements are being identified, including the number of stations and the general 

areas/communities in which stations might be located. The SDP infrastructure analysis is 

being informed by rail operations simulation modeling and would occur parallel to the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation process. 

• Tier 2 Project-Level Analysis: Based on the environmental evaluation conducted in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR and the site-specific infrastructure improvements identified in the SDP, a 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis would be required. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would be a 

separate environmental review potentially led and funded by an agency other than FRA. In 

addition, the Tier 2/Project-level analysis process would not automatically follow the Tier 

1 process, rather the potential Tier 2 Projects would need to be defined based on the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR’s broad scope and funding. The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would 

closely align with the future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific 

direct and indirect Project-level effects, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or 

approvals needed for construction. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program 

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum 

May 2021 | 2-1

2 Program Location and Description

2.1 Program Location

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

two geographic sections—a Western Section and an Eastern Section—occurring within existing 

railroad rights-of-way (ROW), as shown on Figure 2-1 through Figure 2-3. The Program Corridor 

runs west-to-east, extending up to 144 linear miles from a western terminus at LAUS to an eastern 

terminus in either the City of Indio or City of Coachella (depending on the Build Alternative Option). 

From west to east, the cities traversed by the Build Alternative Options include Los Angeles, Vernon, 

Bell, Commerce, Montebello, Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs, Norwalk, La Mirada, Buena Park, 

Fullerton, Anaheim, Placentia, Yorba Linda, Chino Hills, Corona, Riverside, Grand Terrace, Colton, 

San Bernardino, Loma Linda, Redlands, Calimesa, Beaumont, Banning, Cabazon, Palm Springs, 

Cathedral City, Thousand Palms, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indio (under all Build Alternative 

Options), and/or Coachella (under Build Alternative Option 1 only). The boundary between Western 

and Eastern Sections is in the City of Colton, at the intersection of existing railroad lines owned by 

Union Pacific Railroad and BNSF. 

2.2 Program Description

2.2.1 Build Alternative Option 1 (Coachella Terminus)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

service within the Western Section of the Program Corridor. 

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

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

signals, drainage, grade separation structures, and up to five new stations constructed in the 

following areas: 1) Loma Linda/Redlands Area (serving the Cities of Loma Linda and Redlands), 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program 

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum 

May 2021 | 2-2

2) the Pass Area (serving the communities of Beaumont, Banning, and Cabazon), 3) the Mid Valley 

(serving the communities of Cathedral City, Thousand Palms, the Agua Caliente Casino area, 

Rancho Mirage, and Palm Desert), 4) the City of Indio, and 5) the City of Coachella as the eastern 

terminus of the Program Corridor.

2.2.2 Build Alternative Option 2 (Indio Terminus)

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

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

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

described above under Build Alternative Option 1. 

Eastern Section. Under Build Alternative Option 2, potential new infrastructure improvements on the 

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

signals, drainage, grade separation structures, and up to four new potential stations could be 

constructed in the following areas: 1) Loma Linda/Redlands Area (serving the Cities of Loma Linda 

and Redlands), 2) the Pass Area (serving the communities of Beaumont, Banning, and Cabazon), 

3) the Mid Valley (serving the communities of Cathedral City, Thousand Palms, the Agua Caliente 

Casino area, Rancho Mirage, and Palm Desert), and 4) the City of Indio as the eastern terminus of 

the Program Corridor.

2.2.3 Build Alternative Option 3 (Indio Terminus with Limited Third 

Track)

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

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

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

described above under Build Alternative Options 1 and 2.

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

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

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

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

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

same as described under Build Alternative Options 1 and 2; however, the addition of the third main 

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

Options 1 and 2. The limited third track under Build Alternative Option 3 would augment the existing 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program 

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum 

May 2021 | 2-3

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

Station Area.

2.3 Construction

2.3.1 Western Section

In the Western Section, existing rail infrastructure would be used to accommodate the proposed 

service, and no additional track improvements would be required to accommodate the proposed 

service under all Build Alternative Options. LAUS would serve as the western terminus, and existing 

stations in the Cities of Fullerton and Riverside would be used, as depicted on Figure 2-1. No new 

stations or additions to existing stations would be required to accommodate the proposed service 

under all Build Alternative Options. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area for potential 

construction-related impacts on cultural, historic, and tribal resources within the Western Section is 

up to 600 feet from either side of the existing railroad centerline.

2.3.2 Eastern Section

In the Eastern Section, proposed new infrastructure improvements under all Build Alternative 

Options could include sidings, additional main line track, wayside signals, drainage, 

grade-separation structures, and stations to accommodate the proposed service. The Eastern 

Section would use the existing station in the City of Palm Springs, which is the only existing station 

in the Eastern Section. Additionally, as depicted on Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3, up to five new 

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

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

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

Palms, the Agua Caliente Casino area, Rancho Mirage, and Palm Desert), 4) the City of Indio (under 

all Build Alternative Options), and/or 5) the City of Coachella (under Build Alternative Option 1 only). 

For the Eastern Section, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area extends up to 0.25 mile 

from either side of the centerline for the entire Eastern Section.

2.4 Operation

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the Program would consist of the addition of two 

daily round-trip intercity diesel-powered passenger trains operating the entire length of the corridor 

between Los Angeles and Indio and/or Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon 

departure from each end of the corridor.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program 

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum 

May 2021 | 2-4

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum 

May 2021 | 2-5

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum 

May 2021 | 2-6

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 2-7

Figure 2-2. Eastern Section of the Program Corridor (Build Alternative Option 1)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 2-8

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 2-9

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 2-10

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 3-1

3 Regulatory Framework

In accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA); Section 4(f) of the 

Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (Section 4(f)); NEPA (42 USC Section 4321 et seq.); CEQ 

regulations implementing NEPA (40 CFR Parts 1501 1508); FRA’s Procedures for Considering 

Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545, May 26, 1999) and CEQA; FRA identified cultural, historic, 

and TCRs within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area and evaluated the potential 

impacts on those resources as a result of implementing the Build Alternative Options. 

3.1 Federal

3.1.1 Federal Railroad Administration

According to the FRA’s Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts (64 FR 28545, May 

26, 1999) Section 14(n)(13) (FRA 1999a), an “EIS should assess the impacts on both passenger 

and freight transportation, by all modes, from local, regional, national, and international perspectives. 

The EIS should include a discussion of both construction period and long-term impacts on vehicular 

traffic congestion.”

3.1.2 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (25 

United States Code 3001(3)A-D)

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act defines cultural resources as cultural 

items, meaning human remains, associated and unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and 

objects with cultural patrimony. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

establishes the ownership of cultural items excavated or discovered on federal lands. It requires 

consultation with the appropriate Native American tribes prior to the intentional excavation, or 

removal after inadvertent discovery, of several cultural items, including human remains and objects 

of cultural patrimony. 

3.1.3 NEPA

NEPA requires that federal agencies evaluate the environmental effects of their actions before 

proceeding with a project. NEPA as amended (Pub. L. 91-190, 42 United States Code

4321-4347, January 1, 1970, as amended by Pub. L. 94-52, July 3, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, August 

9, 1975, and Pub. L. 97-258 Section 4(b), September 13, 1982) recognizes the continuing 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 3-2

responsibility of the Federal Government to "preserve important historic, cultural, and natural 

aspects of our national heritage..." (Sec. 101 [42 United States Code Section 4321]) (#382). 

3.1.4 National Historic Preservation Act – Section 106

The NHPA, as amended, sets forth national policies and procedures for historic properties, defined 

as districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects included in or eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies to take into 

account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and to allow the Advisory Council on 

Historic Preservation the opportunity to comment on those undertakings, following regulations issued 

by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR Part 800). The Section 106 process 

consists of four steps. 

1. Identify the project, which includes initial coordination with other environmental reviewers, 

consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), identification of and

consultation with interested parties, and identification of points in the process for seeking 

input from the public and notifying the public of proposed actions.

2. Identify historic properties within the project area that have the potential to be affected by the 

project. This includes the initial identification of potential historic properties and evaluation of 

these properties for NRHP eligibility.

3. Assess the effects of the project on historic properties.

4. Resolution of adverse effects. This includes consultation with the SHPO and interested 

parties. The outcome of this step is generally an agreement detailing the consensus reached 

and the steps to be taken to mitigate for the adverse effect, called a memorandum of 

agreement.

3.1.5 National Register of Historic Places

NRHP eligibility determinations require an assessment of historic resources in relation to relevant 

historic contexts through criteria set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. The Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation’s implementing regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties,” are found in 36 CFR 

Part 800. The NRHP criteria (36 CFR Part 60.4) are used to evaluate resources when complying 

with Section 106 of the NHPA. Those criteria state that eligible resources comprise “districts, sites, 

buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, 

workmanship, feeling, and association,” and any of the following criteria:

1. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad 

patterns of our history.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 3-3

2. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past.

3. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or 

that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic value, or that represent a 

significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction.

4. That has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

3.1.6 The Secretary of Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for 

Archaeology and Historic Preservation (48 Code of Federal 

Regulations 44716)

These standards, effective as of 1983, provide technical advice for archaeological and historic 

preservation practices. Their purpose is (1) to organize the information gathered about preservation 

activities; (2) to describe results to be achieved by federal agencies, states, and others when 

planning for the identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment of historic properties; and (3) to 

integrate the diverse efforts of many entities performing historic preservation into a systematic effort 

to preserve the nation’s culture heritage.

3.1.7 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of 

Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, 

Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, 1995 (36 Code 

of Federal Regulations 68)

The Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties is a compilation of 34 guidelines to promote 

the responsible preservation of United States historic cultural resources. The standards specifically 

address preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction of historic materials. The 

standards are not intended to be the sole basis for decision making in regard to whether a historic 

property should be saved, but to provide consistency in conservation and restoration practices.

3.1.8 Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, codified in federal law at 49 United 

States Code 303, declares that “it is the policy of the United States Government that special effort 

should be made to preserve the natural beauty of the countryside and public park and recreation 

lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic sites.”
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 3-4

Section 4(f) specifies that the Secretary of Transportation may approve a transportation program or 

project requiring the use of publicly owned land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and 

waterfowl refuge of national, state, or local significance, or land of an historic site of national, state, 

or local significance (as determined by the federal, state, or local officials having jurisdiction over the 

park, area, refuge, or site) only if both of the following occur:

• There is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land.

• The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park, 

recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from the use.

Section 4(f) further requires consultation with the Department of the Interior and, as appropriate, the 

involved offices of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development in developing transportation projects and programs that use lands protected by 

Section 4(f). If historic sites are involved, then coordination with the SHPO is also needed.

3.2 State

3.2.1 Assembly Bill 4239

In 1976, Assembly Bill (AB) 4239 established the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) as 

the primary government agency responsible for identifying and cataloging Native American cultural 

resources.

3.2.2 Assembly Bill 52

In 2014, California governor Jerry Brown signed AB 52, which established an additional requirement 

under CEQA for consultation with Native American tribes regarding TCRs. AB 52 requires that the 

CEQA lead agency notify any interested Native American tribes of a proposed project, only if those 

tribes have requested to be notified regarding the CEQA lead agency’s projects. The CEQA lead 

agency must consult in good faith with participating California Native American tribes prior to the 

release of the EIR. If a project has the potential to affect a TCR, the CEQA document must discuss 

whether there is a significant impact on a TCR and whether there are feasible alternatives or 

mitigation to avoid or substantially lessen impacts on the TCR. Consultation is finished when one of 

the following applies: 1) the parties agree to avoid or mitigate significant effects on TCRs; or 2) the 

CEQA lead agency, acting in good faith and after reasonable effort, concludes that mutual 

agreement cannot be reached.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 3-5

3.2.3 CEQA

Established in 1970, CEQA directs state and local government entities to analyze and publicly 

disclose environmental impacts of proposed projects. Moreover, it requires the development and 

adoption of mitigation measures to lessen impacts. At PRC Section 21060.5, the CEQA Guidelines 

define the environment to include “objects of historic... significance.” For the purposes of CEQA, 

“historical resources” are defined at PRC Section 15064.5(a) of the CEQA Guidelines as follows:

• A resource listed in, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources 

Commission for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) (14 PRC 

5024.1; California Code of Regulations, Section 4850 et seq.)

• A resource included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in PRC Section 

5020.1(k) or identified as significant in a historical resource survey meeting the requirements 

of PRC Section 5024.1(g)

• Any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that a lead agency 

determines to be historically significant or significant in the architectural, engineering, 

scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military, or cultural annals of 

California, provided the lead agency’s determination is supported by substantial evidence in 

light of the whole record; generally, a resource must be considered by the lead agency to be 

“historically significant” if the resource meets the criteria for listing in the CRHR (PRC Section 

5024.1; 14 California Code of Regulations 4852), which parallel the NRHP criteria but 

consider state and local significance

• Even in instances in which a resource is not listed in, or determined eligible for listing in, the 

CRHR; not included in a local register of historical resources; or not identified in a historical 

resources survey, a lead agency may still determine that a resource is a historical resource, 

as defined in PRC Sections 5020.1(j) or 5024.1. If it is determined that a project would result 

in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource, then that project 

would have a significant effect on the environment

3.2.4 California Register of Historical Resources

CRHR is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, 

and citizens to identify the existing historical resources of the state and indicate which resources 

deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change” 

(California PRC Section 5024.1(a)). Certain resources are determined by the statute to be 

automatically included in the CRHR, including California properties formally determined eligible for, 

or listed in, the NRHP (PRC Section 5024.1(d)).
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 3-6

3.2.5 Office of Historic Preservation

The Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) implements the policies of the NHPA on a statewide level. 

The SHPO is an appointed official who implements historic preservation programs within the state’s 

jurisdictions.

3.2.6 Public Resources Code 

• PRC 5097.5: Provides for the protection of cultural and paleontological resources and 

prohibits the removal, destruction, injury, or defacement of archaeological and 

paleontological features on any lands under the jurisdiction of state or local authorities.

• PRC 5097.97: States that no agency or party shall cause severe or irreparable damage to 

any Native American sanctified cemetery, place of worship, religious or ceremonial site, or 

sacred shrine located on public property, except on a clear and convincing showing that the 

public interest and necessity so require. No previously recorded Native American religious or 

ceremonial sites are documented within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area.

• PRC 5097.98 (b) and (e): Requires a landowner on whose property Native American human 

remains are found to limit further development activity in the vicinity until he/she confers with 

the NAHC-identified most likely descendants to consider treatment options. In the absence of 

most likely descendants or of a treatment acceptable to all parties, the landowner is required 

to reenter the remains elsewhere on the property in a location not subject to further 

disturbance.

• PRC 65092: Provides for notices of projects to be sent to California Native American tribes 

that are on the contact list maintained by the NAHC in the definition of "person" to whom 

notice of public hearings shall be sent by local governments.

• PRC 30244: Requires reasonable mitigation for impacts on paleontological resources that 

occur as a result of development
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 3-7

3.3 Regional1

3.3.1 County of Riverside General Plan

The policies in the County of Riverside General Plan Multipurpose Open Space Element recognizes 

the importance of cultural resources with the development of policies to ensure these resources are 

considered in project planning (County of Riverside 2015). 

• Policy OS 19.1 - Cultural resources (both prehistoric and historic) are a valued part of the 

history of the County of Riverside.

• Policy OS 19.2 - The County of Riverside shall establish a Cultural Resources Program in 

consultation with tribes and the professional cultural resources consulting community that, at 

a minimum would address each of the following: application of the Cultural Resources 

Program to projects subject to environmental review; government-to-government 

consultation; application processing requirements; information database(s); confidentiality of 

site locations; content and review of technical studies; professional consultant qualifications 

and requirements; site monitoring; examples of preservation and mitigation techniques and 

methods; curation and the descendant community consultation requirements of local, state

and federal law.

• Policy OS 19.3 - Review proposed development for the possibility of cultural resources and 

for compliance with the cultural resources program.

• Policy OS 19.4 - To the extent feasible, designate as open space and allocate resources 

and/or tax credits to prioritize the protection of cultural resources preserved in place or left in 

an undisturbed state.

• Policy OS 19.5 - Exercise sensitivity and respect for human remains from both prehistoric 

and historic time periods and comply with all applicable laws concerning such remains.

3.3.2 County of San Bernardino General Plan

Goal CO 3 of the County of San Bernardino General Plan states, “The County will preserve and 

promote its historic and prehistoric cultural heritage.”

1 The Los Angeles County 2035 General Plan and Orange County General Plan are not applicable to cultural 

resources, as no Program construction would occur within those jurisdictions.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 3-8

3.4 Consultation under Section 106 and Assembly Bill 52

Section 106 and California AB 52 offer specific requirements and guidance for consultation with 

Native American tribes and other consulting parties. Section 106 requires federal agencies to initiate 

review, which takes place between the agency and state and tribal organization officials. AB 52 

establishes a consultation process with California Native America tribes that includes both federally

recognized and non-federally recognized tribal interested parties. The law also recognizes a new 

class of resources, TCRs, and requires consideration of tribal cultural values in determination of 

impacts and mitigation. AB 52 requires lead agencies to notify tribes (who have requested 

notifications) of projects that will be undertaken and to begin meaningful consultation. 

According to PRC Section 21074 (a)(1)(A)-(B), “tribal cultural resources” are either of the following:

1. Sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to 

a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:

a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR.

b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 

5020.1.

2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial 

evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. In 

applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1 for the purposes of this 

paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California 

Native American tribe.

a. A cultural landscape that meets the criteria of subdivision (a) is a tribal cultural resource 

to the extent that the landscape is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope 

of the landscape.

b. A historical resource described in Section 21084.1, a unique archaeological resource as 

defined in subdivision (g) of Section 21083.2, or a “nonunique archaeological resource” 

as defined in subdivision (h) of Section 21083.2 may also be a tribal cultural resource if it 

conforms to the criteria of subdivision (a).
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 4-1

4 Methodology

This methodology identifies the approach and assumptions for describing existing conditions of 

cultural resources. It describes data sources, methods for obtaining data, and the results of the 

research. The Western Section of the Program Corridor would not require ground disturbance and

would use existing infrastructure. Record searches and archival research were, thus, only conducted 

for the Eastern Section, as construction for the Eastern Section would require ground disturbance.

The term “cultural resources” used in this document refers to all “built environment” resources 

(structures, bridges, railroads, water conveyance systems, etc.), places and landscapes of traditional 

or cultural importance, and archaeological sites (both prehistoric and historic), regardless of 

significance. Under federal and state laws, cultural resources that meet certain criteria of 

significance are referred to by various terms, including “historic properties,” “historic sites,” “historical 

resources,” and “tribal cultural resources.”

4.1 Approach

The Section 106 implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to comply with 

Section 106 in coordination with NEPA, per 36 CFR Part 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is only 

funding the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR and has determined the planning effort would not have the 

potential to adversely affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and facilitate 

potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2/Project-level analysis, FRA initiated consultation 

under 36 CFR Part 800.3 and conducted a preliminary identification of historic properties that 

included background research/data obtained from records search and other sources such as 

historical maps. It does not include data collected through archaeological or built environment 

surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. Completion of the Section 106 process would 

occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Program 

Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-of-Way, as well as 

36 CFR Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future undertaking associated with construction under

Tier 2/Project-level analysis. An area of potential effects (APE) for Tier 2/Project-level analysis would 

be developed in consultation with the SHPO and other Section 106 consulting parties. 

The methodology used to evaluate potential effects on historic properties in this Cultural, Historic, 

and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum is based on the methods that would inform the 

Section 106 process for an undertaking with the potential to affect historic properties. However, as 

site-specific locations for the Build Alternative Options rail infrastructure improvements and station 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 4-2

facilities have not been selected at the Tier 1/Program level, the analysis in this report is presented 

at a broader corridor level. 

A limited records search was completed for the Tier 1/Program service-level evaluation to 

summarize and provide an overview of known cultural resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Cultural Study Area. Since the Western Section would not require ground disturbance and would use 

existing infrastructure, the limited record and archival searches were only conducted for the Eastern 

Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area where ground-disturbing activities could 

occur. Where appropriate, publicly made data for the Western Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Cultural Study Area has been included for context. The identification of known cultural resources 

within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area relies on data obtained from previously 

evaluated cultural resources. For this Tier 1/Program service-level evaluation, no cultural resources 

were evaluated for NRHP or CRHR eligibility. 

As part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC identified 

potential consulting parties for Section 106 and AB 52, which included federal agencies, state 

agencies, local agencies, and federally and state-recognized Native American tribes that have 

cultural and traditional affiliation within or near the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Cultural Study Area. Section 106 and AB 52 consultation letters were sent out to gather information 

from and provide meeting opportunities with the potential consulting parties to discuss the Program. 

Input received from the consulting parties is documented in this Cultural, Historic, and Tribal 

Resources Technical Memorandum and considered in future decision making. 

4.1.1 Potential Tier 2/Project-Level Analysis Considerations

The Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum focuses on the evaluation of 

service-level impacts at the Tier 1/Program-level. FRA has determined that this planning effort does 

not have the potential to affect historic properties or TCRs at the Tier 1/Program-level planning stage 

and that the Section 106 and AB 52 processes are complete for purposes of the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR. 

If federal funding is used, or a federal approval is required, to advance any of the Build Alternative 

Options to construction, that federal action would require a Tier 2/Project-level analysis and be 

considered a separate undertaking. Subsequent Section 106 and AB 52 efforts would be contingent 

on the identification of construction funding for site-specific Tier 2/Project-level rail infrastructure 

improvements and station facilities and would be led by the lead federal and state agencies for the 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 and AB 

52 processes by a lead federal and state agency encompasses the identification of an (APE, the 

geographic areas within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to further 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 4-3

identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal and state agencies would consult with 

the SHPO and THPOs, other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE would be evaluated for their 

eligibility for listing in the NRHP. The lead federal and state agencies would then complete the 

assessment of effects on historic properties and the resolution of any adverse effects. 

Therefore, the preliminary identification effort described in this Cultural, Historic, and Tribal 

Resources Technical Memorandum may be used to inform a future Tier 2/Project-level analysis, 

Section 106, and AB 52 consultations. Additional cultural resources would likely be identified during 

the Tier 2/Project-level analysis once site-specific details, such as station locations and footprints, 

are known. Identification of the site-specific Tier 2/Project-level study areas based on additional 

engineering and design would allow for consideration of site-specific measures to avoid, minimize, 

and mitigate impacts on cultural resources. 

If there is a subsequent undertaking related to the Build Alternative Options at the Tier 2/Project 

level, the lead federal agency for the undertaking would initiate consultation under Section 106 and 

complete the process in accordance with 36 CFR Part 800. If the lead federal and state agencies 

determine the undertaking has the potential to affect historic properties, additional outreach and 

consultation with the SHPO, Native American tribes, and other consulting parties would be required. 

This outreach and consultation may be based on the work completed for this Cultural, Historic, and 

Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum. 

The findings and conclusions in this Tier 1/Program Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources 

Technical Memorandum do not preclude the consideration of additional cultural or TCRs. During the 

Section 106 and AB 52 consultation process for this Tier 1/Program effort, FRA and RCTC received 

input from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, 

Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, La Posta Band Diegueno Mission Indians of the 

La Posta Reservation, Pala Band of Mission Indians, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, and 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians. Input received from these consultations identified areas within the 

Tier 1/Program Cultural Study Area that contain TCRs. However, the boundaries of where these 

TCRs are located have not been provided due to confidentiality, and further consultation would be 

required at the Tier 2/Project level to determine whether site-specific TCRs are present based on 

advanced engineering design (e.g., site-specific rail infrastructure improvements and station 

facilities). 

Avoidance is the preferred way to address impacts on cultural resources and TCRs. To the extent 

practicable, this Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum identifies 

avoidance measures for further consideration in a Tier 2/Project-level analysis and future 

undertaking. Site-specific avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures would be developed as 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 4-4

engineering and design progresses, and in consultation with SHPO, Native American tribes, the 

public, and other consulting parties.

4.2 Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR has identified a Tier 1/ Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area for the 

preliminary investigation of historic properties for the Program.

• Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area: For the Western Section, the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area extends up to 600 feet from either side of the existing railroad 

centerline. For the Eastern Section, the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area extends 

up to 0.25 mile from either side of the centerline for the entire Eastern Section.

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area encompasses the area where physical 

changes may occur (new infrastructure improvements, such as sidings, additional main line 

track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation structures, and stations) and preserves 

flexibility for consideration of up to five new stations and associated track infrastructure at 

any point within the corridor (i.e., Tier 2/Project-level analysis). Although the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area includes the Western Section for informational purposes, no 

ground disturbance would occur in the Western Section.

• APE: The APE is defined in the regulations implementing the Section 106 review process as 

"The geographic area or areas within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause 

changes in the character or use of historic properties, if any such properties exist.” FRA has 

determined that the planning effort would not have the potential to adversely affect historic 

properties. As such, no APE will be defined for this study but will be delineated in the future 

for the Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

4.3 Data Sources

Record searches were conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center of the California 

Historical Resources Information System and at the Eastern Information Center of the California 

Historical Resources Information System between July 9 and July 13, 2018, for the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area (0.25 mile on either side of the railroad centerline in the Eastern 

Section, as described in Section 4.2). 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 4-5

National, state, and local inventories of architectural and historic resources were consulted to 

determine the location of previously documented resources proximate to the Program Corridor. The 

following standard sources were consulted in the process of compiling this report:

• Federally designated historic districts and sites: To identify sites present within the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area, the National Park Service – United States

Department of the Interior NRHP database was consulted. 

• State designated historic districts and sites: To identify sites present within the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area, the OHP CRHR database was consulted. This 

database also includes sites designated as California Historical Landmarks and California 

Points of Historical Interest. 

Additional resources consulted in the process of compiling this report included records from the OHP

Archaeological Determinations of Eligibility and the OHP Directory of Properties in the Historic 

Property Data File. A Sacred Lands File check from the NAHC was conducted on June 27, 2017, in 

conjunction with Section 106 and AB 52 consultation efforts in Section 6, Consultation, Public 

Participation and Outreach.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 4-6

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-1

5 Existing Conditions for Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area

5.1 Prehistory

The following is a summary of the prehistory of Southern California based on Byrd and Raab, which 

in turn is partially derived from Erlandson and Colten’s division of the Late Holocene into Early, 

Middle, and Late subdivisions (Byrd and Raab 2007; Erlandson and Colton 1991). These periods are 

analytical constructs and do not necessarily reflect Native American views.

5.1.1 Terminal Pleistocene (12,000 years BP to 10,000 BP)

Traditional models of California prehistory suggest that the state’s first inhabitants were Paleo-Indian 

big-game hunters who ranged across North America during the closing phases of the last Ice Age 

(Fagan 2003, Moratto 1984, Wallace 1978). However, evidence for Paleo-Indian occupation of 

Southern California remains scant. As the Wisconsin Ice Age began to wane, warming and drying 

conditions between about 12,000 BP and 10,000 BP are thought to have triggered far-reaching 

cultural responses in California. In the desert interior, lakes and streams that were once fed by moist 

Pleistocene climatic conditions began to shrink. At the same time, cultures dependent on these 

lacustrine environments, subsumed under the heading of a Western Pluvial Lakes Tradition, 

responded by exploiting a wider range of plant and animal species and by migrating to regions with 

more favorable moisture conditions, including the Southern California coast. 

5.1.2 Paleoindian Period (10,000 BP to 7600 BP)

The earliest well-documented prehistoric sites in Southern California are identified as belonging to 

the Paleoindian period, which, in Southern California, has been termed the San Dieguito 

complex/tradition. The Paleoindian period is thought to have occurred between 9,000 years ago, or 

earlier, and 8,000 years ago in this region. Although varying from the well-defined fluted point 

complexes, such as Clovis, the San Dieguito complex is still seen as a hunting-focused economy 

with limited use of seed grinding technology. The economy is generally seen to focus on highly 

ranked resources, such as large mammals, and relatively high mobility, which may be related to 

following large game. Archaeological evidence associated with this period has been found around 

inland dry lakes, on old terrace deposits of the California desert, and near the coast.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-2

5.1.3 Early Archaic Period (7600 BP to 2000 BP)

The Early Archaic period is differentiated from the earlier Paleoindian period by a shift to a more 

generalized economy and an increased focus on use of grinding and seed processing technology. At 

sites dated between approximately 8000 and 1500 years BP, the increased use of groundstone 

artifacts and atlatl dart points, along with a mixed core-based tool assemblage, identifies a range of 

adaptations to a more diversified set of plant and animal resources. Variations of the Pinto and Elko 

series projectile points, large bifaces, manos and portable metates, core tools, and heavy use of 

marine invertebrates in coastal areas are characteristic of this period; however, many coastal sites 

show limited use of diagnostic atlatl points. Major changes in technology within this relatively long 

chronological unit appear limited. Several scientists have considered changes in projectile point 

styles and artifact frequencies within the Early Archaic period to be indicative of population 

movements or units of cultural change (Moratto 1984); however, these units are poorly defined 

locally due to poor site preservation. 

5.1.4 Late Prehistoric Period (2000 BP to 1769 AD)

Traditional models indicate that the Late Holocene was a time period during which the cultural 

patterns and tribal groups observable by early Euro-American explorers and settlers emerged. 

Sometime after 500 AD, the bow and arrow appeared, with ceramics adopted after 1000 AD. Recent 

research revealed that this period has more complexity than was previously thought, with dynamic 

regional and local patterns of change. For example, culture change may have been rapid rather than 

gradual, and periods of cultural stress were not limited to post-contact times but occurred 

periodically during the prehistoric era, as well. 

Around 2000 BP, Takic-speaking people from the Great Basin region began migrating into southern 

California, representing what is called the Late Prehistoric period (Kroeber 1925). The Late 

Prehistoric period in this portion of eastern Southern California is recognized archaeologically by 

smaller projectile points, the replacement of flexed inhumations with cremation, the introduction of 

ceramics, and an emphasis on inland plant food collection and processing, especially acorns and 

mesquite (Kroeber 1925). Inland semi-sedentary villages were established along major water 

courses and around springs, and montane areas were seasonally occupied to exploit mesquite, 

acorns, and piñon nuts. Mortars for mesquite and acorn processing increased in frequency relative 

to seed grinding basins. 

The most numerous of the archaeological resources in the Coachella Valley at the east end of the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area date to the Late Prehistoric period. The majority of the 

sites studied were small processing sites associated with the grinding of vegetal resources and 

dating to the Late Prehistoric period. Larger habitation sites were less common but displayed a wider 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-3

range of activities and longer periods of occupation (Jefferson 1971). Typical artifacts at these sites 

include Desert Side-notched and Cottonwood Triangular projectile points and Lower Colorado Buff 

Ware and Tizon Brown Ware ceramics. Lithic artifacts are typically made from chert, volcanic, or 

quartz material.

Lake Cahuilla

During the late Cretaceous (greater than 100 million years ago), a granitic and gabbroic batholith 

was being formed under and west of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area. This batholith 

was uplifted and now forms the granitic rocks and outcrops of the San Jacinto Mountains. At about 

the same time that these mountains were being uplifted, the Salton Trough was dropping, reaching 

points well below sea level. The Salton Trough to the east of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural 

Study Area began slowly filling with sediments from streams draining the adjacent mountains and 

from the Colorado River. The Colorado River occasionally shifted from its Gulf of California delta and 

flowed north into the Salton Trough, forming freshwater Lake Cahuilla.

At its highest level, this body of water covered more than 60 square miles of the lowest portion of the 

basin. During high stands the lake covered much of the Imperial and Coachella valleys, extending as 

far south as Mexico, north beyond Indio and almost as far west as Palm Springs.

Lake Cahuilla was a resource that had profound effects on the prehistoric people who lived in the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area and groups in the surrounding region. This lake 

probably last existed in the 1700s (Laylander 1997). It supplied the southern Imperial Valley with not 

only water, but other lacustrine resources, such as freshwater mussels, waterfowl, and fish. The 

importance of Lake Cahuilla as a source of natural resources during the Late Prehistoric cannot be 

underestimated. Over time fresh water lakes formed in the Salton Trough when major floods 

occurred as the Colorado River breached its banks. The resulting head-cutting diverted nearly all or 

most of the river’s flow into the trough. Eventually, the water would reach the height of the drainage 

and would divide between the trough and the delta to the south. During the Holocene, the drainage 

divide was approximately 12 meters above sea level (40 feet). The lake would rise to that contour,

and the overflow would continue on to the delta. When filled, the lake would cover 5,700 square 

meters (2,200 miles) and reach a maximum depth of 96 meters (315 feet) (Wilke 1978). It is during 

these high stands that human occupation around the lake was at its greatest. There are hundreds of 

Late Prehistoric sites along the 12-meter shoreline and a lesser number that followed the shoreline 

as it receded. As the Colorado River continued to flow through the trough, the silt it imported would 

eventually fill the breaches and a flow closer to its original course would be restored. Without a 

source of fresh water, the lake would quickly recede with proportional salinity. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-4

At least four lake stands are widely accepted to have occurred, beginning around 700 AD and 

continuing until the late seventeenth century. A fifth infilling, occurring after 1580 AD, was proposed 

based on recessional shoreline archaeological sites; however, more data is required for certainty. 

Portions of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area lie entirely within the high stand 

(12-meter) area. This indicates the archaeological sites located within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Cultural Study Area would have been occupied during periods when the lake was either receding or 

less likely infilling.

Late Prehistoric settlement patterns are characterized by, comparatively, large residential camps 

linked to numerous ephemeral satellite sites. Site types include major residential bases, residential 

camps, and limited activity sites. The smaller sites were non-randomly distributed, short-term 

encampments, some of which were dedicated to specialized subsistence tasks.

5.2 Historic Period (1769 AD to Present)

Spanish contact in California began with the early explorations of Juan Cabrillo in 1542. Cabrillo 

came ashore on what is now Point Loma in San Diego County to claim the land for Spain and gave it 

the name San Miguel. Sixty years passed before another European, Sebastían Vizcaíno, entered 

the bay on November 10, 1602, and gave it the name San Diego. Although both expeditions 

encountered native inhabitants, there appears to have been little or no interaction. Sporadic 

encounters occurred after that, but prolonged contact with the Native American populations did not 

occur until Spanish efforts to colonize Alta California began with the Portola Expedition in 

1769 (Bolton 1931).

Over the course of approximately the succeeding 5 decades, Spanish Franciscan missionaries, 

military officials and soldiers, and civilian colonists created a chain of 21 missions, 4 presidios, and 

3 pueblos across coastal Alta California. 

5.2.1 Riverside County

In 1776 and again in 1778, Spanish army Captain Juan Bautista de Anza led an overland expedition 

through the region on a 1,200-mile route from Nogales, Arizona, to San Francisco, California. He 

traversed Riverside County along the historic route now designated the Juan Bautista de Anza 

Historic Trail. Franciscan Farther Juan Norberto de Santiago, the first non-native to come into 

Temecula Valley, arrived in October 1797. Santiago had traveled from Mission San Juan Capistrano 

with an exploring party of seven soldiers, seeking a site for a new mission. He arrived at the site of

present-day Lake Elsinore and traveled southward through the Temecula Valley to the ocean (Bolton 

1931).
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-5

During the late eighteenth century, the Spanish mission fathers of San Gabriel Arcángel, San Juan 

Capistrano, and San Luis Rey began colonizing the Native American lands, using the interior valley 

of Western Riverside County for raising grain and cattle. San Gabriel Arcángel Mission claimed 

lands in present-day Jurupa, Riverside, San Jacinto, and the San Gorgonio Pass. These lands were 

used for grazing large herds of mission-owned cattle and sheep transported to market along mission 

trails (Smith and Trafzer 2006; e-ReferenceDesk 2011). After the secularization of the missions, 

16 ranchos were granted in Riverside County; Juan Bandini received the first of these in 1838 

(Brown and Young 1985). Following a gold strike in La Paz, Arizona, in 1862, former forty-niner 

William D. Bradshaw and a company of men set out to open up a trail west of San Bernardino to 

western Arizona. Following the establishment of the stagecoach route, several small towns emerged 

from stage stops and Native American settlements along the route in Riverside County, including 

present-day Banning, Beaumont, Cabazon, and Palm Springs. 

Shortly after the founding of Riverside in 1870, a prosperous citrus industry began to take hold in the 

region. By the early 1870s, two simple canals had been constructed by diverting water from the 

Santa Ana River to Riverside agriculture land, thus making large-scale crop production possible for 

the first time. This basic irrigation served as a catalyst for crop experimentation, including the navel 

orange, as a number of crops could now thrive in the arid climate. 

With the agriculture boom provided by the popularity of the navel orange, Riverside grew rapidly 

during the 1880s. Citrus cultivation quickly became the dominant economic engine of Riverside. 

California had over half a million citrus trees planted by 1882, and nearly half of these trees were in 

Riverside. The evolution of the irrigation system of Riverside, along with advancements in railroad 

car refrigeration, allowed citrus farmers in Riverside to expand the market for their products. In 

1881, Riverside produced roughly 4,300 shipping boxes of agriculture, and by 1898, that number 

had grown to 1,569,800 boxes (Patterson 1971).

Initially occupying portions of San Bernardino and San Diego counties, the City of Riverside was 

formally incorporated in 1883. The County of Riverside was created a decade later out of portions of 

San Bernardino and San Diego counties, with the City of Riverside as the county seat. By then, 

Riverside citizens had amassed increasing wealth through citrus enterprise as the arrival of the 

California Southern (later the Santa Fe) and Southern Pacific Railroads, along with the development 

of the refrigerated railroad car, allowed local growers to ship fruit to East Coast markets. Local fruit 

growers joined together to pick and sell fruit under a single brand name and fruit-grading system. 

During World War I, the federal government established a military presence in the county, and the 

United States Army constructed March Field, now March Air Reserve Base, to train aviators. The 

base increased in size during World War II, adding Camp Haan and a third facility (County of 

Riverside 2010; March Air Reserve n.d.).
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-6

5.2.2 San Bernardino County

During the Spanish period in San Bernardino County, as the chain of missions prospered, their 

livestock holdings increased and became vulnerable to theft. The Spaniards responded by planning 

inland missions that could provide additional security and establish a presence beyond the coast. By 

1806, a formal expedition to find potential locations was mounted to the San Bernardino Valley and, 

on May 10, 1810, Father Francisco Dumetz established a religious site (or capilla) at a Cahuilla 

rancheria called Guachama (Beattie and Beattie 1939). The valley received its name from this site, 

which Fr. Dumetz dedicated to San Bernardino de Siena, in honor of the saint’s feast day, 

traditionally celebrated on May 10. 

Spanish missionaries settled the San Bernardino Valley in the early nineteenth century and 

colonized local native populations. Father Francisco Dumetz of Mission San Gabriel Arcángel 

arrived in 1810 and named the area after the Italian San Bernardino of Siena (City of San 

Bernardino 2010). The missionaries ran Rancho San Bernardino, which functioned as a cattle ranch 

and adjunct to Mission San Gabriel Arcángel until 1834, when the missions were closed by order of 

the Mexican governor of California.

In 1841, following the secularization of the missions, Antonio María Lugo was granted a portion of 

the former Mission San Gabriel Arcángel lands, named Rancho Santa Ana del Chino (Ingersoll 

1904). 

In addition to Rancho Santa Ana del Chino, in 1842, Antonio María Lugo was granted the lands of 

Rancho San Bernardino, along with three of his sons, José del Carmen Lugo, José Maria Lugo, and 

Vicente Lugo, and his friend Diego Sepulveda. Slover Mountain, also known as El Cerrito Solo, was 

the natural landmark used for establishing the boundaries of the land grant in the San Bernardino 

Valley (Ingersoll 1904). Sepulveda’s adobe in the City of Yucaipa remains the oldest home in San 

Bernardino County. 

A small band of New Mexicans settled nearby at Politana during the same period in 1842. Their 

presence was intended to help forestall attacks by Native Americans, and members of the group 

eventually established La Placita and Agua Mansa along the Santa Ana River near modern-day 

Colton. Their cemetery at Agua Mansa remains as the oldest cemetery in the county. 

In the 1850s, Mormon pioneers, under the aegis of Brigham Young, arrived in the San Bernardino 

Valley in 1851 and purchased 35,000 acres of Rancho San Bernardino. However, the missionaries 

were recalled to Salt Lake City by Brigham Young in 1857, leaving behind schools, roads, and a 

local government. After the departure of the Mormon missionaries, Dr. Benjamin Barton bought 

Rancho San Bernardino, which became the property of San Bernardino County in 1925 (Mission 

Tour n.d.).
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-7

San Bernardino County was established in 1953. While the southwestern part of the county 

remained primarily an agricultural and logging area throughout the nineteenth century, some 

commercial interest was sparked by the Holcomb Valley Gold Rush from 1861 to 1862. Citrus trees 

were introduced to San Bernardino County in 1857 by Anson Van Leuven, who purchased several 

orange trees from the Mission San Gabriel Arcángel and planted them near the asistencia. The 

citrus industry grew dramatically within the next century and became San Bernardino County’s most 

important agricultural product. Commercial interests were also served by the Southern Pacific 

Railroad, which arrived in Colton in 1875, and the California Southern Railroad, which arrived in San 

Bernardino in 1883 (Ingersoll 1904; Brown and Boyd 1922; Myra L. Frank and Associates and 

Offenhauser/Mekeel Architects 1996).

By 1910, the citrus and railroad industries dominated the local economy and included growing, 

packing, and shipping fruit products. Other industries in the San Bernardino area included cattle 

ranching, sugar beet cultivation, and viticulture and enology. Residential and commercial 

development in the county mirrored the post-World War I residential and industrial activity of 

Southern California generally during the boom years of the 1920s. The county acquired a large 

military presence during World War II with the establishment of San Bernardino Air Material 

Command, later renamed Norton Air Force Base, on the outskirts of San Bernardino (Smith et al. 

2008). Since World War II, industrial, commercial, and residential investment and development have 

markedly increased in the region. Improved transportation networks have helped the county and its 

residents increasingly tie themselves into the economies of the Los Angeles Basin and Southern 

California as a whole.

5.2.3 Railroad

The first railroad built in California was the Central Pacific Railroad (formed by the “Big Four”: 

Charles Crocker, Leland Stanford, Collis P. Huntington and Mark Hopkins), which was to travel from 

Sacramento east to meet up with the Union Pacific Railroad coming from Iowa. This railroad 

incorporated in 1861, began construction in 1863, and was completed in 1869, thereby creating the 

nation’s first transcontinental railroad. It was this same group that initiated the development of the 

Southern Pacific Railroad, also known as the “Espee.” 

The Southern Pacific Railroad Company (SPRR) was incorporated in California in 1865 as a land 

holding company; in 1866, the SPRR was reorganized as a transcontinental railroad company. The 

SPRR was formed to build a route that would connect San Francisco to San Diego, and then head 

east, meeting the Atlantic and Pacific Railroad at Yuma on the California/Arizona border. The route 

was linked to the Santa Fe Railroad at Deming, New Mexico in 1881, and through acquisition of 

smaller railroads, the alignment to New Orleans was complete by 1883. This is known as the 

“Sunset Route” and was the second transcontinental route. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-8

Initial construction of the railroad was focused on connecting San Francisco and San Diego; 

however, the route that was developed went south from San Francisco through the San Joaquin 

Valley, over the Tehachapi Mountains, across the Mojave Desert, and down through the Soledad 

Pass, where it appeared at the northeast end of the San Fernando Valley, skirting the Verdugo 

Mountains on the way to Los Angeles. The route then runs almost due east between Los Angeles 

and Colton. 

In the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area, the railroad alignment is part of the Yuma 

District, specifically the Yuma Subdivision. It is the main line in the district, and the line extends

roughly 200 miles from West Colton east/southeast to Yuma. This subdivision of the SPRR was not 

constructed until between 1875 and 1877, after a dispute between the railroad and the City of San 

Bernardino led the SPRR to focus on extending the route from the City of Colton, bypassing San 

Bernardino altogether. The City of San Bernardino had refused to pay concessions to the railroad 

when the railroad would not guarantee that the tracks would enter the city. This resulted in a 

temporary city-wide boycott of the railroad, although eventually San Bernardino would be served by 

an SPRR spur from West Colton to San Bernardino. 

After traveling generally east/southeast, the tracks pass south of Redlands and dip into San Timoteo 

Canyon, through the San Jacinto Mountains south of Yucaipa Valley and paralleling San Timoteo 

Canyon Road. As the alignment turns generally east at Hinda, the railroad heads toward the San 

Gorgonio Pass where it goes through Beaumont, Banning, and Cabazon, before emerging on the 

west end of the Coachella Valley. Here, the alignment turns distinctly southeast toward the Salton 

Sea, as the route passes north of Palm Springs and Palm Desert, on the way to Indio and 

Coachella. Union Pacific Railroad acquired SPRR in 1996. 

5.3 Cultural Resources Identified

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification of 

historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record cultural resources search was 

conducted at the South Central Coastal Information Center and the Eastern Information Center for 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area from July 9, 2018 to July 18, 2018. The record 

search resulted in the identification of 384 cultural resources within Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural 

Study Area, including archaeological sites and built resources. 

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area crosses through the Southern California region,

which has experienced multiple prehistory periods (Terminal Pleistocene, Paleoindian, Early 

Archaic, and Late Prehistoric). The most numerous of the archaeological resources in the Coachella 

Valley at the east end of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area date to the Late Prehistoric 

period, consisting of small processing sites associated with the grinding of vegetal resources. Larger 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-9

habitation sites were less common but displayed a wider range of activities and longer periods of 

occupation. Typical artifacts at these sites include Desert Side-notched and Cottonwood Triangular 

projectile points and Lower Colorado Buff Ware and Tizon Brown Ware ceramics. Lithic artifacts 

found at these sites are typically made from chert, volcanic, or quartz material. In addition to these 

Late Prehistoric period sites, portions of the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural

Study Area are located within the shoreline boundaries of Lake Cahuilla, as shown on Figure 5-1. 

This information is summarized in Appendix A. To facilitate interpretation of the list of cultural 

resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, used to classify the 

eligibility status of cultural resources for the NRHP and CRHR, is provided in Appendix B. An 

explanation of California OHP Resource Attribute Codes is included in Appendix C. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-10

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-11

Figure 5-1. Known Historical Resource Sites within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area

(Page 1 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-12

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-13

Figure 5-1. Known Historical Resource Sites within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area

(Page 2 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-14

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-15

Figure 5-1. Known Historical Resource Sites within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area

(Page 3 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-16

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-17

Figure 5-1. Known Historical Resource Sites within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area

(Page 4 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-18

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-19

Figure 5-1. Known Historical Resource Sites within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area

(Page 5 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-20

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-21

Figure 5-1. Known Historical Resource Sites within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area

(Page 6 of 6)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-22

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-23

As previously mentioned, portions of the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural 

Study Area lie entirely within the high stand (approximately 40-foot) area. This indicates that there is 

the potential for archaeological sites located in this area to have been occupied during periods when 

Lake Cahuilla was either receding or less likely infilling.

The Program Corridor crosses through the Southern California region, which has also experienced 

multiple events in what is considered the historic period (1769 AD to Present). These events include:

• Initial Spanish contact in California and the subsequent colonization of Alta California, 

generally known as the Spanish Colonial period (1769-1821) and the Mexican period 

(1821-1846);

• The rise of agricultural cultivation (with a focus on citrus cultivation) and the arrival of the 

California Southern (later the Santa Fe) and Southern Pacific Railroads during the 1870s and 

1880s;

• Residential and commercial development associated with the post-World War I residential 

and industrial activity of Southern California during the boom years of the 1920s; and

• The rise of military-related industries and a large military presence during World War II with 

the establishment of March Field (March Air Reserve Base) and San Bernardino Air Material 

Command (Norton Air Force Base).
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 5-24

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-1

6 Consultation, Public Participation and 

Outreach

6.1 Summary of Consultation with Native American Tribes

(All Build Alternative Options)

In compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and AB 52 revisions to CEQA, FRA and RCTC are 

undertaking Native American consultation. This section provides a brief synopsis of the Native 

American consultation that has occurred as of the date of this report, as well as providing a brief 

overview of the steps that would be undertaken as part of the continuing consultation process. 

6.1.1 Section 106 Tribal Consultation

On June 20, 2017, a Sacred Lands File Search was filed with the NAHC for the Eastern Section of 

the Program Corridor on behalf of FRA, the lead agency under Section 106. No construction 

activities would be required to implement the Build Alternative Options within the Western Section 

because the existing railroad ROW and station areas from LAUS to Colton would be used to 

increase service by two daily round trips. For this reason, the Western Section was not included as 

part of the request to NAHC. The NAHC responded June 27, 2017, that sites to which tribes may 

attach religious and cultural significance are present within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural 

Study Area but provided no specific information regarding their nature or location other than 

township and range United States Geological Survey Quadrangle locations. The NAHC provided a 

list of Native American tribes that may have information regarding historic properties in or near the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area, with recommendations to contact the local tribal entities 

for more information regarding the sites. 

A list of Native American tribes that may have information regarding historic properties in or near the 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area was identified by the NAHC and is provided in 

Table 6-1. On October 15, 2019, in accordance with Section 106 regulations at 36 CFR 800.2, FRA 

sent letters inviting the Native American tribes listed below to consult regarding properties that hold 

significance to tribes. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-2

Table 6-1. Native American Tribes Identified by the Native American Heritage 

Commission

Tribe Name

Federally 

Recognized?

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation Yes

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians Yes

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Yes

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians Yes

Campo Band of Mission Indians Yes

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians Yes

Jamul Indian Village of California Yes

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians Yes

La Posta Band Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Reservation Yes

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians Yes

Manzanita Band Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation California Yes

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) Yes

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) Yes

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma and Yuma Reservation (THPO) Yes

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation (THPO) Yes

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Yes

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) Yes

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Yes

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) Yes

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians Yes

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) Yes
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-3

Tribe Name

Federally 

Recognized?

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Yes

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians Yes

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) Yes

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians (THPO) Yes

Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation No

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians No

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council No

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation No

Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe No

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians No

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians No

Notes:

(THPO) indicates the tribe has a Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

THPO=Tribal Historic Preservation Officer

On November 5, 2019, a follow-up email was sent to those mailing recipients whose letters were 

returned undeliverable. On December 20, 2019, a final follow-up email was sent to all Native 

American tribes who had not yet responded, using the original October 15, 2019 letter as an 

attachment. For any Native American tribe where an email was either unavailable or undeliverable, a 

follow-up phone call was made. These invitation letters are included as Appendix D. A summary of 

responses received is provided in Table 6-2. 

The Section 106 Native American consultation is complete for purposes of the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR. Input received during the public review period of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would be 

taken into consideration as part of future Tier 2/Project-level analysis and site-specific mitigation 

measures. Any future Tier 2/Project-level analysis would result in subsequent Section 

106 consultation with Native American tribes to identify TCR issues of concern. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-4

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-5

Table 6-2. Section 106 Native American Consultation Summary (All Build Alternative Options)

Native American Tribe Responses Received to Date

Federally Recognized Tribes

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua 

Caliente Indian Reservation

November 15, 2020: The Native American tribe responded and requests government-to-government 

consultation, additional information regarding the Program (shapefiles of the APE, copies of any 

cultural resource documentation), and to schedule a meeting with FRA to discuss the Program. 

February 13, 2020: Lacy Padilla and Patty Garcia, THPO, from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 

Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation attended a webinar about the Program. The THPO 

requested and FRA provided a copy of the presentation, shapefiles for the alignment, and all records 

search results for the internal files. No formal written comments were received from the tribe or THPO.

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians No response received to date

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians No response received to date

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians No response received to date

Campo Band of Mission Indians No response received to date

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians No response received to date

Jamul Indian Village of California No response received to date

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians No response received to date

La Posta Band Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta 

Reservation

December 20, 2019: The Native American tribe responded and recommended that if there is ground 

disturbance, a native monitor should be on site. The Native American tribe has not requested 

government-to-government consultation with FRA.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-6

Native American Tribe Responses Received to Date

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians No response received to date

Manzanita Band Diegueno Mission Indians of the 

Manzanita Reservation California

No response received to date

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indiansa January 29, 2020: Morongo THPO, Travis Armstrong, verbally discussed participating in Section 106 

consultation with FRA. 

Pala Band of Mission Indiansa March 5, 2020: Pala Band of Mission Indians THPO, Dr. Shasta Gaughen, responded that the 

Program is not within the boundaries of the recognized Pala Indian Reservation and is beyond the 

boundaries of the territory that the Pala Band of Mission Indians considers its Traditional Use Area. 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma and Yuma 

Reservationa

No response received to date

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the 

Pechanga Reservationa

No response received to date

Ramona Band of Cahuilla No response received to date

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon 

Reservationa

No response received to date

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians November 25, 2019: The Native American tribe responded that it does not elect to be a consulting 

party for purposes of the Tier 1/Program evaluation. However, the Native American tribe has indicated 

that it would like to be informed of Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of 

Californiaa

No response received to date
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-7

Native American Tribe Responses Received to Date

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians No response received to date

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indiansa November 18, 2019: The Native American tribe responded with a request for 

government-to-government consultation and to schedule a meeting with FRA. The Native American 

tribe has also requested that a Soboba Native American Monitor be present for all ground-disturbing 

activities and that procedures regarding repatriation of cultural items, treatment and disposition of 

human remains, coordination with County Coroner’s Office, and non-disclosure of reburial locations be 

implemented.

January 30, 2020: In a separate meeting regarding a different project, Joseph Ontiveros, THPO, from 

the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians, requested shapefiles of the alignment from FRA. The shapefiles, 

as requested, were sent to THPO Joseph Ontiveros on January 30, 2020

February 10, 2020: Joseph Ontiveros, THPO, from the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians provided a 

letter notifying FRA of a potentially eligible Traditional Cultural Property for the NRHP and CRHR. It 

recommended that consultation with Soboba continue, and that future federal actions associated with 

the area incorporate an approach that considers tribal resources.

February 11, 2020: Joseph Ontiveros, THPO, from the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians attended a 

webinar about the Program. The THPO requested and FRA provided a copy of the presentation, 

shapefiles for the alignment, and all records search results for the internal files. No formal written 

comments were received from the tribe or THPO.

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation No response received to date

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians No response received to date

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of Californiaa No response received to date

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indiansa No response received to date
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-8

Native American Tribe Responses Received to Date

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes

Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation January 16, 2020: The Native American tribe responded with a request for government-to-government 

consultation under Section 106 and to schedule a meeting with FRA. 

January 23, 2020: The Tier 1/Program team contacted Chairman Andrew Salas on behalf of FRA to 

discuss setting up a meeting. After this initial discussion, Chairman Salas indicated that there was no 

need to meet at this time to further discuss the Tier 1/Program evaluation; however, Chairman Salas 

indicated that the Kizh Nation wants to be involved and informed of Tier 2/Project-level analysis.

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians No response received to date

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council No response received to date

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation No response received to date

Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe No response received to date

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians No response received to date

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians No response received to date

Notes:

a This indicates the Native American tribe has a THPO.

APE=area of potential effects; FRA=Federal Railroad Administration; THPO=Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-9

6.1.2 Assembly Bill 52 Tribal Consultation

Recognizing that tribes may have expertise with regard to their tribal history and practices, 

AB 52 requires that RCTC, as the lead agency, provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and 

culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the project if they have requested notice of projects 

proposed within that area. RCTC notified two tribes regarding the Program and the following 

describes RCTC’s consultation efforts under AB 52: 

Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation: On October 19, 2016, during the scoping phase 

of the Program, RCTC submitted an Invitation to Consult to the Gabrieleño Band of Mission 

Indians-Kizh Nation. On October 30, 2016, the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation, 

replied that it has concerns for cultural resources within its ancestral territory that fall within the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIS Cultural Study Area and that it would like to consult with RCTC. On 

August 29, 2019, RCTC sent further information to the tribe including an updated project description 

and background research conducted regarding known archaeological resources within the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIS Cultural Study Area. Since the Western Section of the Program Corridor, located 

largely within the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation Ancestral Territory, did not 

propose any ground-disturbing activities, RCTC asked that the tribe reconfirm their request to 

consult under AB 52 for the Program. On September 30, 2019, RCTC followed up with the 

Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation via email, asking that the tribe confirm their 

intentions to consult on the Program prior to October 4, 2019. No response has been received from 

the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians-Kizh Nation.

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians: On August 29, 2019, RCTC submitted an Invitation to 

Consult to the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians. The San Manuel Band of Mission Indians

replied on September 11, 2019 that while the majority of the Program Corridor exists outside of 

Serrano ancestral territory, the tribe did have concerns regarding the portion of the Program Corridor 

from Colton to Beaumont and Banning within the Eastern Segment. The San Manuel Band of 

Mission Indians noted that there are at least two Sacred Lands Files within or adjacent to the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIS Cultural Study Area in the Loma Linda/Redlands/Colton area that are of concern 

to the tribe; the tribe requested further information to assess their level of involvement with the 

Program. On September 30, 2019, the tribe was sent a copy of the Draft Cultural Resources 

Technical Memorandum for the Program for review. With the additional information, the tribe noted 

that they did not have concerns with the Draft Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, and that the tribe will wait 

until Tier 2/Project notifications to discuss specific activities that may impact resources of concern to 

the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians.

RCTC has completed AB 52 Tribal consultation for the Program. Relevant AB 52 consultation 

correspondence is included in Appendix E.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-10

6.2 Public Participation and Outreach

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting parties 

for the Program. 

The consulting parties that have been identified to date are listed in Table 6-3. Additionally, as stated 

above, on June 27, 2017, the NAHC identified a list of tribes that have cultural and traditional 

affiliation with the Eastern Section (Table 6-1).

Table 6-3. Consulting Parties in the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Cultural Study Area

Consulting Party Agency/Organization Type

Bureau of Indian Affairs Federal agency

Bureau of Land Management Federal agency

Federal Transit Administration Federal agency

United States Fish and Wildlife Service Federal agency

California Department of Parks and Recreation State agency

Caltrans, District 8 State agency

California OHP State agency

San Bernardino County County agency

Riverside County County agency

Banning Local agency

Beaumont Local agency

Calimesa Local agency

Cathedral City Local agency

Colton Local agency

City of Colton – Historic Preservation Commission Local agency

La Quinta Local agency
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-11

Consulting Party Agency/Organization Type

City of La Quinta – Historic Preservation Commission Local agency

Palm Desert Local agency

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee Local agency

Palm Springs Local agency

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board Local agency

Rancho Mirage Local agency

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission Local agency

Redlands Local agency

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission Local agency

Coachella Local agency

Desert Hot Springs Local agency

Indio Local agency

Loma Linda Local agency

Moreno Valley Local agency

San Bernardino Local agency

Yucaipa Local agency

Agua Caliente Cultural Museum Museum and/or non-profit

Coachella Valley Historical Society Museum and/or non-profit

Colton Area Museum Museum and/or non-profit

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum Museum and/or non-profit

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation Museum and/or non-profit

Moreno Valley Historical Society Palm Springs Historical Society 

Museum

Museum and/or non-profit
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 6-12

Consulting Party Agency/Organization Type

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum and/or non-profit

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design Museum and/or non-profit

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation Museum and/or non-profit

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission Museum and/or non-profit

Redlands Area Historical Society Museum and/or non-profit

Redlands Historical Museum Association Museum and/or non-profit

San Bernardino County Museum Museum and/or non-profit

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society Museum and/or non-profit

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society Museum and/or non-profit

Notes:

*Certified local government

Caltrans=California Department of Transportation; OHP=Office of Historic Preservation; TBD=to be determined

FRA is only funding the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase. The Tier 1 /Program EIS/EIR is a 

planning document; therefore, the actions taken in the Tier 1/Program do not have the potential to 

have an adverse impact on historic properties. 

Preliminary identification work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is complete. The record search 

resulted in the preliminary identification of 384 cultural resources within the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Cultural Study Area under Build Alternative Option 1 and 361 cultural resources within the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area under Build Alternative Options 2 and 3; however only one 

NRHP-listed property, the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (P-33-007292), was identified within 

the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area. 

FRA determined its federal action to provide financial assistance for the development of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR is an undertaking, as defined in Section 106 of the NHPA, and its implementing 

regulations (36 CFR Part 800), but this planning effort does not have the potential to affect historic 

properties. In making this determination, FRA has no further obligations under Section 106 with 

respect to the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Completion of subsequent Section 106 processes would 

occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects 

to Rail Properties within Rail Rights of Way, as well as 36 CFR Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a 

future undertaking associated with construction under Tier 2/Project-level analysis.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 7-1

7 Environmental Consequences

7.1 No Build Alternative

Under the No Build Alternative, there would be no Program-related construction or increase in 

service. Because no physical changes would occur, there would be no impacts on cultural resources 

and TCRs. The existing and committed transportation improvement projects may result in direct, 

indirect, or cumulative impacts on cultural, historic, tribal, and paleontological resources equal to or 

greater than the Build Alternative Options.

7.2 Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3

7.2.1 Western Section

Construction

The Build Alternative Options would use the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative Options within the Western Section, because 

the existing railroad ROW and station areas from LAUS to Colton would be used to increase service 

by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the Program Corridor currently 

exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity improvement projects 

currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton would provide additional 

passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed Coachella Valley passenger 

trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. As such, impacts on cultural resources as

a result of construction are not anticipated in the Western Section under any of the Build Alternative 

Options. 

Operation

Current (2018) daily rail traffic volumes on the Western Section (as shown in Chapter 2 of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR) vary by segment (FRA and RCTC 2021). The highest density segment is 

between Los Angeles and Fullerton and has an average of 86 daily trains, while the lowest density 

segment is between Fullerton and Atwood and has an average of 43 daily trains. An additional two 

daily round-trip intercity passenger trains, even when compared with the lowest density segment, 

would represent a minor increase in train activity compared with current (2018) traffic volume along 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 7-2

the existing railroad ROW. In 2024 and 2044, the Program would add the same number of rail 

operations to higher baseline conditions. Therefore, the Program’s effects in 2024 (see Chapter 2 of 

the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) and 2044 (see Chapter 2 of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) would be 

lower than those evaluated under existing conditions for the lowest density segment and operation of 

the Build Alternative Options within the Western Section would not result in substantial effects on 

cultural resources.

7.2.2 Eastern Section

Historic Property Effects

Construction

Effects on historic properties would vary depending on the future location of a passenger rail system 

within the selected Build Alternative Option. Construction of rail infrastructure improvements and 

station facilities could result in effects on known cultural resources if the resources are near or within 

an area where an infrastructure improvement or station facility is being constructed. In addition, 

ground-disturbing activities may also result in inadvertent discovery of previously unknown cultural 

resources. 

There are 384 known cultural resources within the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Cultural Study Area under Build Alternative Option 1. Of these 384 known cultural resources, 

1 resource is a listed NRHP property, 41 resources are potentially eligible for NRHP or CRHR listing, 

and 188 resources have not been evaluated for NRHP or CRHR eligibility.

There are 361 known cultural resources within the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

Cultural Study Area under Build Alternative Options 2 and 3. Of these 361 known cultural resources, 

1 resource is a listed NRHP property, 36 resources are potentially eligible for NRHP or CRHR listing, 

and 171 resources have not been evaluated for NRHP or CRHR eligibility. 

Effects on known and previously unknown cultural resources may include damage or destruction 

during ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of rail infrastructure improvements or 

station facilities within the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area. 

Damage may also be caused through vibrations caused by geotechnical testing, use of heavy 

equipment, or any earth-moving activities. 

Avoidance is the preferred way to address cultural resources. As all the Build Alternative Options 

propose use of the same corridor, avoidance options at the broad, corridor service-level are limited. 

However, as described above, decisions on avoidance methods would be evaluated and determined 

during Tier 2/Project-level analysis when site-specific details on the rail infrastructure improvement 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 7-3

or station facility are known. When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 

1 could have a substantial effect on cultural resources within the Eastern Section of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build 

Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and 

reduced station options. However, the magnitude of effects would be similar and considered 

substantial when compared with the No Build Alternative.

Operation

Current (2018) daily rail traffic volumes on the Eastern Section (as shown in Chapter 2 of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR) average 43 daily trains along the Colton-Coachella segment, consisting of

freight and passenger trains (FRA and RCTC 2021). The addition of two daily round-trip intercity 

passenger trains would represent a minor increase in train activity compared with current (2018) 

traffic volume along the existing railroad ROW. In 2024 and 2044, the Program would add the same 

number of rail operations to higher baseline conditions. Therefore, the Program’s effects in 

2024 (see Chapter 2 of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) and 2044 (see Chapter 2 of the Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR) would be lower than those evaluated under existing conditions and would not result in 

substantial effects on historic properties in the Eastern Section. Additionally, operational effects are 

anticipated to be limited to maintenance of culverts, bridges, embankments, and station areas, which 

are not anticipated to result in ground-disturbing activities. Therefore, no ground-disturbing activities 

would be anticipated that could result in the disturbance of known or previously undiscovered historic 

properties. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects on historic properties would be 

negligible within the Eastern Section under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3.

Human Remains Effects

Construction

Construction of rail infrastructure improvements and station facilities could result in effects on human 

remains if human remains are present within an area where an infrastructure improvement or station 

facility is being constructed. In addition, ground-disturbing activities may also result in inadvertent 

discovery of previously unknown human remains. CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) requires that 

excavation activities be stopped whenever human remains are uncovered and the County Coroner 

be called in to assess the remains. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are those of 

Native Americans, the NAHC must be contacted within 24 hours. At that time, the lead agency must 

consult with the appropriate Native Americans, if any, as identified by the NAHC. CEQA Guidelines 

Section 15064.5 directs the lead agency, under certain circumstances, to develop an agreement with 

the Native Americans for the treatment and disposition of the remains. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 7-4

When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 could have a moderate 

effect on human remains within the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study 

Area. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would have 

slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, the 

magnitude of effects would be similar and considered moderate when compared with the No Build 

Alternative.

Operation

Under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the 

Program would consist of the addition of two daily round trip, intercity, diesel powered passenger 

trains operating the entire length of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area between Los 

Angeles and Coachella. Operational effects are anticipated to be limited to maintenance of culverts, 

bridges, embankments, and station areas, which are not anticipated to result in ground-disturbing 

activities. Therefore, no ground-disturbing activities would be anticipated that could result in the 

disturbance of human remains. When compared with the No Build Alternative, effects on human 

remains would be negligible within the Western and Eastern Section under Build Alternative Options 

1, 2, and 3.

Tribal Cultural Resource Effects 

Construction

Effects on TCRs would vary depending on the future location of a passenger rail system within the 

selected Build Alternative Option. Construction of rail infrastructure improvements and station 

facilities within the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area could result in 

effects on TCRs if the resources are near or within an area where an infrastructure improvement or 

station facility is being constructed. In addition, ground-disturbing activities may also result in 

inadvertent discovery of previously unknown TCRs. Effects on TCRs may include damage or 

destruction during ground-disturbing activities associated with construction of rail infrastructure 

improvements or station facilities within the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural 

Study Area. Avoidance is the preferred way to address TCRs. As all the Build Alternative Options 

propose use of the same Program Corridor, avoidance options at the broad, corridor service-level 

are limited. However, as described above, decisions on avoidance methods would be evaluated and 

determined during Tier 2/Project-level analysis when site-specific details on the rail infrastructure 

improvement or station facility are known.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 7-5

When compared with the No Build Alternative, Build Alternative Option 1 could have a substantial 

effect on TCRs within the Eastern Section of the Tier 1/Program Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural 

Study Area. When compared with Build Alternative Option 1, Build Alternative Options 2 and 3 would 

have slightly reduced effects due to a shorter route alignment and reduced station options. However, 

the magnitude of effects would be similar and considered substantial when compared with the No 

Build Alternative.

Operation

Under Build Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3, passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the 

Program would consist of the addition of two daily round-trip, intercity, diesel-powered passenger 

trains operating the entire length of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Cultural Study Area between Los 

Angeles and Coachella. The operation of the additional passenger trains is not anticipated to affect 

TCRs, as passenger trains currently operate in the Program Corridor. Other operational activities 

would be limited to maintenance of culverts, bridges, embankments, and station areas, which are not 

anticipated to result in effects on TCRs. Effects associated with the Eastern Section of Build 

Alternative Options 1, 2, and 3 on TCRs would be negligible when compared with the No Build 

Alternative.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 7-6

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 8-1

8 Tier 2 Environmental Review 

Considerations

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation focuses on previously identified, or known, historic 

properties and provides an overview of those properties for planning purposes, since at this time 

there is no potential to adversely affect historic properties. Specific station locations, project design, 

and construction methods have not been determined. 

Tier 2/Project-level analysis would address site-specific potential effects resulting from construction 

and operation of infrastructure improvements (such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, 

grade-separation structures, and stations). The Tier 2/Project-level analysis would consider 

site-specific mitigation strategies for cultural, historic, and TCRs.

If any Tier 2/Project-level analysis results in an adverse effect on a property that is listed, eligible, or 

potentially eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR, potential site-specific mitigation measures could 

include additional research to recover data or exhaust the information potential of a site, changes in 

project design, development of a memorandum of agreement with a public involvement component, 

a programmatic agreement, site-specific archaeological treatment plans and historic building 

surveys, and other site-specific mitigation measures that may result from subsequent Tier 

2/Project-level Section 106 and AB 52 consultation.

Additional Section 106 and AB 52 consultation with all applicable consulting parties, resource 

agencies, and/or Native American tribes over potentially affected properties would be key to 

developing successful Tier 2/Project-level documents for any of the Build Alternative Options. 

Decisions on avoidance methods would be evaluated and determined during Tier 2/Project-level 

analysis when site-specific details on the rail infrastructure improvement or station facility are known.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 8-2

During subsequent Tier 2/Project-level analysis, a preliminary cultural resource screening shall be 

conducted by the identified lead agency or agencies to determine if the Tier 2/Project-level 

improvement being proposed has the potential to impact cultural resources. If the proposed Tier 

2/Project-level improvement has the potential to impact cultural resources, a qualified cultural 

resources specialist shall conduct a cultural resources assessment report to document the existing 

cultural resources within the Tier 2/Project-level Study Area. The report may include, but not be 

limited to, the following: 

• Survey and inventory for archaeological resources, including those determined to be tribal 

cultural resources, including a review of updated information for the applicable cultural 

information center and other data repositories. 

• Survey and inventory for historic, built environment resources, including a review of updated 

information for the applicable cultural information center and other data repositories. 

• All identified cultural resources shall be recorded using the appropriate California 

Department of Parks and Recreation cultural resources recordation forms. 

• Cultural resources shall be evaluated for eligibility for inclusion in the National Register of 

Historic Places and California Register of Historical Resources, and evaluations shall be 

conducted by individuals who meet the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualification 

standards in archaeology, history, and/or architectural history. 

• Documentation of Tier 2/Project-level Section 106 and Assembly Bill 52 Native American 

consultation efforts and site-specific recommendations and input received from Native 

American tribes including but not limited to: 

o The provision of Native American monitors on site during ground disturbance activities

o Identification of procedures regarding repatriation of cultural items

o Notification and early coordination with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and applicable 

Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs) for Tier 2/Project-level fieldwork and 

surveys occurring within Native American reservation lands. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 8-3

If the resource is found to be a historical resource/historic property, the agency carrying out 

implementation of the Tier 2/Project-level improvement shall be required to identify and implement 

site-specific mitigation if the Tier 2/Project-level improvement has a substantial adverse change to 

the resource, including physical damage, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the property that 

materially alters in an adverse manner those physical characteristics of the property that convey its 

significance for inclusion in or eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places, California 

Register of Historical Resources, or local register. These Tier 2/Project-level site-specific mitigation 

measures shall be developed in coordination with applicable Section 106 and AB 52 consultation 

requirements. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 8-4

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 9-1

9 References

Beattie, George William, and Helen Pruitt Beattie. 1939. Heritage of the Valley: San Bernardino's 

First Century. San Pasqual Press: Pasadena.

Bolton, Herbert E. 1931. In the South San Joaquin Ahead of Garces. California Historical Society 

Quarterly September.

Brown, James T., and Patricia Mastick Young. 1985. Harvest of the Sun: An Illustrated History of 

Riverside County. Windsor Publications, Northridge, California.

Brown, John, Jr., and James Boyd. 1922. History of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, vol. 1.

The Lewis Publishing Company, Chicago, Illinois.

Byrd, Brian F. and L. M. Raab. 2007. Prehistory of the Southern Bight: Models for a New Millennium. 

Pages 215–227 in T. L. Jones and K. A. Klar (eds.), California Prehistory. Altamira Press, 

Lanham, Maryland.

City of San Bernardino. 2010. History of San Bernardino. Accessed August 23, 2018.

County of Riverside. 2010. Riverside County History. Accessed August 23, 2018.

https://countyofriverside.us/Visitors/CountyofRiversideInformation/RiversideCountyHistory.as

px.

——— 2015. General Plan: Multipurpose Open Space Element. 8 December 2015. 

Accessed September 12, 2018. 

http://planning.rctlma.org/Portals/0/genplan/general_Plan_2017/elements/. 

e-ReferenceDesk. 2011. Riverside County, California. Accessed on August 23, 2018.

http://www.e-referencedesk.com/resources/counties/california/riverside.html.

Erlandson, Jon. M. and R. H. Colten. 1991. An Archaeological Context for Early Holocene Studies 

on the California Coast. Pages 1–10 in J. M. Erlandson and R. H. Colten (eds.), 

Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California. Cotsen Institute of Archaeology, 

University of California, Los Angeles.

Fagan, Brian. 2003. Before California: An Archaeologist Looks at Our Earliest Inhabitants. Rowman 

and Littlefield, Lanham, MD.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 9-2

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). 1999. Procedures for Considering Environmental Impacts. 

Section 14(n)(21). Accessed July 24, 2018.

https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/FRAEnvProcedures_FED_REG_Notic

e.pdf. 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). 

2021. Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program Environmental 

Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Draft). Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc.. 

Ingersoll, L.A. 1904. Ingersoll’s Century Annals of San Bernardino County 1769–1904. Published by 

the author, Los Angeles, California. 

Jefferson, G.T.1971. A Model of Adaptive Change in Late Prehistoric Southeastern California. 

University of California, Los Angeles Archaeological Survey Annual Report.

Kroeber, A. L. 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. California Book Company, Berkeley.

Laylander, Don. 1997. The Last Days of Lake Cahuilla: The Elmore Site. Pacific Coast 

Archaeological Society Quarterly 33(1-2):1-138.

March Air Reserve. n.d. March Air Force Official Website. http://www.march.afrc.af.mil. Accessed 

August 23, 2018.

Mission Tour. n.d. San Bernardino Asistencia. Accessed August 23, 2018.

http://www.missiontour.org/sangabriel/asistencia.htm.

Moratto, Michael J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York.

Myra L. Frank and Associates and Offenhauser/Mekeel Architects. 1996. Historic Structures Report: 

Norco Administration Building. Prepared for State the of California Office of Project 

Development and Management. 

National Park Service. 2014. National Register of Historic Places GIS portal. Accessed August 23, 

2018. https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9-b808-4ff8-a2f9-a99909164466. 

Patterson, Tom. 1971. A Colony for California. Press-Enterprise, Riverside.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 9-3

Smith, Francesca, Caprice (Kip) Harper, Lillian Makeda, John Dietler, and Carrie Chasteen. 2008. 

Cultural Resources Technical Report SBX E Street Corridor BRT Project, Cities of San 

Bernardino and Loma Linda, San Bernardino County, California. On file at the San 

Bernardino Archaeological Information Center, San Bernardino County Museum, Redlands, 

California. 

Smith, Jeffrey A., and Clifford Trafzer. 2006. Native Americans of Riverside County. Arcadia 

Publishing, Charleston, South Carolina.

Wallace, William. J. 1978. Post-Pleistocene Archaeology, 9000 to 2000 B.C. Pages 25–36 in R. F. 

Heizer (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, California. Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington, DC.

Wilke, Philip J. 1978. Late Prehistoric Ecology at Lake Cahuilla, Coachella Valley, California. 

Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 38. University 

of California. Berkeley.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

May 2021 | 9-4

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

Appendix A. Identified Cultural Resources
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

Appendix A includes separate lists for archaeological and built environment resources.

• Archaeological resources are sorted first by time period (historic, prehistoric, or both) and 

then by California Historical Resource Status Code. Please see Attachment B for an 

explanation of these codes, which combine information on the NRHP and CRHR status of 

the resource. 

• Built environment resources are sorted first by NRHP property type (building, structure, or 

object) and then by California Historical Resource Status Code.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

This page is intentionally blank.
Archaeological Resources

A total of 117 archaeological sites (81 historic, 27 prehistoric, 7 both historic and prehistoric, and 2 unknown) were identified in the 

project area.

• Historic archaeology – 81 sites:

o 5 sites appear (i.e., were recommended) eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or the CRHR as the result of a survey (status 

code 3). They have not been formally evaluated and their NRHP eligibility status has not been determined. Therefore, they 

are currently not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

o 1 site has been recommended eligible for local listing or designation as the result of a survey but was not evaluated for 

NRHP eligibility at the time it was recorded (status code 5).

o 27 sites have been previously recommended ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP as a result of a survey (status code 6).

o 48 sites have been previously identified as the result of a survey but either were not evaluated for NRHP eligibility at the 

time they were recorded, or need to be reevaluated (status code 7).

• Prehistoric archaeology – 27 sites: 

o 3 sites have been previously determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP (status code 2).

o 2 sites appear (i.e., were recommended) eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or the CRHR as the result of a survey (status 

code 3). They have not been formally evaluated and their NRHP eligibility status has not been determined. Therefore, they 

are currently not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

o 6 sites have been previously recommended or determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP (status code 6).

o 16 sites have been previously identified as the result of a survey but either were not evaluated for NRHP eligibility at the 

time they were recorded, or need to be reevaluated (status code 7).

• Both – 7 sites:

o 1 site has been previously recommended ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP (status code 6).

o 6 sites have been previously identified as the result of a survey but were not evaluated for NRHP eligibility at the time they 

were recorded (status code 7).

• Unknown – 2 sites:

o Information about these sites is unavailable in the archives of the South Central Coastal Information Center and Eastern 

Information Center.
Archaeological Resources

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type

Time 

Period

Resource 

Attributes Description Human Remains

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-010971 CA-RIV-06633H Site Historic AH2; AH3; 

AH4

Southern Pacific Railroad 

employee housing tract

Absent a. 2001 

b. 2005

3CS

33-014135 CA-RIV-07757 Site Historic AH2; AH4 Two adobe building 

foundations, associated 

artifacts

Absent 2004 3D

33-015004 Site Historic HP33; HP3; 

AH4; AH6

Singleton Ranch District Unknown 2004 3D

33-007888 Site Historic HP20 Historic water 

conveyance system

Absent a. 1996 

b. 2002 

c. 2003

3S

33-014871 CA-RIV-07926 Site Historic HP20; AH6 Millard Stone Canal Absent a. 2005 

b. 2012 

c. 2014

3S

33-022374 CA-RIV-11426 Site Historic AH2 Foundations, rockwork, 

and associated artifacts

Absent 2012 5S3

33-005625 Site Historic AH15; AH3; 

AH11

Kubic Ranch Site Unknown a. 1982 

b. 2004

6Z

33-008075 CA-RIV-05973H Site Historic AH4 Refuse Scatter Absent 1997 6Z

33-008076 CA-RIV-5974H Site Historic AH4 Refuse scatter Absent 1997 6Z

33-008296 CA-RIV-06095 Site Historic AH4 Faunal bone refuse 

deposit

Absent 1997 6Z

33-009496 CA-RIV-06379H Site Historic AH6; AH11; 

AH4

Historic water 

conveyance system

Absent a. 2000 

b. 2007 

c. 2010

6Z

33-009748 CA-RIV-06495H Site Historic AH4; AH7 Historic refuse deposits 

along historic road spur

Absent a. 2000 

b. 2005

6Z

33-013428 Site Historic AH6 Historic irrigation system Absent 2003 6Z

33-013431 Site Historic AH2; AH5; 

AH6

Historic foundation, 

cistern, and irrigation 

system

Absent a. 2003 

b. 2012 

c. 2014

6Z

33-013779 CA-RIV-07544 Site Historic HP33; AH6 Historic ranch remains 

and water conveyance 

featurers

Absent 2004 6Z

33-015002 Site Historic HP21; HP22; 

HP4; HP39

Singleton Ranch Water 

Transportation System

Absent 2004 6Z
Archaeological Resources

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type

Time 

Period

Resource 

Attributes Description Human Remains

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-015847 CA-RIV-08227 Site Historic AH2 Historic residence 

remains

Absent 2006 6Z

33-015848 CA-RIV-08228 Site Historic AH2 Historic residence 

remains

Absent 2006 6Z

33-015923 Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 2007 6Z

33-016025 Site Historic AH6 Cement and rock canal Absent 2007 6Z

33-017259 CA-RIV-10847 Site Historic AH6; HP20; 

HP11

Coachella Valley 

Stormwater Channel

Absent a. 2008 

b. 2009 

c. 2012 

d. 2012 

e. 2016

6Z

33-020420 CA-RIV-10328 Site Historic AH4 Large scatter of historic 

refuse

Absent 2009 6Z

33-022376 CA-RIV-11428 Site Historic AH7; AH9; 

AH4

Hstoric truck stop / refuse 

scatter / sand quarry

Absent 2012 6Z

33-022387 Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent a. 2013 

b. 2014

6Z

33-022388 CA-RIV-11440 / 

CA-RIV-11439

Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent a. 2013 

b. 2014

6Z

33-024169 CA-RIV-11922 Site Historic AH4 Glass scatter Absent 2015 6Z

33-024713 CA-RIV-12237 Site Historic AH7 Historic unpaved road 

segment

Absent 2015 6Z

33-024714 Site Historic AH7 Historic paved road 

segment

Absent 2015 6Z

33-024715 CA-RIV-12238 Site Historic AH4 Refuse Scatter Absent 2015 6Z

33-024926 Site Historic HP2; AH15; 

AH1

Single family residence 

and outbuildings

Absent 2015 6Z

33-026649 CA-RIV-12550 Site Historic AH2 Historic foundation and 

wells

Absent 2016 6Z

33-026824 CA-RIV-12609 Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 2017 6Z

36-024899 CA-SBR-15936H Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse deposit Absent 2012 6Z

33-005624 Site Historic AH1 Site of Fort Oliver- Now 

demolished

Absent 1982 7N

33-007787 Site Historic AH2 Site of Whitewater Adobe Absent a. 1981 

b. 2008

7N1
Archaeological Resources

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type

Time 

Period

Resource 

Attributes Description Human Remains

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-000178 CA-RIV-00178H Site Historic AH2; AH15; 

AH4

Demolished Palm Springs 

Station

Absent a. 1960 

b. 1980 

c. 1983

7R

33-003439 CA-RIV-03439H Site Historic AH4; AH15 Historic refuse scatter Absent a. 1988 

b. 1990 

c. 1999

7R

33-003441 CA-RIV-03441H Site Historic AH2; AH4 Architectural debris and 

refuse related to Garnet 

Station

Absent 1988 7R

33-003442 CA-RIV-03442H Site Historic AH2; AH4 Historic footings and 

refuse scatter related to 

Cabazon Station

Absent a. 1988 

b. 1999

7R

33-003443 CA-RIV-03443H Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 1988 7R

33-003444 CA-RIV-03444H Site Historic AH2; AH4 Historic foundations and 

refuse scatter

Absent 1988 7R

33-003445 CA-RIV-03445H Site Historic AH2; AH4 Historic foundations and 

refuse scatter

Absent 1988 7R

33-003446 CA-RIV-03446H Site Historic AH2; AH4 Historic foundations and 

refuse scatter

Absent 1988 7R

33-003447 CA-RIV-03447H Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 1988 7R

33-003448 CA-RIV-03448H Site Historic AH2; AH4 Historic foundations and 

refuse scatter

Absent 1988 7R

33-003449 CA-RIV-03449H Site Historic AH2; AH4 Historic foundations and 

refuse scatter related to El 

Casco Siding Station

Absent a. 1988 

b. 2014

7R

33-003972 CA-RIV-03972 Site Historic AH2; AH4 Historic residential refuse 

scatter and architectural 

debris

Absent 1990 7R

33-009194 CA-RIV-06374H Site Historic AH2; AH4; 

AH3

Historic dog kennel 

remains

Absent 1999 7R

33-009195 Site Historic AH6; HP20; 

AH3

Historic water 

conveyance system and 

olive grove

Absent 1999 7R

33-009497 CA-RIV-06380H Site Historic AH6; AH2; 

HP20

Historic water 

conveyance system

Absent 1999 7R
Archaeological Resources

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type

Time 

Period

Resource 

Attributes Description Human Remains

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-009500 CA-RIV-06383H Site Historic AH4 Architectural debris 

dumpsite

Absent 1999 7R

33-009747 CA-RIV-06494H Site Historic AH6 Historic water 

conveyance systemDestroyed

Absent 2000 7R

33-010795 CA-RIV-06514H Site Historic AH4 Extensive Refuse Deposit 

(4 loci)

Absent 2000 7R

33-010815 CA-RIV-06531 Site Historic AH4 Refuse Scatter associated 

with railroad

Absent 2000 7R

33-012893 CA-RIV-07166H Site Historic HP20 Stone and Mortar canal Absent 2003 7R

33-013722 Site Historic AH4 Architectural debris 

dumpsite

Absent a. 2004 

b. 2012

7R

33-014999 CA-RIV-07972 Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse deposits 

along historic road spur

Absent 2004 7R

33-015849 CA-RIV-08229 Site Historic AH2; AH11; 

AH4; AH6

Historic residence 

remains and associated 

fenceline, refuse, and 

water conveyance feature

Absent 2007 7R

33-015850 CA-RIV-08230 Site Historic AH3; AH11 Historic homestead 

remains and landscaping 

remnants

Absent 2007 7R

33-017005 CA-RIV-08852 Site Historic AH4 A series of discrete 

deposits of refuse related 

to the Edom train station

Absent 2007 7R

33-017588 CA-RIV-09117 Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 2008 7R

33-017947 Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 2008 7R

33-017948 Site Historic HP18 Two all wood refrigerator 

train cars

Absent 2008 7R

33-018128 Site Historic AH11 Barbed wire fence line Absent a. 2010 

b. 2012

7R

33-023358 CA-RIV-11408 Site Historic AH2; AH5 Historic foundation and 

cistern

Absent 2013 7R

33-023964 Site Historic AH7 Historic road segment Absent 2012 7R

33-023965 Site Historic AH7 Historic road segment Absent 2012 7R

33-026892 CA-RIV-12628 Site Historic AH7 Historic era spur road Absent 2017 7R
Archaeological Resources

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type

Time 

Period

Resource 

Attributes Description Human Remains

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-026893 CA-RIV-12629 Site Historic AH6 Historic catchment sump Absent 2017 7R

36-000573 CA-SBR-00575-H Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 1988 7R

36-000574 CA-SBR-00573-H Site Historic AH4; AH2 Historic refuse scatter and 

architectural debris

Absent 1988 7R

36-000647 CA-SBR-00647-H Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 1988 7R

36-006008 CA-SBR-06008-H Site Historic AH2; AH4; 

AH3

Historic residential 

remains

Absent 1988 7R

36-006069 CA-SBR-06069-H Site Historic HP20; HP11; 

HP21

Water control system Absent 1987 7R

36-006169 CA-SBR-06169-H Site Historic AH4 Historic domestice refuse 

scatter

Absent 1988 7R

36-006173 CA-SBR-06173-H Site Historic HP1; AH2; 

AH4

Bryn Mawr Townsite Absent a. 1988 

b. 2008 

c. 2012 

d. 2014

7R

36-006856 CA-SBR-06856H Site Historic AH2; AH11; 

AH15; AH16

Historic ranch complex 

remains

Absent 1990 7R

36-011287 CA-SBR-11287H Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 2003 7R

36-023573 Site Historic AH3; AH6 Historic orange grove and 

irrigation system

Absent 2009 7R

36-023574 Site Historic AH3; AH6 Historic orange grove and 

irrigation system

Absent 2009 7R

36-023575 Site Historic AH3; AH6 Historic orange grove and 

irrigation system

Absent 2009 7R

33-011573 CA-RIV-06896 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP11; 

AP3

Large lakeshore 

habitation site

Present a. 2002 

b. 2003 

c. 2007

2S2

33-011574 CA-RIV-06897 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP3; 

AP2

Lakeshore habitation site Unknown a. 2002 

b. 2003 

c. 2007 

d. 2011

2S2

33-028059 CA-RIV-12669 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP11; 

AP3; AP9

Large lakeshore 

habitation site

Present 2016 2S2

33-011438 CA-RIV-06823 Site Prehistoric AP3; AP16; 

AP2

Prehistoric habitation site Present a. 2002 

b. 2002

3CS
Archaeological Resources

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type

Time 

Period

Resource 

Attributes Description Human Remains

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-014809 CA-RIV-07882 Site Prehistoric AP3; AP2; 

AP11

Village of Palsetahut. 

Ceremonial coyote 

burials, extensive artifacts 

and features. Reported 

destroyed.

Unknown a. 2005 

b. 2006

3S

33-000676 CA-RIV-00676 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP3; 

AP11

Habitation with pottery 

scatter and associated 

midden

Unknown a.1975 

b. 1990 

c. 1996 

d. 1996 

e. 2004 

f. 2015

6Y

33-002639 CA-RIV-02639 Site Prehistoric AP4 Bedrock Milling Feature, 

now removed

Absent a. 1982 

b. 1987 

c. 2000

6Z

33-009499 CA-RIV-06382 Site Prehistoric AP3 Pottery scatter Absent a. 1999 

b. 2007

6Z

33-011636 CA-RIV-06915 Site Prehistoric AP3 Two distinct pottery 

scatters

Absent 2002 6Z

33-016252 CA-RIV-08403 Site Prehistoric AP16; AP15; 

AP3

Human cremation with 

associated pottery and 

flaked stone

Present a. 2007 

b. 2010

6Z

33-017288 CA-RIV-08988 Site Prehistoric AP3; AP2 Large scatter of historic 

fragmented bone and 

shell; prehistoric artifact 

scatter

Absent 2008 6Z

33-009780 CA-RIV-06508 Site Prehistoric AP3; AP2 Prehistoric artifact scatter Unknown 2000 7N

33-009781 CA-RIV-06509 Site Prehistoric AP2 Prehistoric lithic scatter Absent 2000 7N

33-000790 CA-RIV-00790 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP3 Pehistoric campsite Absent a. no date b. 

1982 

c. 1987

7R

33-000809 CA-RIV-00809 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP3; 

AP2

Prehistoric artifact scatter 

disturbed by pipeline

Absent a. 1976 

b. 1999

7R

33-001767 CA-RIV-01767 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP3; 

AP11

Complex Lakeshore 

habitation site

Unknown a. 1980 

b. 1987 

c. 2002

7R
Archaeological Resources

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type

Time 

Period

Resource 

Attributes Description Human Remains

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-002733 CA-RIV-02733 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP11 Habitation site Unknown 1983 7R

33-003222 CA-RIV-03222 Site Prehistoric AP2; AP15 scatter of prehistoric 

artifacts

Absent 1987 7R

33-007425 CA-RIV-05799 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP3; 

AP11

Habitation site with 

assciated features and 

artifacts

Unknown a. 1995 

b. 2002

7R

33-013718 CA-RIV-07516 Site Prehistoric AP3 Prehistoric pottery scatter 

and one fragment if olive 

glass

Absent 2004 7R

33-013795 CA-RIV-07553 Site Prehistoric AP2; AP1 Scatter of ground stone 

artifacts, possible 

cremation, and possible 

hearth feature

Present 2004 7R

33-015893 CA-RIV-08256 Site Prehistoric AP4; AP2 Bedrock Milling feature 

with associated artifacts

Absent 2007 7R

33-017006 CA-RIV-08853 Site Prehistoric AP2; AP3 Resource processing site Absent 2007 7R

33-017011 CA-RIV-08858 Site Prehistoric AP2 Resource processing 

site/lithic scatter

Absent 2007 7R

33-026895 CA-RIV-12631 Site Prehistoric AP2; AP3; 

AP15

Prehistoric seasonal 

habitation site

Unknown 2017 7R

33-026896 CA-RIV-12632 Site Prehistoric AP3 Prehistoric Pottery scatter Absent 2017 7R

36-006123 CA-SBR-06123 Site Prehistoric AP2 Prehistoric groundstone 

scatter

Absent 1988 7R

33-015337 Site Both AP3; AH4 SCL fragment and one 

buffware fragment

Absent 2006 6Z

33-000179 CA-RIV-00179 Site Both AP9; AP16 1840s Historic era 

Cahuilla smallpox burial 

site

Present a. 1960 

b. 1983

7R

33-000794 CA-RIV-00794 Site Both AP15; AP3; 

AH4

Historic era Cahuilla 

campsite

Unknown a. no date b. 

1982 

c. 1987 

d. 2004 

e. 2007

7R
Archaeological Resources

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type

Time 

Period

Resource 

Attributes Description Human Remains

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-001634 CA-RIV-01634 Site Both AP15; AP16; 

AH4

Multi component site 

including prehistoric food 

processing and associated 

artifact scatter and 

Historic refuse scatter

Unknown a. 1972 

b. 1987 

c. 1990

7R

33-001768 CA-RIV-01768 Site Both AP3; AP11; 

AP15; AH4

Complex Dune habitation 

site

Absent a. 1980 

b. 1978

7R

36-002314 CA-SBR-02314 Site Both AP15; AP3; 

AP2; AP16

Historic era Cahuilla 

Campsite

Unknown a. 1933 

b. 1967 

c. 1971 

d. 1993

7R

36-002999 CA-SBR-02999/H Site Both AP1 Jumuba Rancheria Unknown a. 1938 

b. 1951

7R

36-016147 Unknown Unknown Information missing at 

SCCIC

unknown CA-RIV-12188 Site Unknown Information missing at 

EIC
Built Environment Resources

A total of 267 built environment resources (242 buildings, 23 structures, and 2 objects) were identified in the project area. 

• Buildings – 242 buildings:

o 1 building, the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse, is listed in the NRHP (status code 1).

o 30 buildings appear (i.e., were recommended) eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or the CRHR as the result of a survey 

(status code 3). They have not been formally evaluated and their NRHP eligibility status has not been determined. 

Therefore, they are currently not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

o 66 buildings have been previously recommended or determined eligible for local listing or designation but were not 

evaluated for NRHP eligibility at the time they were recorded (status code 5).

o 106 buildings have been previously recommended ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP as a result of a survey (status code 

6).

o 39 buildings have been previously identified as the result of a survey but either were not evaluated for NRHP eligibility at 

the time they were recorded, or need to be reevaluated (status code 7).

• Structures – 23 structures:

o 3 structures appear (i.e., were recommended) eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as the result of a survey (status code 3).

They have not been formally evaluated and their NRHP eligibility status has not been determined. Therefore, they are 

currently not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

o 14 structures have been previously recommended or determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP as a result of a survey 

(status code 6).

o 6 structures have been previously identified as the result of a survey but were not evaluated for NRHP eligibility at the time 

they were recorded (status code 7).

• Object – 2 objects:

o 2 objects have been previously identified as the result of a survey but need to be reevaluated for NRHP eligibility (status 

code 7).

Note: In the table that follows, an asterisk (*) next to the primary number designates resources that appear to have been destroyed 

since they were last recorded.
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-007292 HP15 San Timoteo 

Canyon 

Schoolhouse

El Casco 

Schoolhouse

31985 San 

Timoteo Canyon 

Road

El Casco Riverside Building a. 1983 

b. 2000

1S

33-008351 HP38; 

HP13

Club house Banning 

Women's 

Club

175 W Hays 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 3CS, 

7L

33-013720* HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 34200 San 

Timoteo Canyon 

Road

Beaumont Riverside Building 2004 3D

36-019926* HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence

Howard Van 

Der Wall 

House

26472 Mission 

Road

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building a. 2003 

b. 2013

3D

33-005619* HP33; 

HP2; 

HP30; HP4

Ranch house San Cayetano 

Ranch; Bell 

Ranch

Chase School 

Road

Thousand 

Palms

Riverside Building 1982 3S

33-005652 HP16 Church Our Lady of 

Soledad 

Catholic 

Church

1612 1st Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-005659 HP6 Commercial 

building

Lopes 

Hardware 

Store; First 

National 

Bank

1604 6th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-005663* HP4 Outdoor 

summer 

sleeping 

quarters

Submarine 1463 7th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-005666 HP9 Power office California 

Electric 

Office

1684 9th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-005792 HP15; 

HP16; 

HP13

Church built 

by Japanese 

Christians

Coachella 

Church of 

Jesus Christ; 

Friends of 

Jesus Church

85490 Avenue 

50

Coachella Riverside Building 1995 3S
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-006211 HP6 Commercial 

bank 

building

Beaumont 

Bank; 

Precision 

Stamping

252 W 5th Street Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-006215 HP15; 

HP14

Beaumont 

Civic Center

Beaumont 

High School

550 E 6th Street Beaumont Riverside Building a. 1983 

b. 1999

3S

33-007293 HP2; HP19 Single 

family 

residence 

and SPRR 

Bridge

n/a 31710 San 

Timoteo Canyon 

Road

El Casco Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-007295* HP33; 

HP2; HP3; 

HP4; 

HP22; 

HP46

Haskell 

Ranch

Noble Ranch; 

Clough 

Ranch; 

Singleton 

Ranch

34200 San 

Timoteo Canyon 

Road

Beaumont Riverside Building a. 1983 

b. 2004

3S

33-007879 HP6; AH2; 

AH3

Commercial 

building

Henderson / 

Reid Building

NE corner of San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue and 

Livingston Street

Banning Riverside Building a. 1983 

b. 1991

3S

33-008299 HP5 Hotel Hotel Indio 82923 Miles 

Avenue

Indio Riverside Building 1984 3S

33-008305 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence 

and guest 

house

n/a 45120 King 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 3S

33-008307 HP4 outdoor 

summer 

sleeping 

quarters

Submarine 44885 Oasis 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-008337 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Davis Home 933 E Barbour 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 3S
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-008357 HP10 Art Deco 

Theater

Corey 

Building; Fox 

Theater

84 W Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-008358 HP5 Commercial 

building

Hotel 

Banning

225 W Banning 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-009109 HP16 Church Saint Agnes 

Church; 

Grace 

Lutheran 

Church

111 N 2nd Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-009110 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

C. D. 

Hamilton 

Home

181 N 2nd Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-009132 HP6 Commercial 

building

Hendrick's 

Market; Tri 

City 

Stationery

141 N San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-009134 HP6; HP13 Commercial 

building

Oddfellows 

Building

25 S San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-017933 HP3; 

HP36; 

HP13

Multiple 

family 

property

Fred Young 

Farm Labor 

Center

47155 Van 

Buren Street

Indio Riverside Building 2009 3S

36-006172 CA-SBR06172-HHP33; 

HP2; 

HP36; HP4

Winery 

complex

VacheBrookside 

Winery 

complex, 

including 

Chinese 

worker 

housing

W of intersection 

of San Timoteo 

Canyon Road 

and W Fern 

Avenue

Redlands San 

Bernardino

Building a. 1980

b.1988 

c. 2000

3S

36-017260 CA-SBR06172HHP8; HP36 The old 

Brookside 

Winery

see resource 

36-006172

W of intersection 

of San Timoteo 

Canyon Road 

and W Fern 

Avenue

Redlands San 

Bernardino

Building 1980 3S
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

36-020801 HP15 Educational 

building

Evans Hall / 

Cutler Hall, 

Loma Linda 

University

24785 Stewart 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2008 3S

36-020802 HP15 Educational 

building

Shyrock Hall, 

Loma Linda 

University

24745 Stewart 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2008 3S

33-006170 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Bogart House 545 Euclid 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building a. 1983 

b. 1994

3S, 7L

33-005651 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 1105 Vine 

Avenue

Coachella Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-005653* HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 1451 3rd Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-005654* HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 1445 4th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-005655 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Syrus Hughs 

House

1457 4th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-005658 HP6 Original 

business 

building in 

Coachella

Reed 

Building

1601 6th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-005660 HP13 Masonic 

Hall

Masonic Hall; 

Rolavision 

Store

1694 6th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-005662 HP15 Elementary 

school

Palm View 

School

1390 7th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-005664 HP6 Coachella's 

fist 

newspaper 

"The 

Submarine"

Ceramics 

shop; 

Submarine 

Newspaper 

Office

1604 7th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 5S2
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-005665 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Home built 

by the 

Thomases, 

pioneer 

family of 

Coachella 

Valley

1609 7th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-005668 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Hamner 

Family 

Home; Harry 

Bloom Home

85735 Highway 

111

Coachella Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-005670 HP39: 

Other

Old Fire 

House

Old Fire 

House

1517 6th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006093* HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Valdivia 

Home

368 B Street Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006110* HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 635 California 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006131 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 620 Edgar 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006132 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 634 Edgar 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006142 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 644 Edgar 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006160 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Sones Home 615 Egan 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006161 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 629 Egan 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-006162 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Kirkpatrick 

House

633 Egan 

Evanue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006164 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 655 Egan 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006167 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 330 Elm Avenue Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006196 HP16 Guadalupe 

Chapel

St. John 

Christian 

Community 

Church

419 Olive 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006200 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 552 Palm 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006201 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 556 Palm 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006202 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Lynne Bebee 

Home

638 Palm 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006205 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 532 Wellwood 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006206* HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Martin Home 625 Wellwood 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006207* HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Hershey 

Home; King 

Home

651 Wellwood 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006218 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 349 W 7th Street Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-006228* HP39 McCullough

/Merkel 

Ranch

Three Rings 

Ranch

n/a Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-007294 HP33 Ranch house 

(two 

buildings)

Silas Cox 

Ranch; 

Fisherman's 

Retreat

32300 San 

Timoteo Canyon 

Road

El Casco Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-007873* HP39 The 

Cabazon 

Poker 

Casino

n/a 50580 Main 

Street

Cabazon Riverside Building 1993 5S2

33-008319 HP3 Bungalow 

court

n/a 82684 Miles 

Avenue

Indio Riverside Building 1984 5S2

33-008323 HP3 Bungalow 

court

n/a 44911 - 44925 

Oasis Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 5S2

33-008324 HP6 Indio Realty 

Building

n/a 44967 Oasis 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 5S2

33-008328 HP10 Desert 

Theatre in 

Indio

n/a 42265 Fargo 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 5S2

33-008333 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 225 E Barbour 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-008334 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Russell Jones 

House; W. E. 

Jones House

391 E Barbour 

Street

Banning Riverside Building a. 1983 

b. 2005

5S2

33-008335 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Russell Jones 

House

434 E Barbour 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-008336 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 451 E Barbour 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-008352 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 322 E John 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1982 5S2
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-008356 HP5 The San 

Gorgonio 

Inn

Bryant House 150 E Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1982 5S2

33-009098 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Charlie 

Morris House

486 W Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009099 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 530 W Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009104 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Mc Allister 

Home

111 N 1st Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009105 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 125 N 1st Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009106 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 144 N 1st Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009107 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 157 N 1st Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009108 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 160 N 1st Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009112 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Dr. Ryan 

Home

115 N 3rd Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009113 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Methodist 

Parsonage

180 N 3rd Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009117 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

F. F. Lemon 

Home

181 N 4th Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009120 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 899 W Hays 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-009121 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 1015 W Hays 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009122 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 1067 W Hays 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009130 HP6 Commercial 

building

n/a 170 W Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009150 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 1222 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009153 HP6 Commercial 

building

Hopper Café; 

Constantino's

140 W Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1984 5S2

33-009157 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 385 W Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009164 HP6; HP14 U.S. Post 

Office

Hazel's Thrift 

Shop

125 N San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009165 HP6 Commercial 

Building

B.D.Wilson 

Building; 

Stagecoach 

Press 

Building

137 N San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009178 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 116 N 4th Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009179 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 141 N 4th Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

36-012363 HP15; 

HP13; 

HP16

Educational 

/ religious 

building

Bryn Mawr 

Schoolhouse; 

Loma Linda 

Seventh-Day 

Adventist 

Church

27261 Mayberry 

Street (old 

Barton Road)

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building a. 1987 

b. 2012

5S2
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-007874* HP39 Adobe, 

incorporated 

in to historic 

hotel 

complex

The Cabazon 

Inn, 

Manager's 

Quarters

90250 Main 

Street

Cabazon Riverside Building 1993 5S3

36-012492 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a original 25676 

Lawton Avenue, 

moved to 25092 

Barton Road

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 1987 5S3

33-007875* HP39 Restaurant 

and Bar with 

living 

quarters 

above

Cabo's 

Wateringhole

50400 E Main 

Street

Cabazon Riverside Building 1993 6Z

33-008063* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence

Building A 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z

33-008064* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence

Building B 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z

33-008065* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence

Building C 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z

33-008066* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence

Building D 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z

33-008067* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence

Building E 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z

33-008068* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence

Building F 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z

33-008069* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence

Building G 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-008070* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence

Building H 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z

33-008071* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence

Building I 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z

33-008072* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence

Building J 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z

33-008073* HP4; HP33 Garage Structure K 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z

33-008074* HP4; HP33 Wash House Structure L 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z

33-011918 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Law Property 1389 E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building a. n/a 

b. 2007

6Z

33-013804* HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

converted to 

office

Hadley 

Orchards 

Office

13595 Apache 

Trail

Cabazon Riverside Building 2005 6Z

33-013805 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 48910 Mojave 

Drive

Cabazon Riverside Building 2005 6Z

33-014376 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 80783 Indio 

Boulevard

Indio Riverside Building 2004 6Z

33-014377 HP39 Date 

packinghous

e

n/a 80783 Indio 

Boulevard

Indio Riverside Building 2004 6Z

33-014738* HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 40995 Adams 

Street

Bermuda 

Dunes

Riverside Building 2005 6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-015192 HP2; HP16 Single 

family 

residence 

converted to 

church

Primera 

Iglesia 

Bautista 

Hispana

390 E Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2005 6Z

33-015193 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Bonilla 

Residence

402 E Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2005 6Z

33-015802 HP14 Government 

buildings

City of 

Banning 

Public Works 

Department 

building 

complex

176 Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015806 HP6; HP4 Commercial 

building

Statewide 

Towing 

building

275 E Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015809 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 1380 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015810 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Doolittle 

Residence

1430 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015811 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Doolittle 

Residence

1476 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015813 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 1617 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015814 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Hall 

Residence

1661 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015815 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and wall

Snyder 

Residence

1692 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-015816 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Thompson 

Residence

1706 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015817 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and fence

Weatherly 

Residence

1722 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015818 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 2005 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015819 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 2008 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015820 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 2025 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015821 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and wall

Schafer 

Residence

2028 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015822 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Hamby 

Residence

2044 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015823 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and fence

Higgins 

Residence

2049 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015824 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and gate

Higgins 

Residence

2071 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015825 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Gray and 

Girton 

Residence

2080 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-015826 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and fence

n/a 2102 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015827 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and fence 

with gate

Ross 

Residence

2120 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015828 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and wall

Higgins 

Residence

2131 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015829 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Malicki 

Residence

2148 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015830 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Huston and 

Strafford 

Residence

2156 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015831 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Holmquist 

and Kallstrom 

Residence

2174 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building a. 2006 

b. 2009

6Z

33-015835 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Graham 

Residence

2413 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015836 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and fence

n/a 2437 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015837 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 2539 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015838 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Reiger 

Residence

2637 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-015839 HP6; HP4; 

HP46

Comercial 

building

All American 

Towing

2671-2673 W 

Lincoln Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015840 HP3 Single 

family 

residence 

complex

n/a 2699 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015841 HP3 Single 

family 

residence 

Complex

n/a 2705 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015842 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 2721 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015843 HP11 Engineering 

structure

Banning 

Substation

Lincoln Street Banning Riverside Building a. 2006 

b. 2014

6Z

33-016857 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Davis 

Property

219 Allen Street Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016880 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Fultz 

Property

221 Cherry 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016883 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Pelayo 

Property

1073 E Gilman 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016886 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Pellum 

Property

275 N Hathaway 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016893 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Rivera Estate 170 S Phillips 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016894 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Martinez 

Property

228 N Phillips 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016913 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Flores 

Property

985 E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-016914 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 1138 E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016915 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

McMahon 

Property

1209 E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016916 HP3 Multiple 

family 

residence 

complex

Green's 

Rentals

1330-1350-1370 

E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016917 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Formento/Ber

umen 

Property

1367 E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016918 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Law Property 1389 E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016919 HP3 Multiple 

family 

residence 

complex

Jones 

Apartments

1420-1424 E 

Williams Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016920 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Laster 

Property

1467 E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016921 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Magana 

Property

1477 E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016922 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Alonso 

Property

1501 E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016923 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Perez/Moreno 

Property

1537 E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016924 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Bennett 

Property

1561 E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-017729 HP6 Single 

family 

residence 

converted to 

commercial

n/a 2169AB W 

Ramsey Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017731 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 375 S 22nd 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017732 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 335 S 22nd 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017733 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 295 S 22nd 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017734 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 227 S 22nd 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017735 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 3310 W Ramsey 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017736 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 3298 W Ramsey 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017737 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 3278 W Ramsey 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017738 HP6 Commercial 

Building

n/a 2873 W Ramsey 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017739 HP6 Commercial 

Building

n/a 2772 W Ramsey 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017740 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 2736c W 

Ramsey Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017741 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 2736b W 

Ramsey Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-017742 HP6 Commercial 

Building

n/a 2736A W 

Ramsey Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017743 HP6 Commercial 

Building

n/a 2711 W Ramsey 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017744 HP8 Commercial 

building 

complex

n/a 2691 W Ramsey 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017745 HP8 Commercial 

building 

complex

n/a 2642 W Ramsey 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017746 HP6 Commercial 

Building

Pepe's 

Mexican 

Seafood

2579 W Ramsey 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017747 HP5 Commercial 

Building

Sunset Motel 2475 W Ramsey 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017749 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 361 S 22nd 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017750 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 259 S 22nd 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017781 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 379 S 22nd 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-024165 HP6 Garage 

converted to 

rescue 

mission / 

men's 

dormitory

Coachella 

Valley 

Rescue 

Mission

47518 Van 

Buren Street

Indio Riverside Building 2010 6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-024166 HP6 Military 

barracks 

moved to 

site and 

converted 

into 

women's 

dormitory

Coachella 

Valley 

Rescue 

Mission

47522 Van 

Buren Street

Indio Riverside Building 2010 6Z

33-024167 HP6 Auto repair 

building

n/a 84169 Highway 

111

Indio Riverside Building 2010 6Z

36-012313 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Miko 

Property

1657 Smiley 

Heights Drive

Redlands San 

Bernardino

Building 2003 6Z

36-012871 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 10753 Poplar 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2005 6Z

36-012872 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 10763 Poplar 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2005 6Z

36-012873 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 10845 Poplar 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2005 6Z

36-012874 HP3; HP4 Duplex 

family 

residence

n/a 10861 Poplar 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2005 6Z

36-027713 HP3 Duplex 

family 

residence

n/a 25401-25403 

Cole Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2014 6Z

36-027714 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 25405 Cole 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2014 6Z

36-027715 HP4 Shed n/a 25405 Cole 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2014 6Z

36-027716 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 25407 Cole 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2014 6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

36-027717 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 25417 Cole 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2014 6Z

33-007880 HP5 Coplin House 

/ Spokane 

Hotel

SE corner of San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue and 

Ramsey Street

Banning Riverside Building a. 1983 

b. 1991

7L

33-009491 HP39 Single 

family 

residence

Smiley Place 82161 Miles 

Avenue

Indio Riverside Building 1991 7L

36-017533 CA-SBR017533HP15 Site of 

Mound City 

(Loma 

Linda)

Shyrock Hall, 

Loma Linda 

University

24745 Stewart 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2008 7L

33-009154 HP14 Government 

building

Banning City 

Hall

161 W Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1985 7M

33-006191* HP39 Orange 

Juice Sales 

Room

n/a 501 Maple 

Avenue 

(backyard)

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 7N

33-007296 HP33; 

HP2; HP4; 

HP21; 

HP35; 

HP20; 

AH2; HP37

James 

Singleton/W

oodhouse 

Ranch

n/a Woodhouse/Sing

leton Road

Calimesa Riverside Building a. 1983 

b. 2004

7N

33-008303 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 44860 King 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 7N

33-008304 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 44893 King 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 7N

33-008306 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence 

and garage

n/a 45158 King 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 7N
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-008317 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 45161 King 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 7N

33-008320 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence 

and shed

n/a 44885 Oasis 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 7N

33-008321 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Michaelson 

Family Home

44885 Oasis 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 7N

33-008322 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence 

and garage

n/a 44899 Oasis 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 7N

33-008329 HP6; HP13 Commercial 

building

Elk's Club; 

The Oasis

45297 Fargo 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 7N

33-008330* HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 45555 Fargo 

Street

Indio Riverside Building a. 1984 

b. 2015

7N

33-008362 HP6 Commercial 

building

Holcomb 

Building

40 S San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 1983 7N

33-009096 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Mary Ellis 

Home

170 W Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 7N

33-009129 HP6 Commercial 

building

O'Briens 

Pharmacy

160 W Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 7N

33-009131 HP6 Commercial 

building

Mason Moore 

Building

185 W Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 7N

33-009163 HP6 Commercial 

Building

1920s Berlin 

Building

65 N San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 1983 7N

36-013890 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 23658 First 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 1987 7N
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

36-017269 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

John T. Tolle 

House

231 Sonora 

Street

Redlands San 

Bernardino

Building 1986 7N

36-020253 HP15; 

HP13; 

HP16

Educational 

building

Loma Linda 

Academy

10650 Anderson 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 1987 7N

33-005669 HP14 Coachella 

City Hall

Coachella 

City Hall

1515 6th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 7R

33-009155 HP6 Commercial 

Building

n/a 260 W Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1985 7R

33-009156 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

converted to 

commercial

Banning 

Medical 

Clinic

330 W Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 7R

33-009159 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

converted to 

commercial

Bird 

Insurance 

Agency

1025 W Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 7R

33-023524 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 451 E Livingston 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2013 7R

33-023529 HP6 Commercial 

Building

n/a 601 W Luis 

Estrada Road

Beaumont Riverside Building 2013 7R

33-023532 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 489 E Livingston 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2013 7R

33-023533 HP6 Commercial 

Building

n/a 512 E Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2013 7R

33-023534 HP6 Commercial 

Building

n/a 533 E Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2013 7R

33-023535 HP6 Commercial 

Building

n/a 635 E Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2013 7R
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-023536 HP6 Commercial 

Building

n/a 685 E Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2013 7R

33-023537 HP3 Multiple 

family 

residence 

Complex

n/a 719 E Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2013 7R

33-023550 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 425 E Livingston 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2013 7R

33-023909 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 48878 Mojave 

Drive

Cabazon Riverside Building 2014 7R

36-023572 HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence

Parker House 1160S San 

Timoteo Canyon 

Road

Redlands San 

Bernardino

Building 2009 7R

36-025603 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 25919 Juanita 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2013 7R

33-010792 HP21 Flood 

control 

structure

Oak Valley 

flood control 

structure 33-

10792

Along San 

Timoteo Canyon 

Road, 3.4 mi 

west of I-10

Beaumont Riverside Structure 2000 3D

33-005705 CA-IMP7658HP20 Coachella 

Canal

Coachella 

Branch of the 

All-American 

Canal

Crosses rail line 

E of I10/Jefferson 

Street 

interchange

Indio Riverside Structure a. 1983 

b. 2007 

c. 2011

3S

33-011265 CA-RIV06726HHP20 Canal/aqued

uct

Colororado 

River 

Aqueduct

n/a n/a Riverside Structure a. 2000 

b. 2001 

c. 2003 

d. 2005 

e. 2005 

f. 2009

3S
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-009498 CA-RIV06381HHP39 Railroad Union Pacific 

Railroad, 

Southern 

Pacific 

Railroad

n/a n/a Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino

Structure 2015 6Y

33-008410 HP37 Road Dillon 

Highway/ 

MWD Garnet 

to Indio truck 

road

Dillon Road North 

Palm 

Springs to 

Coachella

Riverside Structure a. 1998 

b. 2015

6Z

33-015035 HP11 Electrical 

transmission 

line

Southern 

California 

Edison 

Company 

HayfieldChino 220kV 

Transmission 

Line

n/a n/a Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino

Structure a. 1998 

b. 2006 

c. 2010 

d. 2012 

e. 2013 

f. 2014

6Z

33-015720 CA-RIV08189HP37 Road San Timoteo 

Canyon 

Road; Oak 

Valley 

Parkway

San Timoteo 

Canyon Road

Calimesa, 

Beaumont

Riverside Structure 2006 6Z

33-020721 CA-RIV10642HP37 Road First Street E and W of 

Highway 79 at 

post mile 40.1

Beaumont Riverside Structure 2011 6Z

33-023389 HP11 Electrical 

transmission 

line

The DeversSan 

Bernardino 

#1 220kV 

transmission 

line

n/a n/a Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino

Structure 2012 6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-023484 HP11 Electrical 

distribution 

line

SoCal Edison 

- Memphis 

12kV 

distribution 

Line

n/a n/a Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino

Structure a. 2013 

b. 2014

6Z

33-024895 HP39 Airport Banning 

Municipal 

Airport

200 S Hathaway 

Street

Banning Riverside Structure 2016 6Z

33-026822 HP37 Road Segment of 

John Street

n/a Banning Riverside Structure 2017 6Z

33-028164 HP37 Road Paved 

segment of 

Avenue 48 

following 

historic 

highway 

alignment

between Van 

Buren Street and 

Dillon Road

Coachella Riverside Structure 2017 6Z

36-007169* CA-SBR07169-HHP20 Canal/aqued

uct

Riverside -

Warm Creek 

Canal, flume, 

and wells

n/a Colton, 

Riverside

Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino

Structure a. 1992 

b. 2007 

c. 2009

6Z

36-007764 CA-SBR07764HHP19 Bridge and 

drainage 

structure

n/a N of railroad 

tracks in San 

Timoteo Wash

Redlands San 

Bernardino

Structure 1993 6Z

36-026051 HP11 Electrical 

transmission 

line

Southern 

California 

Edison 

Company 

HayfieldChino 220kV 

Transmission 

Line (see 33-

015035)

n/a n/a Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino

Structure a. 2012 

b. 2012 

c. 2014

6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

36-026224 HP11 Electrical 

transmission 

line

Southern 

California 

Edison San 

BernardinoRedlands-San 

Timoteo and 

San 

BernardinoRedlandsTennessee 

66kV 

Subtransmisi

on Lines

n/a n/a Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino

Structure a. 2013 

b. 2014

6Z

33-007582* HP11 Water 

Tower

Palm Springs

Station

N of Highway 

111, west of 

Tipton Road

Palm 

Springs

Riverside Structure 1983 7R

33-020723 CA-RIV10645AH7 Railroad Atchison, 

Topeka and 

Santa Fe 

Railroad 

segment

E and W of 

Highway 79 at 

post mile 40.3

Beaumont Riverside Structure 2011 7R

33-026891 CA-RIV12627HP39 Midtwentieth c. 

trasmission 

line

n/a NE of 

intersection of 

Tipton Road and 

Highway 111

Palm 

Springs

Riverside Structure 2017 7R

33-026894 CA-RIV12630HP39 Midtwentieth c. 

trasmission 

line

n/a north of Windy 

Point

Whitewate

r

Riverside Structure 2017 7R

36-006174* CA-SBR06174-HHP19 Bridge Historic 

"Bailey" type 

bridge

W of intersection 

of Beaumont 

Avenue and 

Nevada Street

Redlands San 

Bernardino

Structure 1987 7R
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

36-010330 CA-SBR10330HAH7 Railroad Southern 

Pacific 

Railroad

n/a n/a Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino

Structure a. 1999 

b. 2002 

c. 2008 

d. 2010 

e. 2012

7R

36-015222 HP39 Monument / 

plaque

Fort Benson 

Monument

2192-2198 E 

Oliver Holmes 

Road

Colton San 

Bernardino

Object a. 1957 

b. 1979

7L

33-007876 HP39 Large-scale 

steel and 

concrete 

dinosaur 

sculptures

Cabazon 

Dinosaurs, 

built between 

1964 and 

1985 by 

famous artist 

Claude Bell

50900 Seminole 

Drive

Cabazon Riverside Object 1993 7N1

Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

Appendix B. California Historical Resource Status 

Codes (National Register of Historic 

Places/California Register of Historical 

Resources)
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

This page is intentionally blank.
California Historical Resource Status Codes 

1 Properties listed in the National Register (NR) or the California Register (CR) 

 1D Contributor to a district or multiple resource property listed in NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR. 

 1S Individual property listed in NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR.

 1CD Listed in the CR as a contributor to a district or multiple resource property by the SHRC 

 1CS Listed in the CR as individual property by the SHRC.

 1CL Automatically listed in the California Register – Includes State Historical Landmarks 770 and above and Points of Historical 

Interest nominated after December 1997 and recommended for listing by the SHRC. 

 

2 Properties determined eligible for listing in the National Register (NR) or the California Register (CR) 

 2B Determined eligible for NR as an individual property and as a contributor to an eligible district in a federal regulatory process. 

Listed in the CR.

 2D Contributor to a district determined eligible for NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR. 

 2D2 Contributor to a district determined eligible for NR by consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the CR. 

 2D3 Contributor to a district determined eligible for NR by Part I Tax Certification. Listed in the CR.

 2D4 Contributor to a district determined eligible for NR pursuant to Section 106 without review by SHPO. Listed in the CR. 

 2S Individual property determined eligible for NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR.

 2S2 Individual property determined eligible for NR by a consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the CR. 

 2S3 Individual property determined eligible for NR by Part I Tax Certification. Listed in the CR.

 2S4 Individual property determined eligible for NR pursuant to Section 106 without review by SHPO. Listed in the CR. 

 2CB Determined eligible for CR as an individual property and as a contributor to an eligible district by the SHRC. 

 2CD Contributor to a district determined eligible for listing in the CR by the SHRC. 

 2CS Individual property determined eligible for listing in the CR by the SHRC. 

3 Appears eligible for National Register (NR) or California Register (CR) through Survey Evaluation 

 3B Appears eligible for NR both individually and as a contributor to a NR eligible district through survey evaluation. 

 3D Appears eligible for NR as a contributor to a NR eligible district through survey evaluation. 

 3S Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through survey evaluation. 

 

 3CB Appears eligible for CR both individually and as a contributor to a CR eligible district through a survey evaluation. 

 3CD Appears eligible for CR as a contributor to a CR eligible district through a survey evaluation. 

 3CS Appears eligible for CR as an individual property through survey evaluation. 

 

4 Appears eligible for National Register (NR) or California Register (CR) through other evaluation 

 4CM Master List - State Owned Properties – PRC §5024. 

5 Properties Recognized as Historically Significant by Local Government 

 5D1 Contributor to a district that is listed or designated locally.

 5D2 Contributor to a district that is eligible for local listing or designation.

 5D3 Appears to be a contributor to a district that appears eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation. 

 

 5S1 Individual property that is listed or designated locally.

 5S2 Individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation. 

 5S3 Appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation. 

 5B Locally significant both individually (listed, eligible, or appears eligible) and as a contributor to a district that is locally listed,

designated, determined eligible or appears eligible through survey evaluation. 

 

6 Not Eligible for Listing or Designation as specified 

 6C Determined ineligible for or removed from California Register by SHRC. 

 6J Landmarks or Points of Interest found ineligible for designation by SHRC. 

 6L Determined ineligible for local listing or designation through local government review process; may warrant special consideration 

in local planning.

 6T Determined ineligible for NR through Part I Tax Certification process.

 6U Determined ineligible for NR pursuant to Section 106 without review by SHPO.

 6W Removed from NR by the Keeper. 

 6X Determined ineligible for the NR by SHRC or Keeper.

 6Y Determined ineligible for NR by consensus through Section 106 process – Not evaluated for CR or Local Listing. 

 6Z Found ineligible for NR, CR or Local designation through survey evaluation. 

 

7 Not Evaluated for National Register (NR) or California Register (CR) or Needs Revaluation 

 7J Received by OHP for evaluation or action but not yet evaluated.

 7K Resubmitted to OHP for action but not reevaluated.

 7L State Historical Landmarks 1-769 and Points of Historical Interest designated prior to January 1998 – Needs to be reevaluated

using current standards. 

 7M Submitted to OHP but not evaluated - referred to NPS. 

 7N Needs to be reevaluated (Formerly NR Status Code 4) 

 7N1 Needs to be reevaluated (Formerly NR SC4) – may become eligible for NR w/restoration or when meets other specific conditions.

 7R Identified in Reconnaissance Level Survey: Not evaluated. 

 12/8/2003 

 7W Submitted to OHP for action – withdrawn. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

Appendix C. Office of Historic Preservation 

Resource Attribute Codes 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

This page is intentionally blank.
APPENDIX 4: RESOURCE ATTRIBUTE CODES

(for use in Fields P3b and B11)

The following codes should be used to define the attributes of historical resources in Fields P3b and B11 on the

Primary Record and Building, Structure, and Object Record, respectively. The codes are first summarized below and

then defined in greater detail in the following pages of this appendix.

Attributes of Historic Resources:

HP1. Unknown HP24. Lighthouse

HP2. Single family property HP25. Amusement park

HP3. Multiple family property HP26. Monument/mural/gravestone

HP4. Ancillary building HP27. Folk Art

HP5. Hotel/motel HP28. Street furniture

HP6. 1-3 story commercial building HP29. Landscape architecture

HP7. 3+ story commercial building HP30. Trees/vegetation

HP8. Industrial building HP31. Urban open space

HP9. Public utility building HP32. Rural open space

HP10. Theater HP33. Farm/ranch

HP11. Engineering structure HP34. Military property

HP12. Civic auditorium HP35. CCC/WPA property

HP13. Community center/social hall HP36. Ethnic minority property (list group)

HP14. Government building HP37. Highway/trail

HP15. Educational building HP38. Women's property

HP16. Religious building HP39. Other

HP17. Railroad depot HP40. Cemetery

HP18. Train HP41. Hospital

HP19. Bridge HP42. Stadium/sports arena

HP20. Canal/aqueduct HP43. Mine structure/building

HP21. Dam HP44. Adobe building/structure

HP22. Lake/river/reservoir HP45. Unreinforced masonry building

HP23. Ship HP46. Walls/gates/fences

Attributes of Historic Archaeological Sites:

AH1. Unknown AH9. Mines/quarries/tailings

AH2. Foundations/structure pads AH10. Machinery

AH3. Landscaping/orchard AH11. Walls/fences

AH4. Privies/dumps/trash scatters AH12. Graves/cemetery

AH5. Wells/cisterns AH13. Wharfs

AH6. Water conveyance system AH14. Ships/barges

AH7. Roads/trails/railroad grades AH15. Standing structures

AH8. Dams AH16. Other

Attributes of Prehistoric Archaeological Sites and Ethnographic Sites:

AP1. Unknown AP9. Burials

AP2. Lithic scatter AP10. Caches

AP3. Ceramic scatter AP11. Hearths/pits

AP4. Bedrock milling feature AP12. Quarry

AP5. Petroglyphs AP13. Trials/linear earthworks

AP6. Pictographs AP14. Rock shelter/cave

AP7. Architectural feature AP15. Habitation debris
AP8. Cairns/rock features AP16. Other

Historic Resource Attribute Definitions:

HP1. Unknown: No reasonable guess can be made about the historic use or function of the resource.

HP2. Single Family Property: A building constructed to house one family.

HP3. Multiple Family Property: Any building providing longer than temporary lodging for more than one person or

household. E.g., duplexes, apartment buildings, dormitories, bunkhouses, etc.

HP4. Ancillary Building: Barns, outhouses, detached garages, carriage houses, sheds, etc.

HP5. Hotel/Motel: Any building or group of buildings providing temporary lodging for travelers.

HP6. Commercial Building, over 3 stories: Any type of building dealing with management, retail sales, or marketed

services. E.g., stores, banks, gas stations, office buildings, etc. Do not include basement in height count.

HP7. Commercial Building, over 3 stories: Do not include basement in height count.

HP8. Industrial Building: Any building where the manufacture or distribution of products occurs. E.g, canneries,

mills, foundries, warehouses, etc.

HP9. Public Utility Building: Any building that houses services available to the public at large. E.g., firehouses,

power houses, electrical substations. etc.

HP10. Theater: Any place where plays, variety shows, motion pictures, etc., are presented. Includes amphitheaters.

HP11. Engineering Structure: A structure not covered in any other category. E.g., docks, runways, water towers, etc.

HP12. Civic Auditorium: Publicly owned buildings for concerts, speeches, etc.

HP13. Community Center/Social Hall: Any building designed to hold meetings of social groups. E.g., fraternal

halls, women's clubs, boy scout cabins, etc.

HP14. Government Buildings: Any building designed to house government administration or transactions. E.g., post

offices, city halls, county courthouses, etc.

HP15. Educational Building: Any building with an educative purpose. E.g., schools, libraries, museums, etc.

HP16. Religious Building: Any building holding religious ceremonies or connected the operations of religious

organizations (e.g., churches, seminaries, parsonages, etc.

HP17. Railroad Depot: Stations and other buildings connected to the operation of railroads and streetcars. E.g.,

sheds, roundhouses, etc.

HP18. Train: Engines, streetcars, and rolling stock.

HP19. Bridge: Any overpass for automobiles, trains, pedestrian, etc.

HP20. Canal/Aqueduct: Any artificial waterway for transportation or irrigation. Includes large pipes, conduits,

drainage ditches, and bridge-like structures for carrying water.

HP21. Dam: Any barrier constructed to hold back water.
HP22. Lake/River/Reservoir: Any inland body of water, natural stream of water, or place where water is collected

and stored.

HP23. Ship: Any vessel able to navigate inland or ocean waters.

HP24. Lighthouse: Any building or structure from which ships are guided by sight or sound.

HP25. Amusement Park: An outdoor place with various amusement buildings, structures, or devices. Includes

zoological parks.

HP26. Monument/Mural/Gravestone: 1) Any object with a commemorative or artistic purpose; 2) Any painting,

photograph, etc. on a wall or ceiling. E.g., statue, obelisk, sculpture, etc.

HP27. Folk art: Any object that expresses the artistic capacities of a people without being the product of formal

training.

HP28. Street Furniture: Any object that is permanently placed near a street. E.g., fire hydrants, streetlights, benches,

curbstones, hitching posts, etc.

HP29. Landscape Architecture: Any place in which trees, bushes, lawns, fountains, walls etc. have been arranged for

esthetic effect.

HP30. Trees/Vegetation: Any plant, whether planted or growing naturally, not part of a landscape plan.

HP31. Urban Open Space: Any area that has experienced little building or other development within in a city limits.

E.g., parks, grounds, or large open lots.

HP32. Rural Open Space: Any area that has experienced little building or other development outside a city limits.

HP33. Farm/Ranch: Any place where crops or animals are raised.

HP34. Military Property: Any property owned by one of the U.S. armed services, including the national Guard.

HP35. New Deal Public Works Project: Any property built under one of the public works programs of the New Deal.

Includes properties aided by funds or personnel from the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and successors,

Public Works Administration (PWA), Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), etc.

HP36. Ethnic Minority Property: Any property closely associated with events, individuals, groups, or social patterns

important in the history of an ethnic group. Includes properties designed by important ethnic group members. Add

further information by including the name of the ethnic group involved. The OHP has abbreviations for five groups,

so put these two letters in front of the name: AA African Americans, CH Chinese, JA Japanese, LA Latino, NA Native

Americans. The OHP will adopt other abbreviations as properties associated with other ethnic groups are identified.

HP37. Highways/Trail: Any roadway, from freeway to footpath.

HP38. Women's Property: Any property closely associated with events, individuals, groups. or social patterns

important in the history of women. Includes work of women designers as well as buildings such as YWCAs and

women's clubs.

HP39. Other: If no other code applies, enter HP39.

HP40. Cemetery: Burial ground with monuments (except archeological sites).

HP41. Hospital: Any facility for treatment of the sick.

HP42. Stadium/Sports Arena: Any structure or building that provides a place in which sporting events are viewed.
HP43. Mine: Any structure or building connected with mining. E.g., mine shafts, head frames, stamp mills, shops,

etc.

HP44. Adobe building/Structure.

HP45. Unreinforced masonry building.

HP46. Walls/gates/fences.

Historic Archaeological Site Attribute Definitions:

AH1. Unknown: no characteristics listed on the site record.

AH2. Foundations: structural footings or lineal alignments made from wood, brick or rock to support a structure

(e.g., slabs of concrete, leveled earth pads, pilings, walls, stairs, etc.).

AH3. Landscaping: evidence of modification through contouring of the land or planting vegetation (e.g., hedgerow,

orchards, terraces, and ponds).

AH4. Privy pits/trash scatters/dumps: any refuse deposits, outhouse pits, or other accumulation of debris (e.g.,

trash pits, trash scatters, outhouse pits, and dumps).

AH5. Well/cistern: a hole or receptacle designed to hold or provide access to water which may or may not be lined.

AH6. Water conveyance system: any device constructed to transport water over a distance (e.g., flumes, pipes,

ditches, canals, and tunnels).

AH7. Road/trail/railroad bed: a lineal construction, either depressed, elevated, or on ground level, designed to

facilitate the transportation of people or vehicles (e.g., bridge, railroad grade, tunnel, trail, wagon road, etc.).

AH8. Dam: a barrier constructed to contain a body of water.

AH9. Mine: an excavation and associated structures built into the earth to extract natural resources (ore, precious

metals, or raw lithic materials). This category includes quarries. Examples include: shafts, elevators, mining tunnels,

quarry, glory holes, tailings.

AH10. Machinery: a mechanical device (e.g., mills, farm equipment, steam donkeys, windmills, etc.).

AH11. Wall/fence: any wall or fence including postholes or posts placed at regular intervals, retaining walls, postcairns, walls, fences, jetties, and breakwaters.

AH12. Grave/cemetery: any single or multiple burial location.

AH13. Wharf: a structure or remains of a structure built at the shore of a harbor or river for the docking of ships or

boats; pier; dock.

AH14. Ships/barges: floating vessels designed for transporting people or goods across water.

AH15. Standing structure: any historic building that is still standing (e.g., outhouse, shed, house, cabin, office

building, barn, etc.).

AH16. Other: check if there is no other category in which the site description could be placed.

Prehistoric Archaeological Site Attribute Definitions:
AP1. Unknown: no characteristics listed on the site record.

AP2. Lithic scatter: a major characteristic of the site is a scatter of chipped or flaked stone resulting from human

manipulation (e.g., obsidian flakes and few or no other artifacts).

AP3. Ceramic scatter: a major characteristic of the site is a scatter of pot sherds. If the site contains both lithics and

ceramics, check both.

AP4. BRM/milling feature: site contains one or more bedrock mortars, milling surfaces or cupules which indicate

material processing activity.

AP5. Petroglyphs: site contains a stone surface which has been scored by humans in a patterned manner for a

purpose other than material processing. This category includes intaglios.

AP6. Pictographs: site includes any design painted on a rock surface.

AP7. Architectural feature: site contains any feature which indicates the presence of human construction activity

(e.g., post holes, house pits, dance house, sweat lodge, hunting blinds, fish traps).

AP8. Stone feature: site contains a patterned arrangement of rocks purposefully constructed or modified (e.g., rock

alignments, cairns, rock rings of unknown function, etc.). AP9. Burial: the site contains human bone.

AP10. Cache: the site contains an natural or constructed feature used for storing food or goods.

AP11. Hearths/pits: site contains any feature which indicated cooking activity, such as roasting pits, association of

cracked or burnt rock, discolored soil, ash and carbonized wood or plants.

AP12. Quarry: site contains a source of lithic material with evidence of human usage.

AP13. Lineal feature: site contains natural or constructed features indicating human use such as trails, earth works,

windrows or stone fences.

AP14. Rock shelter/cave: a concavity within a rock surface evidencing human use.

AP15. Habitation debris: site contains a deposit characterized by a wide range of artifacts, materials or features

which represent a variety of human activities.

AP16. Other: check here if there is no other category in which the site description can be placed.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

Appendix D. Section 106 Federal Railroad 

Administration Invitation to Consult Letters
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

This page is intentionally blank.
















U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

State Historic Preservation Officer Julianne Polanco 

Office of Historic Preservation 

1725 23rd Street 

Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95816 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Ms. Polanco, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
Figure 1. Regional Location Map 
Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map – Eastern Section (1 of 2) 
Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map – Eastern Section (2 of 2) 
ATTACHMENT A: 

Identified Cultural Resources
This page is intentionally blank.
Appendix A includes separate lists for archaeological and built environment resources.

• Archaeological resources are sorted first by time period (historic, prehistoric, or both) and then

by California Historical Resource Status Code. Please see Attachment B for an explanation of

these codes, which combine information on the NRHP and CRHR status of the resource.

• Built environment resources are sorted first by NRHP property type (building, structure, or

object) and then by California Historical Resource Status Code.
This page is intentionally blank.
Archaeological Resources

A total of 117 archaeological sites (81 historic, 27 prehistoric, 7 both historic and prehistoric, and 2 unknown) were identified in the 

project area.

• Historic archaeology – 81 sites:

o 5 sites appear (i.e., were recommended) eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or the CRHR as the result of a survey (status 

code 3). They have not been formally evaluated and their NRHP eligibility status has not been determined. Therefore, they 

are currently not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

o 1 site has been recommended eligible for local listing or designation as the result of a survey but was not evaluated for 

NRHP eligibility at the time it was recorded (status code 5).

o 27 sites have been previously recommended ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP as a result of a survey (status code 6).

o 48 sites have been previously identified as the result of a survey but either were not evaluated for NRHP eligibility at the 

time they were recorded, or need to be reevaluated (status code 7).

• Prehistoric archaeology – 27 sites: 

o 3 sites have been previously determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP (status code 2).

o 2 sites appear (i.e., were recommended) eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or the CRHR as the result of a survey (status 

code 3). They have not been formally evaluated and their NRHP eligibility status has not been determined. Therefore, they 

are currently not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

o 6 sites have been previously recommended or determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP (status code 6).

o 16 sites have been previously identified as the result of a survey but either were not evaluated for NRHP eligibility at the 

time they were recorded, or need to be reevaluated (status code 7).

• Both – 7 sites:

o 1 site has been previously recommended ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP (status code 6).

o 6 sites have been previously identified as the result of a survey but were not evaluated for NRHP eligibility at the time they 

were recorded (status code 7).

• Unknown – 2 sites:

o Information about these sites is unavailable in the archives of the South Central Coastal Information Center and Eastern 

Information Center.
Archaeological Resources

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type

Time 

Period

Resource 

Attributes Description Human Remains

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-010971 CA-RIV-06633H Site Historic AH2; AH3; 

AH4

Southern Pacific Railroad 

employee housing tract

Absent a. 2001 

b. 2005

3CS

33-014135 CA-RIV-07757 Site Historic AH2; AH4 Two adobe building 

foundations, associated 

artifacts

Absent 2004 3D

33-015004 Site Historic HP33; HP3; 

AH4; AH6

Singleton Ranch District Unknown 2004 3D

33-007888 Site Historic HP20 Historic water 

conveyance system

Absent a. 1996 

b. 2002 

c. 2003

3S

33-014871 CA-RIV-07926 Site Historic HP20; AH6 Millard Stone Canal Absent a. 2005 

b. 2012 

c. 2014

3S

33-022374 CA-RIV-11426 Site Historic AH2 Foundations, rockwork, 

and associated artifacts

Absent 2012 5S3

33-005625 Site Historic AH15; AH3; 

AH11

Kubic Ranch Site Unknown a. 1982 

b. 2004

6Z

33-008075 CA-RIV-05973H Site Historic AH4 Refuse Scatter Absent 1997 6Z

33-008076 CA-RIV-5974H Site Historic AH4 Refuse scatter Absent 1997 6Z

33-008296 CA-RIV-06095 Site Historic AH4 Faunal bone refuse 

deposit

Absent 1997 6Z

33-009496 CA-RIV-06379H Site Historic AH6; AH11; 

AH4

Historic water 

conveyance system

Absent a. 2000 

b. 2007 

c. 2010

6Z

33-009748 CA-RIV-06495H Site Historic AH4; AH7 Historic refuse deposits 

along historic road spur

Absent a. 2000 

b. 2005

6Z

33-013428 Site Historic AH6 Historic irrigation system Absent 2003 6Z

33-013431 Site Historic AH2; AH5; 

AH6

Historic foundation, 

cistern, and irrigation 

system

Absent a. 2003 

b. 2012 

c. 2014

6Z

33-013779 CA-RIV-07544 Site Historic HP33; AH6 Historic ranch remains 

and water conveyance 

featurers

Absent 2004 6Z

33-015002 Site Historic HP21; HP22; 

HP4; HP39

Singleton Ranch Water 

Transportation System

Absent 2004 6Z
Archaeological Resources

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type

Time 

Period

Resource 

Attributes Description Human Remains

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-015847 CA-RIV-08227 Site Historic AH2 Historic residence 

remains

Absent 2006 6Z

33-015848 CA-RIV-08228 Site Historic AH2 Historic residence 

remains

Absent 2006 6Z

33-015923 Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 2007 6Z

33-016025 Site Historic AH6 Cement and rock canal Absent 2007 6Z

33-017259 CA-RIV-10847 Site Historic AH6; HP20; 

HP11

Coachella Valley 

Stormwater Channel

Absent a. 2008 

b. 2009 

c. 2012 

d. 2012 

e. 2016

6Z

33-020420 CA-RIV-10328 Site Historic AH4 Large scatter of historic 

refuse

Absent 2009 6Z

33-022376 CA-RIV-11428 Site Historic AH7; AH9; 

AH4

Hstoric truck stop / refuse 

scatter / sand quarry

Absent 2012 6Z

33-022387 Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent a. 2013 

b. 2014

6Z

33-022388 CA-RIV-11440 / 

CA-RIV-11439

Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent a. 2013 

b. 2014

6Z

33-024169 CA-RIV-11922 Site Historic AH4 Glass scatter Absent 2015 6Z

33-024713 CA-RIV-12237 Site Historic AH7 Historic unpaved road 

segment

Absent 2015 6Z

33-024714 Site Historic AH7 Historic paved road 

segment

Absent 2015 6Z

33-024715 CA-RIV-12238 Site Historic AH4 Refuse Scatter Absent 2015 6Z

33-024926 Site Historic HP2; AH15; 

AH1

Single family residence 

and outbuildings

Absent 2015 6Z

33-026649 CA-RIV-12550 Site Historic AH2 Historic foundation and 

wells

Absent 2016 6Z

33-026824 CA-RIV-12609 Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 2017 6Z

36-024899 CA-SBR-15936H Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse deposit Absent 2012 6Z

33-005624 Site Historic AH1 Site of Fort Oliver- Now 

demolished

Absent 1982 7N

33-007787 Site Historic AH2 Site of Whitewater Adobe Absent a. 1981 

b. 2008

7N1
Archaeological Resources

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type

Time 

Period

Resource 

Attributes Description Human Remains

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-000178 CA-RIV-00178H Site Historic AH2; AH15; 

AH4

Demolished Palm Springs 

Station

Absent a. 1960 

b. 1980 

c. 1983

7R

33-003439 CA-RIV-03439H Site Historic AH4; AH15 Historic refuse scatter Absent a. 1988 

b. 1990 

c. 1999

7R

33-003441 CA-RIV-03441H Site Historic AH2; AH4 Architectural debris and 

refuse related to Garnet 

Station

Absent 1988 7R

33-003442 CA-RIV-03442H Site Historic AH2; AH4 Historic footings and 

refuse scatter related to 

Cabazon Station

Absent a. 1988 

b. 1999

7R

33-003443 CA-RIV-03443H Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 1988 7R

33-003444 CA-RIV-03444H Site Historic AH2; AH4 Historic foundations and 

refuse scatter

Absent 1988 7R

33-003445 CA-RIV-03445H Site Historic AH2; AH4 Historic foundations and 

refuse scatter

Absent 1988 7R

33-003446 CA-RIV-03446H Site Historic AH2; AH4 Historic foundations and 

refuse scatter

Absent 1988 7R

33-003447 CA-RIV-03447H Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 1988 7R

33-003448 CA-RIV-03448H Site Historic AH2; AH4 Historic foundations and 

refuse scatter

Absent 1988 7R

33-003449 CA-RIV-03449H Site Historic AH2; AH4 Historic foundations and 

refuse scatter related to El 

Casco Siding Station

Absent a. 1988 

b. 2014

7R

33-003972 CA-RIV-03972 Site Historic AH2; AH4 Historic residential refuse 

scatter and architectural 

debris

Absent 1990 7R

33-009194 CA-RIV-06374H Site Historic AH2; AH4; 

AH3

Historic dog kennel 

remains

Absent 1999 7R

33-009195 Site Historic AH6; HP20; 

AH3

Historic water 

conveyance system and 

olive grove

Absent 1999 7R

33-009497 CA-RIV-06380H Site Historic AH6; AH2; 

HP20

Historic water 

conveyance system

Absent 1999 7R
Archaeological Resources

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type

Time 

Period

Resource 

Attributes Description Human Remains

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-009500 CA-RIV-06383H Site Historic AH4 Architectural debris 

dumpsite

Absent 1999 7R

33-009747 CA-RIV-06494H Site Historic AH6 Historic water 

conveyance systemDestroyed

Absent 2000 7R

33-010795 CA-RIV-06514H Site Historic AH4 Extensive Refuse Deposit 

(4 loci)

Absent 2000 7R

33-010815 CA-RIV-06531 Site Historic AH4 Refuse Scatter associated 

with railroad

Absent 2000 7R

33-012893 CA-RIV-07166H Site Historic HP20 Stone and Mortar canal Absent 2003 7R

33-013722 Site Historic AH4 Architectural debris 

dumpsite

Absent a. 2004 

b. 2012

7R

33-014999 CA-RIV-07972 Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse deposits 

along historic road spur

Absent 2004 7R

33-015849 CA-RIV-08229 Site Historic AH2; AH11; 

AH4; AH6

Historic residence 

remains and associated 

fenceline, refuse, and 

water conveyance feature

Absent 2007 7R

33-015850 CA-RIV-08230 Site Historic AH3; AH11 Historic homestead 

remains and landscaping 

remnants

Absent 2007 7R

33-017005 CA-RIV-08852 Site Historic AH4 A series of discrete 

deposits of refuse related 

to the Edom train station

Absent 2007 7R

33-017588 CA-RIV-09117 Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 2008 7R

33-017947 Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 2008 7R

33-017948 Site Historic HP18 Two all wood refrigerator 

train cars

Absent 2008 7R

33-018128 Site Historic AH11 Barbed wire fence line Absent a. 2010 

b. 2012

7R

33-023358 CA-RIV-11408 Site Historic AH2; AH5 Historic foundation and 

cistern

Absent 2013 7R

33-023964 Site Historic AH7 Historic road segment Absent 2012 7R

33-023965 Site Historic AH7 Historic road segment Absent 2012 7R

33-026892 CA-RIV-12628 Site Historic AH7 Historic era spur road Absent 2017 7R
Archaeological Resources

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type

Time 

Period

Resource 

Attributes Description Human Remains

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-026893 CA-RIV-12629 Site Historic AH6 Historic catchment sump Absent 2017 7R

36-000573 CA-SBR-00575-H Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 1988 7R

36-000574 CA-SBR-00573-H Site Historic AH4; AH2 Historic refuse scatter and 

architectural debris

Absent 1988 7R

36-000647 CA-SBR-00647-H Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 1988 7R

36-006008 CA-SBR-06008-H Site Historic AH2; AH4; 

AH3

Historic residential 

remains

Absent 1988 7R

36-006069 CA-SBR-06069-H Site Historic HP20; HP11; 

HP21

Water control system Absent 1987 7R

36-006169 CA-SBR-06169-H Site Historic AH4 Historic domestice refuse 

scatter

Absent 1988 7R

36-006173 CA-SBR-06173-H Site Historic HP1; AH2; 

AH4

Bryn Mawr Townsite Absent a. 1988 

b. 2008 

c. 2012 

d. 2014

7R

36-006856 CA-SBR-06856H Site Historic AH2; AH11; 

AH15; AH16

Historic ranch complex 

remains

Absent 1990 7R

36-011287 CA-SBR-11287H Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 2003 7R

36-023573 Site Historic AH3; AH6 Historic orange grove and 

irrigation system

Absent 2009 7R

36-023574 Site Historic AH3; AH6 Historic orange grove and 

irrigation system

Absent 2009 7R

36-023575 Site Historic AH3; AH6 Historic orange grove and 

irrigation system

Absent 2009 7R

33-011573 CA-RIV-06896 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP11; 

AP3

Large lakeshore 

habitation site

Present a. 2002 

b. 2003 

c. 2007

2S2

33-011574 CA-RIV-06897 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP3; 

AP2

Lakeshore habitation site Unknown a. 2002 

b. 2003 

c. 2007 

d. 2011

2S2

33-028059 CA-RIV-12669 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP11; 

AP3; AP9

Large lakeshore 

habitation site

Present 2016 2S2

33-011438 CA-RIV-06823 Site Prehistoric AP3; AP16; 

AP2

Prehistoric habitation site Present a. 2002 

b. 2002

3CS
Archaeological Resources

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type

Time 

Period

Resource 

Attributes Description Human Remains

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-014809 CA-RIV-07882 Site Prehistoric AP3; AP2; 

AP11

Village of Palsetahut. 

Ceremonial coyote 

burials, extensive artifacts 

and features. Reported 

destroyed.

Unknown a. 2005 

b. 2006

3S

33-000676 CA-RIV-00676 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP3; 

AP11

Habitation with pottery 

scatter and associated 

midden

Unknown a.1975 

b. 1990 

c. 1996 

d. 1996 

e. 2004 

f. 2015

6Y

33-002639 CA-RIV-02639 Site Prehistoric AP4 Bedrock Milling Feature, 

now removed

Absent a. 1982 

b. 1987 

c. 2000

6Z

33-009499 CA-RIV-06382 Site Prehistoric AP3 Pottery scatter Absent a. 1999 

b. 2007

6Z

33-011636 CA-RIV-06915 Site Prehistoric AP3 Two distinct pottery 

scatters

Absent 2002 6Z

33-016252 CA-RIV-08403 Site Prehistoric AP16; AP15; 

AP3

Human cremation with 

associated pottery and 

flaked stone

Present a. 2007 

b. 2010

6Z

33-017288 CA-RIV-08988 Site Prehistoric AP3; AP2 Large scatter of historic 

fragmented bone and 

shell; prehistoric artifact 

scatter

Absent 2008 6Z

33-009780 CA-RIV-06508 Site Prehistoric AP3; AP2 Prehistoric artifact scatter Unknown 2000 7N

33-009781 CA-RIV-06509 Site Prehistoric AP2 Prehistoric lithic scatter Absent 2000 7N

33-000790 CA-RIV-00790 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP3 Pehistoric campsite Absent a. no date b. 

1982 

c. 1987

7R

33-000809 CA-RIV-00809 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP3; 

AP2

Prehistoric artifact scatter 

disturbed by pipeline

Absent a. 1976 

b. 1999

7R

33-001767 CA-RIV-01767 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP3; 

AP11

Complex Lakeshore 

habitation site

Unknown a. 1980 

b. 1987 

c. 2002

7R
Archaeological Resources

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type

Time 

Period

Resource 

Attributes Description Human Remains

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-002733 CA-RIV-02733 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP11 Habitation site Unknown 1983 7R

33-003222 CA-RIV-03222 Site Prehistoric AP2; AP15 scatter of prehistoric 

artifacts

Absent 1987 7R

33-007425 CA-RIV-05799 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP3; 

AP11

Habitation site with 

assciated features and 

artifacts

Unknown a. 1995 

b. 2002

7R

33-013718 CA-RIV-07516 Site Prehistoric AP3 Prehistoric pottery scatter 

and one fragment if olive 

glass

Absent 2004 7R

33-013795 CA-RIV-07553 Site Prehistoric AP2; AP1 Scatter of ground stone 

artifacts, possible 

cremation, and possible 

hearth feature

Present 2004 7R

33-015893 CA-RIV-08256 Site Prehistoric AP4; AP2 Bedrock Milling feature 

with associated artifacts

Absent 2007 7R

33-017006 CA-RIV-08853 Site Prehistoric AP2; AP3 Resource processing site Absent 2007 7R

33-017011 CA-RIV-08858 Site Prehistoric AP2 Resource processing 

site/lithic scatter

Absent 2007 7R

33-026895 CA-RIV-12631 Site Prehistoric AP2; AP3; 

AP15

Prehistoric seasonal 

habitation site

Unknown 2017 7R

33-026896 CA-RIV-12632 Site Prehistoric AP3 Prehistoric Pottery scatter Absent 2017 7R

36-006123 CA-SBR-06123 Site Prehistoric AP2 Prehistoric groundstone 

scatter

Absent 1988 7R

33-015337 Site Both AP3; AH4 SCL fragment and one 

buffware fragment

Absent 2006 6Z

33-000179 CA-RIV-00179 Site Both AP9; AP16 1840s Historic era 

Cahuilla smallpox burial 

site

Present a. 1960 

b. 1983

7R

33-000794 CA-RIV-00794 Site Both AP15; AP3; 

AH4

Historic era Cahuilla 

campsite

Unknown a. no date b. 

1982 

c. 1987 

d. 2004 

e. 2007

7R
Archaeological Resources

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type

Time 

Period

Resource 

Attributes Description Human Remains

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-001634 CA-RIV-01634 Site Both AP15; AP16; 

AH4

Multi component site 

including prehistoric food 

processing and associated 

artifact scatter and 

Historic refuse scatter

Unknown a. 1972 

b. 1987 

c. 1990

7R

33-001768 CA-RIV-01768 Site Both AP3; AP11; 

AP15; AH4

Complex Dune habitation 

site

Absent a. 1980 

b. 1978

7R

36-002314 CA-SBR-02314 Site Both AP15; AP3; 

AP2; AP16

Historic era Cahuilla 

Campsite

Unknown a. 1933 

b. 1967 

c. 1971 

d. 1993

7R

36-002999 CA-SBR-02999/H Site Both AP1 Jumuba Rancheria Unknown a. 1938 

b. 1951

7R

36-016147 Unknown Unknown Information missing at 

SCCIC

unknown CA-RIV-12188 Site Unknown Information missing at 

EIC
Built Environment Resources

A total of 267 built environment resources (242 buildings, 23 structures, and 2 objects) were identified in the project area. 

• Buildings – 242 buildings:

o 1 building, the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse, is listed in the NRHP (status code 1).

o 30 buildings appear (i.e., were recommended) eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or the CRHR as the result of a survey 

(status code 3). They have not been formally evaluated and their NRHP eligibility status has not been determined. 

Therefore, they are currently not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

o 66 buildings have been previously recommended or determined eligible for local listing or designation but were not 

evaluated for NRHP eligibility at the time they were recorded (status code 5).

o 106 buildings have been previously recommended ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP as a result of a survey (status code 

6).

o 39 buildings have been previously identified as the result of a survey but either were not evaluated for NRHP eligibility at 

the time they were recorded, or need to be reevaluated (status code 7).

• Structures – 23 structures:

o 3 structures appear (i.e., were recommended) eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as the result of a survey (status code 3).

They have not been formally evaluated and their NRHP eligibility status has not been determined. Therefore, they are 

currently not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP.

o 14 structures have been previously recommended or determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP as a result of a survey 

(status code 6).

o 6 structures have been previously identified as the result of a survey but were not evaluated for NRHP eligibility at the time 

they were recorded (status code 7).

• Object – 2 objects:

o 2 objects have been previously identified as the result of a survey but need to be reevaluated for NRHP eligibility (status 

code 7).

Note: In the table that follows, an asterisk (*) next to the primary number designates resources that appear to have been destroyed 

since they were last recorded.
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-007292 HP15 San Timoteo 

Canyon 

Schoolhouse

El Casco 

Schoolhouse

31985 San 

Timoteo Canyon 

Road

El Casco Riverside Building a. 1983 

b. 2000

1S

33-008351 HP38; 

HP13

Club house Banning 

Women's 

Club

175 W Hays 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 3CS, 

7L

33-013720* HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 34200 San 

Timoteo Canyon 

Road

Beaumont Riverside Building 2004 3D

36-019926* HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence

Howard Van 

Der Wall 

House

26472 Mission 

Road

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building a. 2003 

b. 2013

3D

33-005619* HP33; 

HP2; 

HP30; HP4

Ranch house San Cayetano 

Ranch; Bell 

Ranch

Chase School 

Road

Thousand 

Palms

Riverside Building 1982 3S

33-005652 HP16 Church Our Lady of 

Soledad 

Catholic 

Church

1612 1st Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-005659 HP6 Commercial 

building

Lopes 

Hardware 

Store; First 

National 

Bank

1604 6th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-005663* HP4 Outdoor 

summer 

sleeping 

quarters

Submarine 1463 7th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-005666 HP9 Power office California 

Electric 

Office

1684 9th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-005792 HP15; 

HP16; 

HP13

Church built 

by Japanese 

Christians

Coachella 

Church of 

Jesus Christ; 

Friends of 

Jesus Church

85490 Avenue 

50

Coachella Riverside Building 1995 3S
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-006211 HP6 Commercial 

bank 

building

Beaumont 

Bank; 

Precision 

Stamping

252 W 5th Street Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-006215 HP15; 

HP14

Beaumont 

Civic Center

Beaumont 

High School

550 E 6th Street Beaumont Riverside Building a. 1983 

b. 1999

3S

33-007293 HP2; HP19 Single 

family 

residence 

and SPRR 

Bridge

n/a 31710 San 

Timoteo Canyon 

Road

El Casco Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-007295* HP33; 

HP2; HP3; 

HP4; 

HP22; 

HP46

Haskell 

Ranch

Noble Ranch; 

Clough 

Ranch; 

Singleton 

Ranch

34200 San 

Timoteo Canyon 

Road

Beaumont Riverside Building a. 1983 

b. 2004

3S

33-007879 HP6; AH2; 

AH3

Commercial 

building

Henderson / 

Reid Building

NE corner of San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue and 

Livingston Street

Banning Riverside Building a. 1983 

b. 1991

3S

33-008299 HP5 Hotel Hotel Indio 82923 Miles 

Avenue

Indio Riverside Building 1984 3S

33-008305 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence 

and guest 

house

n/a 45120 King 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 3S

33-008307 HP4 outdoor 

summer 

sleeping 

quarters

Submarine 44885 Oasis 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-008337 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Davis Home 933 E Barbour 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 3S
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-008357 HP10 Art Deco 

Theater

Corey 

Building; Fox 

Theater

84 W Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-008358 HP5 Commercial 

building

Hotel 

Banning

225 W Banning 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-009109 HP16 Church Saint Agnes 

Church; 

Grace 

Lutheran 

Church

111 N 2nd Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-009110 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

C. D. 

Hamilton 

Home

181 N 2nd Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-009132 HP6 Commercial 

building

Hendrick's 

Market; Tri 

City 

Stationery

141 N San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-009134 HP6; HP13 Commercial 

building

Oddfellows 

Building

25 S San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 1983 3S

33-017933 HP3; 

HP36; 

HP13

Multiple 

family 

property

Fred Young 

Farm Labor 

Center

47155 Van 

Buren Street

Indio Riverside Building 2009 3S

36-006172 CA-SBR06172-HHP33; 

HP2; 

HP36; HP4

Winery 

complex

VacheBrookside 

Winery 

complex, 

including 

Chinese 

worker 

housing

W of intersection 

of San Timoteo 

Canyon Road 

and W Fern 

Avenue

Redlands San 

Bernardino

Building a. 1980

b.1988 

c. 2000

3S

36-017260 CA-SBR06172HHP8; HP36 The old 

Brookside 

Winery

see resource 

36-006172

W of intersection 

of San Timoteo 

Canyon Road 

and W Fern 

Avenue

Redlands San 

Bernardino

Building 1980 3S
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

36-020801 HP15 Educational 

building

Evans Hall / 

Cutler Hall, 

Loma Linda 

University

24785 Stewart 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2008 3S

36-020802 HP15 Educational 

building

Shyrock Hall, 

Loma Linda 

University

24745 Stewart 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2008 3S

33-006170 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Bogart House 545 Euclid 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building a. 1983 

b. 1994

3S, 7L

33-005651 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 1105 Vine 

Avenue

Coachella Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-005653* HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 1451 3rd Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-005654* HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 1445 4th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-005655 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Syrus Hughs 

House

1457 4th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-005658 HP6 Original 

business 

building in 

Coachella

Reed 

Building

1601 6th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-005660 HP13 Masonic 

Hall

Masonic Hall; 

Rolavision 

Store

1694 6th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-005662 HP15 Elementary 

school

Palm View 

School

1390 7th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-005664 HP6 Coachella's 

fist 

newspaper 

"The 

Submarine"

Ceramics 

shop; 

Submarine 

Newspaper 

Office

1604 7th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 5S2
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-005665 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Home built 

by the 

Thomases, 

pioneer 

family of 

Coachella 

Valley

1609 7th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-005668 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Hamner 

Family 

Home; Harry 

Bloom Home

85735 Highway 

111

Coachella Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-005670 HP39: 

Other

Old Fire 

House

Old Fire 

House

1517 6th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006093* HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Valdivia 

Home

368 B Street Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006110* HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 635 California 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006131 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 620 Edgar 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006132 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 634 Edgar 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006142 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 644 Edgar 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006160 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Sones Home 615 Egan 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006161 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 629 Egan 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-006162 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Kirkpatrick 

House

633 Egan 

Evanue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006164 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 655 Egan 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006167 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 330 Elm Avenue Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006196 HP16 Guadalupe 

Chapel

St. John 

Christian 

Community 

Church

419 Olive 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006200 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 552 Palm 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006201 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 556 Palm 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006202 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Lynne Bebee 

Home

638 Palm 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006205 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 532 Wellwood 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006206* HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Martin Home 625 Wellwood 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006207* HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Hershey 

Home; King 

Home

651 Wellwood 

Avenue

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-006218 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 349 W 7th Street Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-006228* HP39 McCullough

/Merkel 

Ranch

Three Rings 

Ranch

n/a Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-007294 HP33 Ranch house 

(two 

buildings)

Silas Cox 

Ranch; 

Fisherman's 

Retreat

32300 San 

Timoteo Canyon 

Road

El Casco Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-007873* HP39 The 

Cabazon 

Poker 

Casino

n/a 50580 Main 

Street

Cabazon Riverside Building 1993 5S2

33-008319 HP3 Bungalow 

court

n/a 82684 Miles 

Avenue

Indio Riverside Building 1984 5S2

33-008323 HP3 Bungalow 

court

n/a 44911 - 44925 

Oasis Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 5S2

33-008324 HP6 Indio Realty 

Building

n/a 44967 Oasis 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 5S2

33-008328 HP10 Desert 

Theatre in 

Indio

n/a 42265 Fargo 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 5S2

33-008333 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 225 E Barbour 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-008334 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Russell Jones 

House; W. E. 

Jones House

391 E Barbour 

Street

Banning Riverside Building a. 1983 

b. 2005

5S2

33-008335 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Russell Jones 

House

434 E Barbour 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-008336 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 451 E Barbour 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-008352 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 322 E John 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1982 5S2
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-008356 HP5 The San 

Gorgonio 

Inn

Bryant House 150 E Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1982 5S2

33-009098 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Charlie 

Morris House

486 W Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009099 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 530 W Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009104 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Mc Allister 

Home

111 N 1st Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009105 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 125 N 1st Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009106 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 144 N 1st Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009107 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 157 N 1st Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009108 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 160 N 1st Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009112 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Dr. Ryan 

Home

115 N 3rd Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009113 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Methodist 

Parsonage

180 N 3rd Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009117 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

F. F. Lemon 

Home

181 N 4th Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009120 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 899 W Hays 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-009121 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 1015 W Hays 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009122 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 1067 W Hays 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009130 HP6 Commercial 

building

n/a 170 W Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009150 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 1222 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009153 HP6 Commercial 

building

Hopper Café; 

Constantino's

140 W Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1984 5S2

33-009157 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 385 W Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009164 HP6; HP14 U.S. Post 

Office

Hazel's Thrift 

Shop

125 N San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009165 HP6 Commercial 

Building

B.D.Wilson 

Building; 

Stagecoach 

Press 

Building

137 N San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009178 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 116 N 4th Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

33-009179 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 141 N 4th Street Banning Riverside Building 1983 5S2

36-012363 HP15; 

HP13; 

HP16

Educational 

/ religious 

building

Bryn Mawr 

Schoolhouse; 

Loma Linda 

Seventh-Day 

Adventist 

Church

27261 Mayberry 

Street (old 

Barton Road)

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building a. 1987 

b. 2012

5S2
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-007874* HP39 Adobe, 

incorporated 

in to historic 

hotel 

complex

The Cabazon 

Inn, 

Manager's 

Quarters

90250 Main 

Street

Cabazon Riverside Building 1993 5S3

36-012492 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a original 25676 

Lawton Avenue, 

moved to 25092 

Barton Road

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 1987 5S3

33-007875* HP39 Restaurant 

and Bar with 

living 

quarters 

above

Cabo's 

Wateringhole

50400 E Main 

Street

Cabazon Riverside Building 1993 6Z

33-008063* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence

Building A 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z

33-008064* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence

Building B 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z

33-008065* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence

Building C 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z

33-008066* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence

Building D 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z

33-008067* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence

Building E 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z

33-008068* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence

Building F 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z

33-008069* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence

Building G 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-008070* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence

Building H 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z

33-008071* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence

Building I 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z

33-008072* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence

Building J 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z

33-008073* HP4; HP33 Garage Structure K 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z

33-008074* HP4; HP33 Wash House Structure L 78887 Varner 

Road

Indio Riverside Building 1997 6Z

33-011918 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Law Property 1389 E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building a. n/a 

b. 2007

6Z

33-013804* HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

converted to 

office

Hadley 

Orchards 

Office

13595 Apache 

Trail

Cabazon Riverside Building 2005 6Z

33-013805 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 48910 Mojave 

Drive

Cabazon Riverside Building 2005 6Z

33-014376 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 80783 Indio 

Boulevard

Indio Riverside Building 2004 6Z

33-014377 HP39 Date 

packinghous

e

n/a 80783 Indio 

Boulevard

Indio Riverside Building 2004 6Z

33-014738* HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 40995 Adams 

Street

Bermuda 

Dunes

Riverside Building 2005 6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-015192 HP2; HP16 Single 

family 

residence 

converted to 

church

Primera 

Iglesia 

Bautista 

Hispana

390 E Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2005 6Z

33-015193 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Bonilla 

Residence

402 E Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2005 6Z

33-015802 HP14 Government 

buildings

City of 

Banning 

Public Works 

Department 

building 

complex

176 Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015806 HP6; HP4 Commercial 

building

Statewide 

Towing 

building

275 E Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015809 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 1380 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015810 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Doolittle 

Residence

1430 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015811 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Doolittle 

Residence

1476 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015813 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 1617 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015814 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Hall 

Residence

1661 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015815 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and wall

Snyder 

Residence

1692 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-015816 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Thompson 

Residence

1706 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015817 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and fence

Weatherly 

Residence

1722 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015818 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 2005 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015819 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 2008 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015820 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 2025 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015821 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and wall

Schafer 

Residence

2028 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015822 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Hamby 

Residence

2044 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015823 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and fence

Higgins 

Residence

2049 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015824 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and gate

Higgins 

Residence

2071 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015825 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Gray and 

Girton 

Residence

2080 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-015826 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and fence

n/a 2102 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015827 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and fence 

with gate

Ross 

Residence

2120 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015828 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and wall

Higgins 

Residence

2131 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015829 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Malicki 

Residence

2148 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015830 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Huston and 

Strafford 

Residence

2156 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015831 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Holmquist 

and Kallstrom 

Residence

2174 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building a. 2006 

b. 2009

6Z

33-015835 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Graham 

Residence

2413 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015836 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and fence

n/a 2437 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015837 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 2539 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015838 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Reiger 

Residence

2637 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-015839 HP6; HP4; 

HP46

Comercial 

building

All American 

Towing

2671-2673 W 

Lincoln Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015840 HP3 Single 

family 

residence 

complex

n/a 2699 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015841 HP3 Single 

family 

residence 

Complex

n/a 2705 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015842 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 2721 W Lincoln 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2006 6Z

33-015843 HP11 Engineering 

structure

Banning 

Substation

Lincoln Street Banning Riverside Building a. 2006 

b. 2014

6Z

33-016857 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Davis 

Property

219 Allen Street Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016880 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Fultz 

Property

221 Cherry 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016883 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Pelayo 

Property

1073 E Gilman 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016886 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Pellum 

Property

275 N Hathaway 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016893 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Rivera Estate 170 S Phillips 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016894 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Martinez 

Property

228 N Phillips 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016913 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Flores 

Property

985 E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-016914 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 1138 E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016915 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

McMahon 

Property

1209 E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016916 HP3 Multiple 

family 

residence 

complex

Green's 

Rentals

1330-1350-1370 

E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016917 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Formento/Ber

umen 

Property

1367 E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016918 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Law Property 1389 E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016919 HP3 Multiple 

family 

residence 

complex

Jones 

Apartments

1420-1424 E 

Williams Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016920 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Laster 

Property

1467 E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016921 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Magana 

Property

1477 E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016922 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Alonso 

Property

1501 E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016923 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Perez/Moreno 

Property

1537 E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z

33-016924 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Bennett 

Property

1561 E Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2007 6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-017729 HP6 Single 

family 

residence 

converted to 

commercial

n/a 2169AB W 

Ramsey Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017731 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 375 S 22nd 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017732 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 335 S 22nd 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017733 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 295 S 22nd 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017734 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 227 S 22nd 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017735 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 3310 W Ramsey 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017736 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 3298 W Ramsey 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017737 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 3278 W Ramsey 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017738 HP6 Commercial 

Building

n/a 2873 W Ramsey 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017739 HP6 Commercial 

Building

n/a 2772 W Ramsey 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017740 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 2736c W 

Ramsey Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017741 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 2736b W 

Ramsey Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-017742 HP6 Commercial 

Building

n/a 2736A W 

Ramsey Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017743 HP6 Commercial 

Building

n/a 2711 W Ramsey 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017744 HP8 Commercial 

building 

complex

n/a 2691 W Ramsey 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017745 HP8 Commercial 

building 

complex

n/a 2642 W Ramsey 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017746 HP6 Commercial 

Building

Pepe's 

Mexican 

Seafood

2579 W Ramsey 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017747 HP5 Commercial 

Building

Sunset Motel 2475 W Ramsey 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017749 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 361 S 22nd 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017750 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 259 S 22nd 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-017781 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 379 S 22nd 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 2009 6Z

33-024165 HP6 Garage 

converted to 

rescue 

mission / 

men's 

dormitory

Coachella 

Valley 

Rescue 

Mission

47518 Van 

Buren Street

Indio Riverside Building 2010 6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-024166 HP6 Military 

barracks 

moved to 

site and 

converted 

into 

women's 

dormitory

Coachella 

Valley 

Rescue 

Mission

47522 Van 

Buren Street

Indio Riverside Building 2010 6Z

33-024167 HP6 Auto repair 

building

n/a 84169 Highway 

111

Indio Riverside Building 2010 6Z

36-012313 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Miko 

Property

1657 Smiley 

Heights Drive

Redlands San 

Bernardino

Building 2003 6Z

36-012871 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 10753 Poplar 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2005 6Z

36-012872 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 10763 Poplar 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2005 6Z

36-012873 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 10845 Poplar 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2005 6Z

36-012874 HP3; HP4 Duplex 

family 

residence

n/a 10861 Poplar 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2005 6Z

36-027713 HP3 Duplex 

family 

residence

n/a 25401-25403 

Cole Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2014 6Z

36-027714 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 25405 Cole 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2014 6Z

36-027715 HP4 Shed n/a 25405 Cole 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2014 6Z

36-027716 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 25407 Cole 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2014 6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

36-027717 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 25417 Cole 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2014 6Z

33-007880 HP5 Coplin House 

/ Spokane 

Hotel

SE corner of San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue and 

Ramsey Street

Banning Riverside Building a. 1983 

b. 1991

7L

33-009491 HP39 Single 

family 

residence

Smiley Place 82161 Miles 

Avenue

Indio Riverside Building 1991 7L

36-017533 CA-SBR017533HP15 Site of 

Mound City 

(Loma 

Linda)

Shyrock Hall, 

Loma Linda 

University

24745 Stewart 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2008 7L

33-009154 HP14 Government 

building

Banning City 

Hall

161 W Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1985 7M

33-006191* HP39 Orange 

Juice Sales 

Room

n/a 501 Maple 

Avenue 

(backyard)

Beaumont Riverside Building 1983 7N

33-007296 HP33; 

HP2; HP4; 

HP21; 

HP35; 

HP20; 

AH2; HP37

James 

Singleton/W

oodhouse 

Ranch

n/a Woodhouse/Sing

leton Road

Calimesa Riverside Building a. 1983 

b. 2004

7N

33-008303 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 44860 King 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 7N

33-008304 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 44893 King 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 7N

33-008306 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence 

and garage

n/a 45158 King 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 7N
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-008317 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 45161 King 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 7N

33-008320 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence 

and shed

n/a 44885 Oasis 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 7N

33-008321 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Michaelson 

Family Home

44885 Oasis 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 7N

33-008322 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence 

and garage

n/a 44899 Oasis 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 7N

33-008329 HP6; HP13 Commercial 

building

Elk's Club; 

The Oasis

45297 Fargo 

Street

Indio Riverside Building 1984 7N

33-008330* HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 45555 Fargo 

Street

Indio Riverside Building a. 1984 

b. 2015

7N

33-008362 HP6 Commercial 

building

Holcomb 

Building

40 S San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 1983 7N

33-009096 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

Mary Ellis 

Home

170 W Williams 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 7N

33-009129 HP6 Commercial 

building

O'Briens 

Pharmacy

160 W Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 7N

33-009131 HP6 Commercial 

building

Mason Moore 

Building

185 W Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 7N

33-009163 HP6 Commercial 

Building

1920s Berlin 

Building

65 N San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue

Banning Riverside Building 1983 7N

36-013890 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 23658 First 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 1987 7N
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

36-017269 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

John T. Tolle 

House

231 Sonora 

Street

Redlands San 

Bernardino

Building 1986 7N

36-020253 HP15; 

HP13; 

HP16

Educational 

building

Loma Linda 

Academy

10650 Anderson 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 1987 7N

33-005669 HP14 Coachella 

City Hall

Coachella 

City Hall

1515 6th Street Coachella Riverside Building 1983 7R

33-009155 HP6 Commercial 

Building

n/a 260 W Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1985 7R

33-009156 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

converted to 

commercial

Banning 

Medical 

Clinic

330 W Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 7R

33-009159 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

converted to 

commercial

Bird 

Insurance 

Agency

1025 W Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 1983 7R

33-023524 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 451 E Livingston 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2013 7R

33-023529 HP6 Commercial 

Building

n/a 601 W Luis 

Estrada Road

Beaumont Riverside Building 2013 7R

33-023532 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 489 E Livingston 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2013 7R

33-023533 HP6 Commercial 

Building

n/a 512 E Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2013 7R

33-023534 HP6 Commercial 

Building

n/a 533 E Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2013 7R

33-023535 HP6 Commercial 

Building

n/a 635 E Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2013 7R
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-023536 HP6 Commercial 

Building

n/a 685 E Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2013 7R

33-023537 HP3 Multiple 

family 

residence 

Complex

n/a 719 E Ramsey 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2013 7R

33-023550 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 425 E Livingston 

Street

Banning Riverside Building 2013 7R

33-023909 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 48878 Mojave 

Drive

Cabazon Riverside Building 2014 7R

36-023572 HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence

Parker House 1160S San 

Timoteo Canyon 

Road

Redlands San 

Bernardino

Building 2009 7R

36-025603 HP2 Single 

family 

residence

n/a 25919 Juanita 

Street

Loma 

Linda

San 

Bernardino

Building 2013 7R

33-010792 HP21 Flood 

control 

structure

Oak Valley 

flood control 

structure 33-

10792

Along San 

Timoteo Canyon 

Road, 3.4 mi 

west of I-10

Beaumont Riverside Structure 2000 3D

33-005705 CA-IMP7658HP20 Coachella 

Canal

Coachella 

Branch of the 

All-American 

Canal

Crosses rail line 

E of I10/Jefferson 

Street 

interchange

Indio Riverside Structure a. 1983 

b. 2007 

c. 2011

3S

33-011265 CA-RIV06726HHP20 Canal/aqued

uct

Colororado 

River 

Aqueduct

n/a n/a Riverside Structure a. 2000 

b. 2001 

c. 2003 

d. 2005 

e. 2005 

f. 2009

3S
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-009498 CA-RIV06381HHP39 Railroad Union Pacific 

Railroad, 

Southern 

Pacific 

Railroad

n/a n/a Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino

Structure 2015 6Y

33-008410 HP37 Road Dillon 

Highway/ 

MWD Garnet 

to Indio truck 

road

Dillon Road North 

Palm 

Springs to 

Coachella

Riverside Structure a. 1998 

b. 2015

6Z

33-015035 HP11 Electrical 

transmission 

line

Southern 

California 

Edison 

Company 

HayfieldChino 220kV 

Transmission 

Line

n/a n/a Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino

Structure a. 1998 

b. 2006 

c. 2010 

d. 2012 

e. 2013 

f. 2014

6Z

33-015720 CA-RIV08189HP37 Road San Timoteo 

Canyon 

Road; Oak 

Valley 

Parkway

San Timoteo 

Canyon Road

Calimesa, 

Beaumont

Riverside Structure 2006 6Z

33-020721 CA-RIV10642HP37 Road First Street E and W of 

Highway 79 at 

post mile 40.1

Beaumont Riverside Structure 2011 6Z

33-023389 HP11 Electrical 

transmission 

line

The DeversSan 

Bernardino 

#1 220kV 

transmission 

line

n/a n/a Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino

Structure 2012 6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

33-023484 HP11 Electrical 

distribution 

line

SoCal Edison 

- Memphis 

12kV 

distribution 

Line

n/a n/a Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino

Structure a. 2013 

b. 2014

6Z

33-024895 HP39 Airport Banning 

Municipal 

Airport

200 S Hathaway 

Street

Banning Riverside Structure 2016 6Z

33-026822 HP37 Road Segment of 

John Street

n/a Banning Riverside Structure 2017 6Z

33-028164 HP37 Road Paved 

segment of 

Avenue 48 

following 

historic 

highway 

alignment

between Van 

Buren Street and 

Dillon Road

Coachella Riverside Structure 2017 6Z

36-007169* CA-SBR07169-HHP20 Canal/aqued

uct

Riverside -

Warm Creek 

Canal, flume, 

and wells

n/a Colton, 

Riverside

Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino

Structure a. 1992 

b. 2007 

c. 2009

6Z

36-007764 CA-SBR07764HHP19 Bridge and 

drainage 

structure

n/a N of railroad 

tracks in San 

Timoteo Wash

Redlands San 

Bernardino

Structure 1993 6Z

36-026051 HP11 Electrical 

transmission 

line

Southern 

California 

Edison 

Company 

HayfieldChino 220kV 

Transmission 

Line (see 33-

015035)

n/a n/a Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino

Structure a. 2012 

b. 2012 

c. 2014

6Z
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

36-026224 HP11 Electrical 

transmission 

line

Southern 

California 

Edison San 

BernardinoRedlands-San 

Timoteo and 

San 

BernardinoRedlandsTennessee 

66kV 

Subtransmisi

on Lines

n/a n/a Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino

Structure a. 2013 

b. 2014

6Z

33-007582* HP11 Water 

Tower

Palm Springs

Station

N of Highway 

111, west of 

Tipton Road

Palm 

Springs

Riverside Structure 1983 7R

33-020723 CA-RIV10645AH7 Railroad Atchison, 

Topeka and 

Santa Fe 

Railroad 

segment

E and W of 

Highway 79 at 

post mile 40.3

Beaumont Riverside Structure 2011 7R

33-026891 CA-RIV12627HP39 Midtwentieth c. 

trasmission 

line

n/a NE of 

intersection of 

Tipton Road and 

Highway 111

Palm 

Springs

Riverside Structure 2017 7R

33-026894 CA-RIV12630HP39 Midtwentieth c. 

trasmission 

line

n/a north of Windy 

Point

Whitewate

r

Riverside Structure 2017 7R

36-006174* CA-SBR06174-HHP19 Bridge Historic 

"Bailey" type 

bridge

W of intersection 

of Beaumont 

Avenue and 

Nevada Street

Redlands San 

Bernardino

Structure 1987 7R
Historic Built Environment Resources

Primary 

Number

Trinomial 

Number

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Property Type

Date 

Recorded

Status 

Code

36-010330 CA-SBR10330HAH7 Railroad Southern 

Pacific 

Railroad

n/a n/a Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino

Structure a. 1999 

b. 2002 

c. 2008 

d. 2010 

e. 2012

7R

36-015222 HP39 Monument / 

plaque

Fort Benson 

Monument

2192-2198 E 

Oliver Holmes 

Road

Colton San 

Bernardino

Object a. 1957 

b. 1979

7L

33-007876 HP39 Large-scale 

steel and 

concrete 

dinosaur 

sculptures

Cabazon 

Dinosaurs, 

built between 

1964 and 

1985 by 

famous artist 

Claude Bell

50900 Seminole 

Drive

Cabazon Riverside Object 1993 7N1

ATTACHMENT B:

NRHP/CRHR Status Codes
California Historical Resource Status Codes 

1 Properties listed in the National Register (NR) or the California Register (CR) 

 1D Contributor to a district or multiple resource property listed in NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR. 

 1S Individual property listed in NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR.

 1CD Listed in the CR as a contributor to a district or multiple resource property by the SHRC 

 1CS Listed in the CR as individual property by the SHRC.

 1CL Automatically listed in the California Register – Includes State Historical Landmarks 770 and above and Points of Historical 

Interest nominated after December 1997 and recommended for listing by the SHRC. 

 

2 Properties determined eligible for listing in the National Register (NR) or the California Register (CR) 

 2B Determined eligible for NR as an individual property and as a contributor to an eligible district in a federal regulatory process. 

Listed in the CR.

 2D Contributor to a district determined eligible for NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR. 

 2D2 Contributor to a district determined eligible for NR by consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the CR. 

 2D3 Contributor to a district determined eligible for NR by Part I Tax Certification. Listed in the CR.

 2D4 Contributor to a district determined eligible for NR pursuant to Section 106 without review by SHPO. Listed in the CR. 

 2S Individual property determined eligible for NR by the Keeper. Listed in the CR.

 2S2 Individual property determined eligible for NR by a consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the CR. 

 2S3 Individual property determined eligible for NR by Part I Tax Certification. Listed in the CR.

 2S4 Individual property determined eligible for NR pursuant to Section 106 without review by SHPO. Listed in the CR. 

 2CB Determined eligible for CR as an individual property and as a contributor to an eligible district by the SHRC. 

 2CD Contributor to a district determined eligible for listing in the CR by the SHRC. 

 2CS Individual property determined eligible for listing in the CR by the SHRC. 

3 Appears eligible for National Register (NR) or California Register (CR) through Survey Evaluation 

 3B Appears eligible for NR both individually and as a contributor to a NR eligible district through survey evaluation. 

 3D Appears eligible for NR as a contributor to a NR eligible district through survey evaluation. 

 3S Appears eligible for NR as an individual property through survey evaluation. 

 

 3CB Appears eligible for CR both individually and as a contributor to a CR eligible district through a survey evaluation. 

 3CD Appears eligible for CR as a contributor to a CR eligible district through a survey evaluation. 

 3CS Appears eligible for CR as an individual property through survey evaluation. 

 

4 Appears eligible for National Register (NR) or California Register (CR) through other evaluation 

 4CM Master List - State Owned Properties – PRC §5024. 

5 Properties Recognized as Historically Significant by Local Government 

 5D1 Contributor to a district that is listed or designated locally.

 5D2 Contributor to a district that is eligible for local listing or designation.

 5D3 Appears to be a contributor to a district that appears eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation. 

 

 5S1 Individual property that is listed or designated locally.

 5S2 Individual property that is eligible for local listing or designation. 

 5S3 Appears to be individually eligible for local listing or designation through survey evaluation. 

 5B Locally significant both individually (listed, eligible, or appears eligible) and as a contributor to a district that is locally listed,

designated, determined eligible or appears eligible through survey evaluation. 

 

6 Not Eligible for Listing or Designation as specified 

 6C Determined ineligible for or removed from California Register by SHRC. 

 6J Landmarks or Points of Interest found ineligible for designation by SHRC. 

 6L Determined ineligible for local listing or designation through local government review process; may warrant special consideration 

in local planning.

 6T Determined ineligible for NR through Part I Tax Certification process.

 6U Determined ineligible for NR pursuant to Section 106 without review by SHPO.

 6W Removed from NR by the Keeper. 

 6X Determined ineligible for the NR by SHRC or Keeper.

 6Y Determined ineligible for NR by consensus through Section 106 process – Not evaluated for CR or Local Listing. 

 6Z Found ineligible for NR, CR or Local designation through survey evaluation. 

 

7 Not Evaluated for National Register (NR) or California Register (CR) or Needs Revaluation 

 7J Received by OHP for evaluation or action but not yet evaluated.

 7K Resubmitted to OHP for action but not reevaluated.

 7L State Historical Landmarks 1-769 and Points of Historical Interest designated prior to January 1998 – Needs to be reevaluated

using current standards. 

 7M Submitted to OHP but not evaluated - referred to NPS. 

 7N Needs to be reevaluated (Formerly NR Status Code 4) 

 7N1 Needs to be reevaluated (Formerly NR SC4) – may become eligible for NR w/restoration or when meets other specific conditions.

 7R Identified in Reconnaissance Level Survey: Not evaluated. 

 12/8/2003 

 7W Submitted to OHP for action – withdrawn. 
ATTACHMENT C:

OHP Resource Attribute Codes
APPENDIX 4: RESOURCE ATTRIBUTE CODES

(for use in Fields P3b and B11)

The following codes should be used to define the attributes of historical resources in Fields P3b and B11 on the

Primary Record and Building, Structure, and Object Record, respectively. The codes are first summarized below and

then defined in greater detail in the following pages of this appendix.

Attributes of Historic Resources:

HP1. Unknown HP24. Lighthouse

HP2. Single family property HP25. Amusement park

HP3. Multiple family property HP26. Monument/mural/gravestone

HP4. Ancillary building HP27. Folk Art

HP5. Hotel/motel HP28. Street furniture

HP6. 1-3 story commercial building HP29. Landscape architecture

HP7. 3+ story commercial building HP30. Trees/vegetation

HP8. Industrial building HP31. Urban open space

HP9. Public utility building HP32. Rural open space

HP10. Theater HP33. Farm/ranch

HP11. Engineering structure HP34. Military property

HP12. Civic auditorium HP35. CCC/WPA property

HP13. Community center/social hall HP36. Ethnic minority property (list group)

HP14. Government building HP37. Highway/trail

HP15. Educational building HP38. Women's property

HP16. Religious building HP39. Other

HP17. Railroad depot HP40. Cemetery

HP18. Train HP41. Hospital

HP19. Bridge HP42. Stadium/sports arena

HP20. Canal/aqueduct HP43. Mine structure/building

HP21. Dam HP44. Adobe building/structure

HP22. Lake/river/reservoir HP45. Unreinforced masonry building

HP23. Ship HP46. Walls/gates/fences

Attributes of Historic Archaeological Sites:

AH1. Unknown AH9. Mines/quarries/tailings

AH2. Foundations/structure pads AH10. Machinery

AH3. Landscaping/orchard AH11. Walls/fences

AH4. Privies/dumps/trash scatters AH12. Graves/cemetery

AH5. Wells/cisterns AH13. Wharfs

AH6. Water conveyance system AH14. Ships/barges

AH7. Roads/trails/railroad grades AH15. Standing structures

AH8. Dams AH16. Other

Attributes of Prehistoric Archaeological Sites and Ethnographic Sites:

AP1. Unknown AP9. Burials

AP2. Lithic scatter AP10. Caches

AP3. Ceramic scatter AP11. Hearths/pits

AP4. Bedrock milling feature AP12. Quarry

AP5. Petroglyphs AP13. Trials/linear earthworks

AP6. Pictographs AP14. Rock shelter/cave

AP7. Architectural feature AP15. Habitation debris
AP8. Cairns/rock features AP16. Other

Historic Resource Attribute Definitions:

HP1. Unknown: No reasonable guess can be made about the historic use or function of the resource.

HP2. Single Family Property: A building constructed to house one family.

HP3. Multiple Family Property: Any building providing longer than temporary lodging for more than one person or

household. E.g., duplexes, apartment buildings, dormitories, bunkhouses, etc.

HP4. Ancillary Building: Barns, outhouses, detached garages, carriage houses, sheds, etc.

HP5. Hotel/Motel: Any building or group of buildings providing temporary lodging for travelers.

HP6. Commercial Building, over 3 stories: Any type of building dealing with management, retail sales, or marketed

services. E.g., stores, banks, gas stations, office buildings, etc. Do not include basement in height count.

HP7. Commercial Building, over 3 stories: Do not include basement in height count.

HP8. Industrial Building: Any building where the manufacture or distribution of products occurs. E.g, canneries,

mills, foundries, warehouses, etc.

HP9. Public Utility Building: Any building that houses services available to the public at large. E.g., firehouses,

power houses, electrical substations. etc.

HP10. Theater: Any place where plays, variety shows, motion pictures, etc., are presented. Includes amphitheaters.

HP11. Engineering Structure: A structure not covered in any other category. E.g., docks, runways, water towers, etc.

HP12. Civic Auditorium: Publicly owned buildings for concerts, speeches, etc.

HP13. Community Center/Social Hall: Any building designed to hold meetings of social groups. E.g., fraternal

halls, women's clubs, boy scout cabins, etc.

HP14. Government Buildings: Any building designed to house government administration or transactions. E.g., post

offices, city halls, county courthouses, etc.

HP15. Educational Building: Any building with an educative purpose. E.g., schools, libraries, museums, etc.

HP16. Religious Building: Any building holding religious ceremonies or connected the operations of religious

organizations (e.g., churches, seminaries, parsonages, etc.

HP17. Railroad Depot: Stations and other buildings connected to the operation of railroads and streetcars. E.g.,

sheds, roundhouses, etc.

HP18. Train: Engines, streetcars, and rolling stock.

HP19. Bridge: Any overpass for automobiles, trains, pedestrian, etc.

HP20. Canal/Aqueduct: Any artificial waterway for transportation or irrigation. Includes large pipes, conduits,

drainage ditches, and bridge-like structures for carrying water.

HP21. Dam: Any barrier constructed to hold back water.
HP22. Lake/River/Reservoir: Any inland body of water, natural stream of water, or place where water is collected

and stored.

HP23. Ship: Any vessel able to navigate inland or ocean waters.

HP24. Lighthouse: Any building or structure from which ships are guided by sight or sound.

HP25. Amusement Park: An outdoor place with various amusement buildings, structures, or devices. Includes

zoological parks.

HP26. Monument/Mural/Gravestone: 1) Any object with a commemorative or artistic purpose; 2) Any painting,

photograph, etc. on a wall or ceiling. E.g., statue, obelisk, sculpture, etc.

HP27. Folk art: Any object that expresses the artistic capacities of a people without being the product of formal

training.

HP28. Street Furniture: Any object that is permanently placed near a street. E.g., fire hydrants, streetlights, benches,

curbstones, hitching posts, etc.

HP29. Landscape Architecture: Any place in which trees, bushes, lawns, fountains, walls etc. have been arranged for

esthetic effect.

HP30. Trees/Vegetation: Any plant, whether planted or growing naturally, not part of a landscape plan.

HP31. Urban Open Space: Any area that has experienced little building or other development within in a city limits.

E.g., parks, grounds, or large open lots.

HP32. Rural Open Space: Any area that has experienced little building or other development outside a city limits.

HP33. Farm/Ranch: Any place where crops or animals are raised.

HP34. Military Property: Any property owned by one of the U.S. armed services, including the national Guard.

HP35. New Deal Public Works Project: Any property built under one of the public works programs of the New Deal.

Includes properties aided by funds or personnel from the Works Progress Administration (WPA) and successors,

Public Works Administration (PWA), Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), etc.

HP36. Ethnic Minority Property: Any property closely associated with events, individuals, groups, or social patterns

important in the history of an ethnic group. Includes properties designed by important ethnic group members. Add

further information by including the name of the ethnic group involved. The OHP has abbreviations for five groups,

so put these two letters in front of the name: AA African Americans, CH Chinese, JA Japanese, LA Latino, NA Native

Americans. The OHP will adopt other abbreviations as properties associated with other ethnic groups are identified.

HP37. Highways/Trail: Any roadway, from freeway to footpath.

HP38. Women's Property: Any property closely associated with events, individuals, groups. or social patterns

important in the history of women. Includes work of women designers as well as buildings such as YWCAs and

women's clubs.

HP39. Other: If no other code applies, enter HP39.

HP40. Cemetery: Burial ground with monuments (except archeological sites).

HP41. Hospital: Any facility for treatment of the sick.

HP42. Stadium/Sports Arena: Any structure or building that provides a place in which sporting events are viewed.
HP43. Mine: Any structure or building connected with mining. E.g., mine shafts, head frames, stamp mills, shops,

etc.

HP44. Adobe building/Structure.

HP45. Unreinforced masonry building.

HP46. Walls/gates/fences.

Historic Archaeological Site Attribute Definitions:

AH1. Unknown: no characteristics listed on the site record.

AH2. Foundations: structural footings or lineal alignments made from wood, brick or rock to support a structure

(e.g., slabs of concrete, leveled earth pads, pilings, walls, stairs, etc.).

AH3. Landscaping: evidence of modification through contouring of the land or planting vegetation (e.g., hedgerow,

orchards, terraces, and ponds).

AH4. Privy pits/trash scatters/dumps: any refuse deposits, outhouse pits, or other accumulation of debris (e.g.,

trash pits, trash scatters, outhouse pits, and dumps).

AH5. Well/cistern: a hole or receptacle designed to hold or provide access to water which may or may not be lined.

AH6. Water conveyance system: any device constructed to transport water over a distance (e.g., flumes, pipes,

ditches, canals, and tunnels).

AH7. Road/trail/railroad bed: a lineal construction, either depressed, elevated, or on ground level, designed to

facilitate the transportation of people or vehicles (e.g., bridge, railroad grade, tunnel, trail, wagon road, etc.).

AH8. Dam: a barrier constructed to contain a body of water.

AH9. Mine: an excavation and associated structures built into the earth to extract natural resources (ore, precious

metals, or raw lithic materials). This category includes quarries. Examples include: shafts, elevators, mining tunnels,

quarry, glory holes, tailings.

AH10. Machinery: a mechanical device (e.g., mills, farm equipment, steam donkeys, windmills, etc.).

AH11. Wall/fence: any wall or fence including postholes or posts placed at regular intervals, retaining walls, postcairns, walls, fences, jetties, and breakwaters.

AH12. Grave/cemetery: any single or multiple burial location.

AH13. Wharf: a structure or remains of a structure built at the shore of a harbor or river for the docking of ships or

boats; pier; dock.

AH14. Ships/barges: floating vessels designed for transporting people or goods across water.

AH15. Standing structure: any historic building that is still standing (e.g., outhouse, shed, house, cabin, office

building, barn, etc.).

AH16. Other: check if there is no other category in which the site description could be placed.

Prehistoric Archaeological Site Attribute Definitions:
AP1. Unknown: no characteristics listed on the site record.

AP2. Lithic scatter: a major characteristic of the site is a scatter of chipped or flaked stone resulting from human

manipulation (e.g., obsidian flakes and few or no other artifacts).

AP3. Ceramic scatter: a major characteristic of the site is a scatter of pot sherds. If the site contains both lithics and

ceramics, check both.

AP4. BRM/milling feature: site contains one or more bedrock mortars, milling surfaces or cupules which indicate

material processing activity.

AP5. Petroglyphs: site contains a stone surface which has been scored by humans in a patterned manner for a

purpose other than material processing. This category includes intaglios.

AP6. Pictographs: site includes any design painted on a rock surface.

AP7. Architectural feature: site contains any feature which indicates the presence of human construction activity

(e.g., post holes, house pits, dance house, sweat lodge, hunting blinds, fish traps).

AP8. Stone feature: site contains a patterned arrangement of rocks purposefully constructed or modified (e.g., rock

alignments, cairns, rock rings of unknown function, etc.). AP9. Burial: the site contains human bone.

AP10. Cache: the site contains an natural or constructed feature used for storing food or goods.

AP11. Hearths/pits: site contains any feature which indicated cooking activity, such as roasting pits, association of

cracked or burnt rock, discolored soil, ash and carbonized wood or plants.

AP12. Quarry: site contains a source of lithic material with evidence of human usage.

AP13. Lineal feature: site contains natural or constructed features indicating human use such as trails, earth works,

windrows or stone fences.

AP14. Rock shelter/cave: a concavity within a rock surface evidencing human use.

AP15. Habitation debris: site contains a deposit characterized by a wide range of artifacts, materials or features

which represent a variety of human activities.

AP16. Other: check here if there is no other category in which the site description can be placed.
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

11795 Malki Road 

Banning, CA 92220 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

1901 W Wilson St 

Banning, CA 92220 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

President David Heiss 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

P.O. Box 331 

Beaumont, CA 92223 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Heiss, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Colton Area Museum 

P.O. Box 1648 

Colton, CA 92324 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

President Karen Hawkesworth 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

82616 Miles Ave 

Indio, CA 92202 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Ms. Hawkesworth, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission Meeting-City of Indio 

150 Civic Center Mall 

Indio, CA 92201 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

P.O Box 66 

Moreno Valley, CA 92556 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

72-861 El Paseo 

Palm Desert, CA 92660 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

73510 Fred Waring Drive 

Palm Desert, CA 92260 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

P.O. Box 77 

Palm Springs, CA 92261 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Curator Sidney Williams 

Palm Springs Museum of Architetcure and Design 

300 S Palm Canyon Dr 

Palm Springs, CA 92262 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Ms. Williams, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Jackie Bagnall 

Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

219 S Palm Canyon Dr 

Palm Springs, CA 92262 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Ms. Bagnall, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

President Erik Rosenow 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

1775 East Palm Canyon Drive 

Suite 110-195 

Palm Springs, CA 92264 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Rosenow, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Director of Planning Flinn Fagg 

Historic Site Preservation Board- City of Palm Springs 

3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way 

Palm Springs, CA 92262 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Fagg, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Associate Planner Josh Altopp 

Historic Preservation Commission- City of Rancho Mirage 

69825 CA-111 

Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Altopp, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

P.O. Box 8775 

Redlands, CA 92375 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Corresponding Secretary Linda Serros 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

P.O. Box 470 

Redlands, CA 92373 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Ms. Serros, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Branch Chief - Environmental Support/Cultural Studies Andrew Walters 

Caltrans, District 8 

464 W. Fourth Street 

San Bernardino, CA 92401 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Walters, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

35308 Panorama Dr 

Yucaipa, CA 92399 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

San Bernardino County Museum 

2024 Orange Tree Lane 

Redlands, CA 92374 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Community Development Director Brian Guillot 

City of Banning 

99 E Ramsey St. 

Banning, CA 92220 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Guillot, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Community Planning Director Rebecca Deming 

City of Beumont 

550 E. 6th Street 

Beaumont, CA 92223 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Ms. Deming, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Community Planning Director Keith Gardner 

City of Calimesa 

908 Park Ave 

Calimesa, CA 92320 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Gardner, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Community Development Director Allen Brock 

City of Moreno Valley 

14177 Frederick St. 

Moreno Valley, CA 92553 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Brock, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Interim Development Service Director James Troyer 

City of Redlands 

35 Cajon St 

Redlands, CA 92373 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Troyer, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Community Development Director Mark Persico 

City of San Bernardino 

300 N. "D" Street 

 6th Floor 

San Bernardino , CA 92418 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Persico, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Interim Development Service Director Charles Rangel 

City of Desert Hot Springs 

65-950 Pierson Blvd. 

Desert Hot Springs, CA 92240 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Rangel, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Community Development Director Ryan Stendell 

City of Palm Desert 

73-510 Fred Waring Drive 

Palm Desert, CA 92260 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Stendell, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Community Development Director Pat Milos 

Cathedral City 

68-700 Avenida Lalo 

Cathedral City Hall, CA 92234 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Milos, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Planning Manager Bud Kopp 

City of Rancho Mirage 

69-825 Highway 111 

Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Kopp, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Planning Manager Cheri Flores 

City of La Quinta 

78-495 Calle Tampico 

La Quinta, CA 92253 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Ms. Flores, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Development Services Director Les Johnson 

City of Indio 

100 Civic Center Mall 

Indio, CA 92201 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Johnson, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Development Services Director Luis Lopez 

City of Coachella 

1515 6th Street 

Coachella Valley, CA 92236 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Lopez, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Community Development Director Paul Tomey 

City of Yucaipa 

34272 Yucaipa Boulevard 

Yucaipa, CA 92399 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Tomey, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Palm Springs USFWS 

777 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way 

Suite 208 

Palm Springs, CA 92262 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

BLM Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office 

1201 Bird Center Drive 

Palm Springs, CA 92262 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Bureau of Indian Affairs- Southern California Agency 

1451 Research Park Drive 

Suite 100 

Riverside, CA 92507 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Bureau of Indian Affairs- Palm Spring Agency 

P.O. Box 2245 

Palm Springs, CA 92263 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

FTA Region 9 Administrator Ray Tellis 

90 Seventh Street 

Suite 15-300 

San Francisco, CA 94103-6701 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Tellis, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

California Department of Parks and Recreation, Inland Empire District 

17801 Lake Perris Drive 

Perris, CA 92571-8400 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Countywide Plan Coordinator Jerry Blum 

County of San Bernardino 

385 N. Arrowhead Avenue 

1st Floor 

San Bernardino, CA 92415 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Coordinator Blum, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chief Engineering Geologist David Jones 

County of Riverside, Planning Department 

4080 Lemon Street 

12th Floor 

Riverside, CA 92501 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Jones, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Planning Manager Steve Weiss 

City of Colton, Planning Division 

659 N. La Cadena Drive 

Colton, CA 92324 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Weiss, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Don Earp 

City of Colton – Historic Preservation Commission 

650 North La Cadena Drive 

Colton, CA 92324 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Earp, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

City of La Quinta – Historic Preservation Commission 

78-495 Calle Tampico 

La Quinta, CA 92253 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Community Development Director Konrad Bolowich 

City of Loma Linda 

25541 Barton Road 

Loma Linda, CA 92354 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Bolowich, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Director of Building and Safety Russell Grance 

City of Palm Desert - Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

73510 Fred Waring Drive 

Palm Desert, CA 92260 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Grance, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Council Liaison/Member Paul Barich 

City of Redlands - Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

PO Box 3005 

Redlands, CA 92373 

Re: Initiation of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Barich, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties, and identifying a plan to 

involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties that 

should be considered in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial 

list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties, and the plan to involve the 

public so that we can appropriately document and address your input as part of the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a 

federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be completed. If you have any questions or concerns or 

would like to have a meeting to further discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA 

Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or 

amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Andrew Salas 

Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation 

P.O. Box 393 

Covina, CA 91723 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Salas, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Robert Pinto 

Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office 

4054 Willows Road 

Alpine, CA 91901 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Pinto, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Jeff Grubbe 

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 

5401 Dinah Shore Drive 

Palm Springs, CA 92264 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Grubbe, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Amanda Vance 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians 

P.O. Box 846 

Coachella 92236 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Vance, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Anthony Morales 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

P.O. Box 693 

San Gabriel, CA 91778 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Morales, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Doug Welmas 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

84-245 Indio Springs Parkway 

Indio, CA 92203 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Welmas, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Sandonne Goad 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St. 

#231 

Los Angeles, CA 90012 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Goad, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Luther Salgado 

Cahuilla Band of Indians 

52701 U.S. Highway 371 

Anza, CA 92539 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Salgado, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Robert F. Dorame 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council 

P.O. Box 490 

Bellflower, CA 90707 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Dorame, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Ralph Goff 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

36190 Church Road 

Suite 1 

Campo, CA 91906 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Goff, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Co-Chairperson Linda Candelaria 

Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe 

1999 Avenue of the Stars 

Suite 1100 

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Candelaria, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Erica Pinto 

Jamul Indian Village 

P.O. Box 612 

Jamul, CA 91935 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Pinto, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Virgil Oyos 

Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians 

P.O Box 270 

Santa Ysabel, CA 92070 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Oyos, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Tribal Administrator Javaughn Miller 

La Posta Band of Mission Indians 

8 Crestwood Road 

Boulevard, CA 91905 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Tribal Administrator Miller, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Robert Martin 

Morongo Band of Mission Indians 

12700 Pumarra Rroad 

Banning, CA 92220 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Martin, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Gwendolyn Parada 

La Posta Band of Mission Indians 

8 Crestwood Road 

Boulevard, CA 91905 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Parada, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Joseph Hamilton 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians 

P.O. Box 391670 

Anza, CA 92539 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Hamilton, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Shane Chapparosa 

Los Coyotes Band of Mission Indians 

P.O. Box 189 

Warner Springs, CA 0 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Chapparosa, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson John Valenzuela 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

P.O. Box 221838 

Newhall, CA 91322 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Valenzuela, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Angela Elliott Santos 

Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay Nation 

P.O. Box 1302 

Boulevard, CA 91905 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Santos, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Director of Cultural Resources Lee Clauss 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

26569 Community Center Drive 

Highland, CA 92346 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Director Clauss, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Allen E. Lawson 

San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians 

P.O. Box 365 

Valley Center, CA 92082 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Lawson, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Mary Resvaloso 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

P.O. Box 1160 

Thermal, CA 92274 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Resvaloso, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Steven Estrada 

Santa Rosa Band of Mission Indians 

P.O. Box 391820 

Anza, CA 92539 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Estrada, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Robert J. Welch 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

1 Viejas Grade Road 

Alpine, CA 91901 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Welch, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Goldie Walker 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

P.O. Box 343 

Patton, CA 92369 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Walker, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Rosemary Morillo 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians 

P. O. Box 487 

San Jacinto, CA 92583 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Morillo, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairperson Cody J. Martinez 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

1 Kwaaypaay Court 

El Cajon, CA 92019 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairperson Martinez, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Conrad Acuna 

Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe 

1999 Avenue of the Stars 

Suite 1100 

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Acuna, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairwoman-Manisar Cindi Alvitre 

Ti’At Society/Inter-Tribal Council of Pimu 

3094 Mace Avenue 

Apartment B 

Costa Mesa, CA 92626 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairwoman-Manisar Alvitre, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Director Ron Andrade 

Los Angeles Native American Indian Commission 

3175 West 6th Street 

Room 403 

Los Angeles, CA 90020 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Director Andrade, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Bernie Acuna 

Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe 

1999 Avenue of the Stars 

Suite 1100 

Los Angeles, CA 90067 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Acuna, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Sam Dunlap 

Gabrielino Tongva Nation 

P.O. Box 86908 

Los Angeles, CA 90089 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Dunlap, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Cultural Resource Department Joseph Ontiveros 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians 

P.O. Box 487 

San Jacinto, CA 92581 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Mr. Ontiveros, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairman Fred Nelson 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

22000 Highway 76 

Pauma Valley, CA 92601 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairman Nelson, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

THPO Shasta Gaughen 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

12196 Pala Mission Rd 

Pala, CA 92059 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear THPO Gaughen, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairman Randall Majel 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians - Pauma and Yuma Reservation 

P.O. Box 369 

Pauma Valley, CA 92061 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairman Majel, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairman Mark Macarro 

Pechanga Band of Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

P.O. Box 1477 

Temecula, CA 92593 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairman Macarro, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairman Frederick Mazzetti 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation 

P.O. Box 68 

Valley Center, CA 92082 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairman Mazzetti, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

Federal Railroad 

Administration

Date: October 15, 2019 

Chairman Darrell Mike 

Twenty-Nine Palms of Mission Indians of California 

46-200 Harrison Place 

Coachella, CA 92236 

Re: Initiation with Native American Tribal Governments of Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio 

Pass Rail Corridor Service Project 

Dear Chairman Mike, 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the California Department of Transportation 

(Caltrans), and the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are preparing a 

Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) 

for the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (project). Caltrans, 

who is the Project Sponsor, received a High Speed Intercity Passenger Rail grant from FRA to 

complete this Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, as well as an associated Service Development Plan 

(SDP). 

The purpose of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR is to study service options for providing daily 

intercity passenger rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio/Coachella, 

California, also known as the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor (corridor). The 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR addresses broad questions and likely environmental effects within the 

Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being 

proposed, identification of major infrastructure components being proposed required by the SDP, 

and identification of any existing major facility capacity constraints. The Tier 1/Program 

EIS/EIR analysis closely aligns with the service planning process and identifies areas of impact 

and resources that could be affected within the context of a study area. 

The purpose of the SDP is to determine the operation, maintenance, equipment, infrastructure, 

organization, implementation schedule, finances, and economics of the intercity passenger 

railroad service proposed to operate in the corridor. As part of the SDP process, the number of 

stations and general station locations would be determined by rail operations simulation 

modeling. SDP modeling will also identify major infrastructure components. These results from 

the SDP will inform parallel development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. 
2 

In this preliminary planning phase, FRA is initiating Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act (Section 106) per 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 by identifying 

consulting parties, gathering information regarding historic properties that have religious and 

cultural significance to your Tribe, which might be affected by the proposed project, and 

identifying a plan to involve the public. 

Study Approach 

Tiering Process 

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered National Environmental Policy Act process (e.g., 

Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to complete the environmental review of the project, pursuant to 

40 Code of Federal Regulations 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”) and California Environmental Quality 

Act Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”) and Section 15170 (titled “Joint 

EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” is a staged environmental review process applied to complex transportation 

projects. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the 

first steps in this tiered environmental review process. After the completion of the SDP, the 

proposed broader project scope defining necessary infrastructure improvements will be known. 

Once funding is secured for further work, the Tier 1 EIS/EIR and SDP will be followed by Tier 2 

project-level analysis for site-specific infrastructure improvements. This would be considered the 

second “tier” of environmental evaluation because it is based on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR that outlined 

the broad project scope. This future Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the 

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect 

project-level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for 

construction. If any Tier 2 project-level analysis is sponsored by a federal agency, it would be 

subject to all relevant federal environmental laws and regulations, and the Tier 2 project-level 

environmental documents would be led by the sponsoring federal agency. After environmental 

clearance is complete at the Tier 2 project-level, construction of the project would commence. 

Similarly, the Section 106-implementing regulations allow agencies to use a phased process to 

comply with Section 106 in coordination with the National Environmental Policy Act, per 

36 Code of Federal Regulations 800.8(c)(1)(ii). At this time, FRA is funding the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR planning phase only and has determined the planning effort does not 

have the potential to affect historic properties. However, to inform this planning effort and to 

facilitate potential future Section 106 reviews under Tier 2 (construction level), FRA is initiating 

consultation under 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800.3 and is conducting a preliminary 

identification of historic properties that will include background research/data obtained from 

records search and other sources such as historical maps; it does not include data collected 

through archaeological or built environment surveys, nor does it include resource evaluations. 

The study completed in support of the Tier1/Program EIS/EIR will incorporate pertinent 

information received through consultation on historic properties. 

Completion of the Section 106 process would occur pursuant to the August 17, 2018 ACHP 

Program Comment to Exempt Consideration of Effects to Rail Properties within Rail Rights-ofWay, as well as 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800, as appropriate, if there is a future 

undertaking associated with construction under subsequent Tier 2 project-level analysis. 
3 

Alternatives Analysis 

To begin the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR process, FRA and Caltrans conducted an alternatives 

analysis (AA) and prepared an AA report identifying the reasonable range of preliminary 

alternatives for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. The AA project study area consists 

of two sections: the Western Section and the Eastern Section. The AA report identified six build 

alternatives as potential route alignments and service options for the entire corridor based on the 

purpose and need statement, review of previous studies, and ideas and concepts suggested by 

agencies or the public during the outreach process. In the Western Section of the corridor, 

various combinations of existing rail lines between the cities of Los Angeles and Colton were 

evaluated for use. For the Eastern Section, the range of preliminary alternatives used the existing 

Union Pacific Railroad’s Yuma Subdivision between Colton and Indio/Coachella. The AA report 

also studied a No Build Alternative. 

The AA report screened the potential range of preliminary alternatives by how well they met the 

project’s purpose and need, environmental constraints, technical feasibility, and economic 

feasibility. After two rounds of screening, only one build alternative, Route Alternative 1, was 

identified for further study in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. Route Alternative 1 would use the 

BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision from Colton through Riverside and Fullerton to reach Los 

Angeles Union Station. This alternative includes up to six representative station area alternative 

locations. Route Alternative 1 was selected to be carried forward because it was the only 

alternative to fully meet the purpose and need of the project, has the highest projected ridership, 

and has a lesser likelihood of impacts on environmental resources compared with the other 

alternatives studied. 

Project Description 

Route Alternative 1 (the Build Alternative Alignment) is divided into two sections for ease of 

analysis: a Western Section and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad 

rights-of-way, for a total corridor distance of 144 miles. 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing BNSF San 

Bernardino Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the city of 

Colton within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside Counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific 

Railroad's Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Indio/Coachella 

within San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. 

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of adding four daily 

one-way trips (two daily round trips) operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Indio/Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from 

each end of the corridor. 
4 

Western Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Build Alternative Alignment uses the existing BNSF San Bernardino Subdivision passenger 

rail infrastructure in the Western Section, from Los Angeles to Colton. No construction activities 

would be required to implement the Build Alternative within the Western Section because the 

existing railroad right-of-way and station areas from Los Angeles Union Station to Colton would 

be used to increase service by two daily round trips. Track capacity in the Western Section of the 

corridor currently exists to accommodate the proposed passenger rail service. Capacity 

improvement projects currently planned or in construction between Los Angeles and Fullerton 

will provide additional passenger/commuter train slots that could be used by the proposed 

Coachella Valley passenger trains without an equivalent reduction in existing services. 

Proposed Operations 

Current traffic volumes on the Western Section range from 70 to 150 trains, where a substantial 

number of freight, passenger, and commuter trains operate. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have minimal impacts on historic properties in the Western Section. 

Eastern Section 

Proposed Construction 

The Eastern Section of the corridor would include infrastructure improvements to accommodate 

the proposed service, such as sidings, track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation 

structures, and stations. Rail operations simulation modeling is being conducted as part of the 

SDP to identify these infrastructure improvement needs (including number of stations, and 

station locations). After the completion of the SDP process, the required infrastructure 

improvements to meet the proposed new service requirements would be identified. These 

required infrastructure improvements would be fully evaluated as part of subsequent 

Tier 2 project level analyses. 

Impacts on historic properties could occur in the Eastern Section, from Colton to 

Indio/Coachella, where this new passenger rail infrastructure would be needed, and where new 

ground disturbance is anticipated to take place. 

Proposed Operations 

The Eastern Section of the corridor is operated by UP with current traffic volumes ranging from 

40 to 80 trains per day, plus an average of one passenger train per day. Additional operations and 

maintenance activities associated with the two daily round-trip intercity passenger trains are 

anticipated to have very minimal impacts on historic properties in the Eastern Section. 

Project Area 

The project area discussed as part of the Section 106 work for the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR would 

be the area where the project has the potential to cause effects on historic properties. Because 

infrastructure improvements, which have the potential to cause effects to historic properties, are 
5 

confined to the Eastern Section, the project area for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR is defined as the Eastern 

Section, with a 0.25-mile (1,320 feet) buffer on either side of the Build Alternative Alignment. 

Selection of consulting parties and identification of historic properties for this project were 

completed based on this project area. The project area is depicted on Figure 1 and Figure 2. 

Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

As part of the scoping process, FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are identifying potential consulting 

parties for the project. The consulting parties identified to date are listed in Table 1. As described 

above, consulting parties were identified for the Eastern Section only, due to the definition of the 

project area. On June 27, 2017, the Native American Heritage Commission identified a list of 

tribes that have cultural and traditional affiliation with the Eastern Section; those tribes are 

included in Table 1. 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Federal Agencies Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM) 

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

State Agencies California Department of Parks and Recreation 

Caltrans, District 8 

California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) 

Federally Recognized Tribes Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians of the Agua Caliente Indian 

Reservation (THPO) 

Augustine Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians 

Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Campo Band of Mission Indians 

Ewiiappayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Jamul Indian Village of California 

La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians 

La Posta Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the La Posta Indian 

Reservation 

Los Coyotes Band of Cahuilla and Cupeno Indians 

Manzanita Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of the Manzanita Reservation 

California 

Morongo Band of Cahuilla Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pala Band of Mission Indians (THPO) 

Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians – Pauma & Yuma Reservation 

Pechanga Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Pechanga Reservation 

(THPO) 

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Rincon Band of Luiseno Mission Indians of the Rincon Reservation (THPO) 

San Manuel Band of Mission Indians 

San Pasqual Band of Diegueno Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians 

Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians (THPO) 
6 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation 

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians 

Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians of California (THPO) 

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians 

Non-Federally Recognized Tribes Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation 

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Council 

Gabrielino/Tongva Nation 

Gabrielino/Tongva Tribe 

San Fernando Band of Mission Indians 

Serrano Nation of Mission Indians 

Counties San Bernardino County 

Riverside County 

Cities and Towns Banning 

Beaumont 

Calimesa 

Cathedral City 

Coachella 

Colton* 

City of Colton—Historic Preservation Commission 

Desert Hot Springs 

Indio 

La Quinta* 

City of La Quinta—Historic Preservation Commission 

Loma Linda 

Moreno Valley 

Palm Desert 

City of Palm Desert—Cultural Resource Preservation Committee 

Palm Springs* 

City of Palm Springs—Historic Site Preservation Board 

Rancho Mirage 

City of Rancho Mirage—Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands* 

City of Redlands—Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission 

San Bernardino 

Yucaipa 

Museums and Non-Profits Agua Caliente Cultural Museum 

Coachella Valley Historical Society 

Colton Area Museum 

Gilman Historic Ranch and Wagon Museum 

Malki Museum on Morongo Indian Reservation 

Moreno Valley Historical Society 

Palm Springs Historical Society Museum 

Palm Springs Historical Society 

Palm Springs Museum of Architecture and Design 
7 

Table 1. Eastern Section Consulting Parties 

Consulting Party Type Potential Consulting Party Name 

Palm Springs Preservation Foundation 

Public Arts and Historic Preservation Commission 

Redlands Area Historical Society 

Redlands Historical Museum Association 

San Bernardino County Museum 

San Gorgonio Pass Historical Society 

Yucaipa Valley Historical Society 

THPO = Tribal Historic Preservation Officer 

* Certified local government 

We request that you identify any additional consulting parties who may have a demonstrated 

interest in the project and should be contacted. 

Identification of Potential Historic Properties 

With respect to the development of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, only preliminary identification 

of historic properties is being undertaken at this time. A record search was conducted at the 

South Central Coastal Information Center (SCCIC) and the Eastern Information Center (EIC) for 

the project area from July 9, 2018, to July 18, 2018. The record search resulted in the 

identification of 384 cultural resources within the project area, including archaeological sites and 

built resources. This information is summarized in Attachment A. To facilitate interpretation of 

the list of cultural resources, an explanation of the California Historical Resource Status Codes, 

used to classify the eligibility status of cultural resources for the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR), is provided in 

Attachment B. An explanation of California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) Resource 

Attribute Codes is included in Attachment C. 

Of the 384 cultural resources identified, only 4 have been formally determined to be listed in or 

eligible for listing in the NRHP. One is a historic structure, and the remaining three are eligible 

archaeological resources (all considered one site), as shown in Table 2 and described below. 
8 

Table 2. Initial List of Historic Properties 

Historic Property Resource Location/Type NRHP Status Distance 

San Timoteo Canyon 

Schoolhouse: 

NRIS Reference Number: 

00001646 

31985 San Timoteo Canyon 

Road, Redlands, Riverside 

County, California 

NRHP-listed, January 26, 

2001 

Within record search 

boundary; about 327 

feet (100 meters) 

away from rail line 

P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 

(including 

P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 

and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) 

Prehistoric lakeshore 

habitation site 

Formally determined 

eligible for the NRHP 

(2S2) by Caltrans in 2007 

Within record search 

boundary; about 980 

feet (300 meters) 

away from rail line 

Built Resources 

The results of the record search showed one previously evaluated resource listed in the NRHP, 

the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse (Table 2). Additional research on the Cultural Resources 

GIS map on the NRHP website (https://www.nps.gov/maps/full.html?mapId=7ad17cc9 b808 

4ff8 a2f9 a99909164466) identified the same single NRHP-listed property. The San Timoteo 

Canyon Schoolhouse is located in San Timoteo Canyon in Riverside County between Redlands 

and Moreno Valley. It is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail line, which 

is approximately 327 feet (100 meters) away. The schoolhouse, constructed in 1894, was found 

to be significant at the local level under NRHP Criterion A (in the areas of education and social 

history), with a period of significance of 1895 to 1937. The 1,050-square-foot, one-room 

schoolhouse is vernacular in style; it consists of a wood structure with separate entrances and 

associated anterooms for men and women and blackboards on three walls. Although the architect 

is unknown, the builder was recorded as Vander Venter, who was probably assisted in the 

construction by local farmers. 

Archaeological Sites 

The results of the archaeological resource record search indicate that three prehistoric 

archaeological sites (each with assigned primary number and trinomial designations) determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP are actually one large prehistoric habitation site. The site was 

originally recorded using two different numbers (P-33-11573/CA-RIV-6896 and 

P-33-11574/CA-RIV-6897) and then was later recorded as one resource under a different site 

number, P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669. This new recordation and site number subsumed the 

original site designations. 

Site P-33-28059/CA-RIV-12669 is located within the project area but does not intersect the rail 

line, which is approximately 980 feet (300 meters) away. It is a large prehistoric habitation site 

located in an area of eolian sand dunes near a former high-stand shoreline of ancient Lake 

Cahuilla at approximately 42 feet (12.8 meters) above mean sea level. The site is recorded as 

repeated residential occupations of a lakeshore dune complex affiliated with the Patayan II (ca. 

A.D. 1000–1500) and Patayan III (ca. A.D. 1500–1850) cultural patterns. The site has been 

investigated numerous times, and cultural constituents and features have been identified, 

including a human cremation, multiple hearth features, and living areas. Faunal remains and 

ceramic sherds have been recovered from the site. The data indicates that a wide range of 
9 

activities took place at the site, including collecting freshwater mollusks, fishing, taking 

waterfowl and other birds, hunting large and small mammals, grinding seeds, manufacturing and 

using ceramics, cooking in earth ovens, trading, and some stone tool knapping. A large portion 

of the site has been completely destroyed by road realignment through the middle of the site and 

construction of a housing development and golf course. 

We request that you review the list of cultural resources in Attachment A, along with the project 

maps (Figure 1 and Figure 2) and provide information on any additional historic properties (that 

have religious and cultural significance to your Tribe) that should be considered in the Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR that are not currently included in this initial list. 

Plan to Involve the Public 

We are also seeking broader public participation through a public involvement and information 

program that may include public meetings and hearings. A project web site is available 

(http://rctcdev.info/projects/rail-projects/coachella-valley-san-gorgonio-pass-corridor-rail-service) 

to provide the public with routine project updates. To maintain confidentiality of archaeological 

site locations, no specific information regarding archaeological historic properties will be posted 

on the website. 

Completion of the Section 106 Process 

As outlined above, FRA has determined the planning effort does not have the potential to affect 

historic properties. Therefore, for this Tier 1 EIS/EIR, the next step in the Section 106 process 

will be to gather information from consulting parties in response to this letter. FRA will evaluate 

the responses to this letter and offer to meet with consulting parties about the status of the 

project. 

Consulting parties are also welcome to provide input on the project as part of the National 

Environmental Policy Act process by commenting on the Tier 1 EIS/EIR draft and final 

documents when they are out for public comment. Information on these documents can be found 

at the website above. 

The next formal steps in the Section 106 process would be contingent on the identification of 

construction funding for future phases of the project and would be led by the lead federal agency 

for the Tier 2 projects. The completion of any subsequent phases of the Section 106 process by a 

lead federal agency encompasses the identification of an Area of Potential Effects (APE), the 

geographic area/s within which a project may affect historic properties, and survey work to 

further identify cultural resources within the APE. The lead federal agency will consult with the 

SHPO and THPO(s), other consulting parties, and the public, as necessary, when making these 

identifications. Those cultural resources identified within the APE, including any resources listed 

in Attachment A that are verified during survey and determined to be within the APE, will be 

evaluated for their eligibility for listing in the NRHP. This will include a review of the two 

historic properties that have been previously determined eligible (discussed above; see Table 1) 

and whether they remain eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. The lead federal agency would then 

complete the assessment of effects to historic properties and the resolution of any adverse 

effects. 
10 

We request your input on consulting parties, historic properties that have religious and cultural 

significance to your Tribe, and the plan to involve the public so that we can appropriately 

document and address your input as part of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR. This information will be 

used to inform future Section 106 efforts, should a federally sponsored Tier 2 EIS/EIR be 

completed. If you have any questions or concerns or would like to have a meeting to further 

discuss the proposed project, please contact FRA Environmental Protection Specialist Amanda 

Ciampolillo at 617.494.2173 or amanda.ciampolillo@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Katherine Zeringue 

Federal Preservation Officer 

Environmental & Corridor Planning Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc: Amanda Ciampolillo, FRA 

Karla Bloch, FRA 

Andy Cook, Caltrans 

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC 

Enclosures: 

Figure 1. Regional Location Map 

Figure 2. Project Vicinity Map - Eastern Section (2 of 2) 

Attachment A: Record Search Results: Cultural Resources 

Attachment B: California Historical Resource Status Codes (NRHP/CRHR) 

Attachment C: Office of Historic Preservation Resource Attribute Codes 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

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

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

Appendix E. Assembly Bill 52 Consultation

Correspondence
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Program

Cultural, Historic, and Tribal Resources Technical Memorandum

This page is intentionally blank.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

1550 Harbor Blvd., Suite 100

West Sacramento, CA 95691

(916) 373-3710

(916) 373-5471 FAX

August 25, 2016

Sheldon Peterson

Riverside County Transportation Commission

Sent by E-mail: speterson@rctc.org

RE: Proposed Coachella Valley – Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project; Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange 

and Los Angeles Counties, California

Dear Mr. Peterson:

Attached is a consultation list of tribes with traditional lands or cultural places located within the boundaries of the 

above referenced counties. Please note that the intent of the referenced codes below is to avoid or mitigate 

impacts to tribal cultural resources, as defined, for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) projects.

As of July 1, 2015, Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 and 21080.3.2 require public agencies to consult 

with California Native American tribes identified by the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) for the 

purpose mitigating impacts to tribal cultural resources:

Within 14 days of determining that an application for a project is complete or a decision by a public agency 

to undertake a project, the lead agency shall provide formal notification to the designated contact of, or a 

tribal representative of, traditionally and culturally affiliated California Native American tribes that have 

requested notice, which shall be accomplished by means of at least one written notification that includes a 

brief description of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a 

notification that the California Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation pursuant to this 

section. (Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(d))

The law does not preclude agencies from initiating consultation with the tribes that are culturally and traditionally 

affiliated with their jurisdictions. The NAHC believes that in fact that this is the best practice to ensure that tribes 

are consulted commensurate with the intent of the law.

In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1(d), formal notification must include a brief description 

of the proposed project and its location, the lead agency contact information, and a notification that the California 

Native American tribe has 30 days to request consultation. The NAHC believes that agencies should also include 

with their notification letters information regarding any cultural resources assessment that has been completed on 

the APE, such as:

1. The results of any record search that may have been conducted at an Information Center of the California 

Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), including, but not limited to:

§ A listing of any and all known cultural resources have already been recorded on or adjacent to the 

APE;

§ Copies of any and all cultural resource records and study reports that may have been provided by the 

Information Center as part of the records search response;

§ If the probability is low, moderate, or high that cultural resources are located in the APE.

§ Whether the records search indicates a low, moderate or high probability that unrecorded cultural 

resources are located in the potential APE; and 

§ If a survey is recommended by the Information Center to determine whether previously unrecorded 

cultural resources are present.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This communication with its contents may contain confidential and/or legally privileged 

information. It is solely for the use of the intended recipient(s). Unauthorized interception, review, use or disclosure is prohibited 

and may violate applicable laws including the Electronic Communications Privacy Act. If you are not the intended recipient, 

please contact the sender and destroy all copies of the communication.

2. The results of any archaeological inventory survey that was conducted, including:

§ Any report that may contain site forms, site significance, and suggested mitigation measurers. 

All information regarding site locations, Native American human remains, and associated funerary 

objects should be in a separate confidential addendum, and not be made available for pubic disclosure 

in accordance with Government Code Section 6254.10.

3. The results of any Sacred Lands File (SFL) check conducted through Native American Heritage 

Commission. Sites have been located in the APE you provided that may be impacted by the project. 

Please contact the Tribes indicated on the attached spreadsheet for additional information about these 

sites. Please contact ALL of the tribes on the list as the Sacred Lands File is not exhaustive. A tribe may 

be the only source of information. Their contact information is included in the attached list.

4. Any ethnographic studies conducted for any area including all or part of the potential APE; and

5. Any geotechnical reports regarding all or part of the potential APE.

Lead agencies should be aware that records maintained by the NAHC and CHRIS is not exhaustive, and a 

negative response to these searches does not preclude the existence of a cultural place. A tribe may be the only 

source of information regarding the existence of a tribal cultural resource.

This information will aid tribes in determining whether to request formal consultation. In the case that they do, 

having the information beforehand well help to facilitate the consultation process.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your 

assistance we are able to assure that our consultation list contains current information.

If you have any questions, please contact me at my email address: gayle.totton@nahc.ca.gov.

Sincerely, 

Gayle Totton, M.A., PhD.

Associate Governmental Program Analyst
Gabrieleno Band of Mission 

Indians - Kizh Nation

Andrew Salas, Chairperson

P.O. Box 393

Covina, CA, 91723

Phone: (626)926-4131

gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com

Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla 

Indians

Jeff Grubbe, Chairperson

5401 Dinah Shore Drive 

Palm Springs, CA, 92264

Phone: (760) 699-6800

Fax: (760) 699-6919

Cahuilla

Luiseno

Augustine Band of Cahuilla 

Mission Indians

Amanda Vance, Chairperson

P.O. Box 846

Coachella, CA, 92236

Phone: (760)398-4722

Fax: (760) 369-7161

Cahuilla

Cabazon Band of Mission 

Indians

Doug Welmas, Chairperson

84-245 Indio Springs Parkway 

Indio, CA, 92203

Phone: (760)342-2593

Fax: (760) 347-7880

Cahuilla

Cahuilla Band of Indians

Luther Salgado, Chairperson

52701 U.S. Highway 371

Anza, CA, 92539

Phone: (951) 763-5549

Fax: (951) 763-2808

Chairman@cahuilla.net

Cahuilla

Campo Band of Mission Indians

Ralph Goff, Chairperson

36190 Church Road, Suite 1

Campo, CA, 91906

Phone: (619)478-9046

Fax: (619) 478-5818

rgoff@campo-nsn.gov

Kumeyaay

Ewiiaapaayp Tribal Office

Robert Pinto, Chairperson

4054 Willows Road 

Alpine, CA, 91901

Phone: (619)445-6315

Fax: (619) 445-9126

Kumeyaay

Gabrieleno Band of Mission 

Indians - Kizh Nation

Andrew Salas, Chairperson

P.O. Box 393

Covina, CA, 91723

Phone: (626)926-4131

gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com

Gabrielino

Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel 

Band of Mission Indians

Anthony Morales, Chairperson

P.O. Box 693

San Gabriel, CA, 91778

Phone: (626) 483-3564

Fax: (626) 286-1262

GTTribalcouncil@aol.com

Gabrielino

Gabrielino /Tongva Nation

Sandonne Goad, Chairperson

106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St., 

#231

Los Angeles, CA, 90012

Phone: (951)807-0479

sgoad@gabrielino-tongva.com

Gabrielino

Gabrielino Tongva Indians of 

California Tribal Council

Robert F. Dorame, Chairperson

P.O. Box 490

Bellflower, CA, 90707

Phone: (562)761-6417

Fax: (562) 761-6417

gtongva@verizon.net

Gabrielino

Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe

Linda Candelaria, Co-Chairperson

1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 

1100

Los Angeles, CA, 90067

Phone: (626) 676-1184

Gabrielino

1 of 3

This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of 

the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 6097.98 of the Public Resources Code and section 5097.98 of the Public 

Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed Coachella Valley - 

Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service, Orange, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Riverside Counties.

PROJ-001922 08/25/2016 10:42 AM

Native American Heritage Commission

Tribal Consultation List

Orange, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Riverside 

Counties

8/25/2016
Jamul Indian Village

Erica Pinto, Chairperson

P.O. Box 612

Jamul, CA, 91935

Phone: (619)669-4785

Fax: (619) 669-4817

Kumeyaay

La Posta Band of Mission 

Indians

Javaughn Miller, Tribal 

Administrator

8 Crestwood Road 

Boulevard, CA, 91905

Phone: (619)478-2113

Fax: (619) 478-2125

jmiller@Lapostatribe.net

Kumeyaay

La Posta Band of Mission 

Indians

Gwendolyn Parada, Chairperson

8 Crestwood Road 

Boulevard, CA, 91905

Phone: (619)478-2113

Fax: (619) 478-2125

LP13boots@aol.com

Kumeyaay

Los Coyotes Band of Mission 

Indians

Shane Chapparosa, Chairperson

P.O. Box 189

Warner Springs, CA, 92086-0189

Phone: (760)782-0711

Fax: (760) 782-0712

Chapparosa@msn.com

Cahuilla

Manzanita Band of Kumeyaay 

Nation

Angela Elliott Santos, Chairperson

P.O. Box 1302

Boulevard, CA, 91905

Phone: (619) 766-4930

Fax: (619) 766-4957

Kumeyaay

Mesa Grande Band of Mission 

Indians

Virgil Oyos, Chairperson

P.O Box 270

Santa Ysabel, CA, 92070

Phone: (760)782-3818

Fax: (760) 782-9092

mesagrandeband@msn.com

Kumeyaay

Morongo Band of Mission 

Indians

Robert Martin, Chairperson

12700 Pumarra Rroad 

Banning, CA, 92220

Phone: (951)849-8807

Fax: (951) 922-8146

Cahuilla

Serrano

Ramona Band of Cahuilla 

Mission Indians

Joseph Hamilton, Chairperson

P.O. Box 391670

Anza, CA, 92539

Phone: (951)763-4105

Fax: (951) 763-4325

admin@ramonatribe.com

Cahuilla

San Fernando Band of Mission 

Indians

John Valenzuela, Chairperson

P.O. Box 221838

Newhall, CA, 91322

Phone: (760) 885-0955

tsen2u@hotmail.com

Kitanemuk

Serrano

Tataviam

San Manuel Band of Mission 

Indians

Lee Clauss, Director of Cultural 

Resources

26569 Community Center Drive 

Highland, CA, 92346

Phone: (909) 864-8933

Fax: (909) 864-3370

lclauss@sanmanuel-nsn.gov

Serrano

2 of 3

This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of 

the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 6097.98 of the Public Resources Code and section 5097.98 of the Public 

Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed Coachella Valley - 

Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service, Orange, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Riverside Counties.

PROJ-001922 08/25/2016 10:42 AM

Native American Heritage Commission

Tribal Consultation List

Orange, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Riverside 

Counties

8/25/2016
San Pasqual Band of Mission 

Indians

Allen E. Lawson, Chairperson

P.O. Box 365

Valley Center, CA, 92082

Phone: (760)749-3200

Fax: (760) 749-3876

allenl@sanpasqualtribe.org

Kumeyaay

Santa Rosa Band of Mission 

Indians

Steven Estrada, Chairperson

P.O. Box 391820

Anza, CA, 92539

Phone: (951)659-2700

Fax: (951) 659-2228

Cahuilla

Serrano Nation of Mission 

Indians

Goldie Walker, Chairperson

P.O. Box 343

Patton, CA, 92369

Phone: (909)528-9027

Serrano

Soboba Band of Luiseno 

Indians

Rosemary Morillo, Chairperson

P. O. Box 487

San Jacinto, CA, 92583

Phone: (951) 654-2765

Fax: (951) 654-4198

rmorillo@soboba-nsn.gov

Cahuilla

Luiseno

Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay 

Nation

Cody J. Martinez, Chairperson

1 Kwaaypaay Court 

El Cajon, CA, 92019

Phone: (619)445-2613

Fax: (619) 445-1927

ssilva@sycuan-nsn.gov

Kumeyaay

Torres-Martinez Desert Cahuilla 

Indians

Mary Resvaloso, Chairperson

P.O. Box 1160

Thermal, CA, 92274

Phone: (760)397-0300

Fax: (760) 397-8146

tmchair@torresmartinez.org

Cahuilla

Viejas Band of Kumeyaay 

Indians

Robert J. Welch, Chairperson

1 Viejas Grade Road 

Alpine, CA, 91901

Phone: (619)445-3810

Fax: (619) 445-5337

jhagen@viejas-nsn.gov

Kumeyaay

3 of 3

This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of 

the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resources Code and Section 6097.98 of the Public Resources Code and section 5097.98 of the Public 

Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for consultation with Native American tribes under Public Resources Code Sections 21080.3.1 for the proposed Coachella Valley - 

Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service, Orange, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Riverside Counties.

PROJ-001922 08/25/2016 10:42 AM

Native American Heritage Commission

Tribal Consultation List

Orange, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, Riverside 

Counties

8/25/2016
Riverside (ounty Tronsporlolion (ommission

4080 Lemon Street, 3rd Floor o Riverside, CA

Moiling Address: P.O. Box .|2008 o Riverside, CA 92502-2208

(95 ll787-7141 o Fox (95 ll787-7920 o www.rctc.org

October L9,2076

Andrew Salas, Chairman

Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation

PO Box 393

Covina, California 91723

Subject: Assembly Bill (AB) 52 Consultation Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act,

Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, subds. (b), (d) and (e) for Coachella Valley - San Gorgonio Pass Rail

Corridor Service Project, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties, California.

Dear Mr. Salas:

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in cooperation with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)

and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are initiating the environmental process for the Coachella Valley

- San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (Project). The Project will study options for providing intercity passenger

rail service between the cities of Los Angeles and Indio, also known as the Coachella Valley - San Gorgonio Pass Corridor

(the Corridor). Below, please find a description of the proposed Project and the contact information for Mr. Sheldon

Peterson, RCTC Rail Manager, pursuant to $21080.3.1(d).

PROPOSED PROJECT

The Project would extend from an eastern terminus in Indio, California to the western terminus at Los Angeles Union

Station (LAUS). Figure 1 depicts the project study area, which encompasses the anticipated extent of the environmental

study associated with the Program Environmental lmpact Statement/Environmental lmpact Report (ElS/ElR).

The Corridor currently faces mobility challenges that are likely to continue as growth in population, employment, and

tourism activity is expected to generate increased travel demand. An effective rail system will help meet the future

mobility needs of residents, businesses, and visitors. The overall purpose of the Project is to provide a safe, reliable, and

convenient intercity passenger rail service that would meet the future mobility needs of residents, businesses, and

visitors within the Corridor.

In the Program EIS/EIR FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC will evaluate and analyze a No Build Alternative and at least one

Build Alternative consisting of multiple improvements between Indio and Los Angeles. The Build Alternative would

include the necessary infrastructure improvements to meet the Project's purpose and need. The Build Alternative is

made up of two components, a route alignment and station alternatives. FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC will consider the

July 20L6 Alternatives Analysis Final Report when identifying the Build Alternative for detailed analysis in the Program

EIS/EIR. However, additional reasonable build alternatives meeting the proposed purpose and need but not considered

in the July 2016 Alternatives Analysis Final Report may be developed during the scoping process. This may also involve

refining the Build Alternative as more information comes available based on the environmental analysis and coordination

with stakeholders and the public. Additionally, the proposed purpose and need may be updated and/or refined based

on coordination with stakeholders and the public.
Mr. Andrew Salas

October L9, 20LG

Page 2

LEAD AGENCY POINT OF CONTACT

Riverside County Transportation Commission

Mr. Sheldon Peterson

Rail Manager

4080 Lemon Street,3'o Floor

Riverside, California 92502

speterson@rctc.org

Pursuant to PRC $21080.3.1, you have 30 days from the receipt of this notice to request consultation, in writing with

RCTC, regarding the Coachella Valley - San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project. Please include the name of the

Project in the subject heading and the name of a contact person in your organization, if applicable.

Sincerely, A rn^ J

[fuYIW Anne Mayer

Executive Director

Enclosure: Figure L. Project Study Area

c: Kelly Czechowski, HDR

Nina Delu, HDR

Patrick O'Neill, HDR

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC

Robert Yates, RCTC
(uoL

ttrtJ

*,a

+,o

.-ool- (La FoL

rtJ

.9

ll
Andrew Salas, Chairman                                                                             Nadine Salas, Vice‐Chairman                                                                                   Christina Swindall Martinez, secretary                        

Albert Perez, treasurer I                                                                             Martha Gonzalez Lemos, treasurer II                                                                      Richard Gradias,   Chairman of the council of Elders

PO Box 393 Covina, CA 91723 www.gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com gabrielenoindians@yahoo.com 

GABRIELENO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS – KIZH NATION 

Historically known as The San Gabriel Band of Mission Indians 

recognized by the State of California as the aboriginal tribe of the Los Angeles basin 

       

RE: AB52 consultation response for the Coachella Valley- San Gregorio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project, Riverside, San Bernardino, Orange and 

Los Angeles Counties, California 

Dear Mr. Sheldon Peterson 

Rail Manager 

 

 October 30, 2016 

Please find this letter in response to your request for consultation dated October 19, 2016. I have reviewed the project site and do have concerns for cultural 

resources. Your project lies in an area where the Ancestral territories of the Kizh (Kitc) Gabrieleño’s villages adjoined and overlapped with each other, at 

least during the Late Prehistoric and Protohistoric Periods. The homeland of the Kizh Gabrieleño was probably the most influential Native American group 

in aboriginal southern California (Bean and Smith 1978a:538), was centered in the Los Angeles Basin, and reached as far east as the San BernardinoRiverside area. The homeland of our neighbors the Serranos was primarily the San Bernardino Mountains, including the slopes and lowlands on the north 

and south flanks. Whatever the linguistic affiliation, Native Americans in and around the project area exhibited similar organization and resource 

procurement strategies. Villages were based on clan or lineage groups. Their home/ base sites are marked by midden deposits often with bedrock mortars. 

During their seasonal rounds to exploit plant resources, small groups would migrate within their traditional territory in search of specific plants and 

animals. Their gathering strategies of ten left behind signs of special use sites, usually grinding slicks on bedrock boulders, at the locations of the resources. 

PLEASE NOTE: We are only concern with the Locations within our Ancestral Territory. Attached is Documentation information on our Tribal 

Territory. Also today were are working along side the San Gabriel Trench, Alameda Corridor Project. 

Due to the project location and the high sensitivity of the area location, we would like to request one of our certified Native American Monitor to be on 

site during any and all ground disturbances (including but not limited to pavement removal, post holing, auguring, boring, grading, excavation and 

trenching) to protect any cultural resources which may be effected during construction or development. In all cases, when the Native American Heritage 

Commission states there are “no records of sacred sites in the project area” the NAHC will always refer lead agencies to the respective Native American 

Tribe because the NAHC is only aware of general information and are not the experts on each California Tribe. Our Elder Committee & Tribal Historians 

are the experts for our Tribe and are able to provide a more complete history (both written and oral) regarding the location of historic villages, trade routes, 

cemeteries and sacred/religious sites in the project area. While the property may be located in an area that has been previously developed, numerous 

examples can be shared to show that there still is a possibility that unknown, yet significant, cultural resources will be encountered during ground 

disturbance activities. Please note, if they haven’t been listed with the NAHC, it doesn’t mean that they aren’t there. Not everyone reports what they know. 

The recent implementation of AB52 dictates that lead agencies consult with Native American Tribes who can prove and document traditional and cultural 

affiliation with the area of said project in order to protect cultural resources. However, our tribe is connected Ancestrally to this project location area, what 

does Ancestrally or Ancestral mean? The people who were in your family in past times, Of, belonging to, inherited from, or denoting an ancestor or 

ancestors http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ancestral. Our priorities are to avoid and protect without delay or conflicts – to consult with you to avoid 

unnecessary destruction of cultural and biological resources, but also to protect what resources still exist at the project site for the benefit and education of 

future generations. At your convenience we can Consultation either by Phone or Face to face. Thank you 

CC: NAHC 

 With respect, 

Andrew Salas, Chairman 

cell (626)926-4131 



Project Description

Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail 

Corridor Service Project

August 2019
This page is intentionally blank.
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project – Administrative Draft EIS/EIR

Project Description

August 2019 | 1-1

 Introduction

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), California Department of Transportation Division of Rail 

& Mass Transportation (Caltrans), and Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) are 

proposing to establish daily intercity passenger rail service in the Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass 

Rail Corridor (corridor) via implementation of a programmatic Tier 1 Environmental Impact

Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) and Service Development Plan 

(SDP) for passenger rail service between Los Angeles Union Station (LAUS) in Los Angeles, California

and Coachella in Southern California’s Coachella Valley. 

1.1 Study Approach

FRA, Caltrans, and RCTC are using a tiered NEPA/CEQA process (e.g., Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR) to 

complete the environmental review of the project, under 40 CFR 1508.28 (titled “Tiering”), CEQA 

Guidelines Section 15168 (titled “Program EIR”), and Section 15170 (titled “Joint EIS/EIR”). “Tiering” 

is a staged environmental review process often applied to environmental review for complex 

transportation projects. The tiered environmental approach is being applied to this project, because 

the 144-mile route of the proposed passenger rail system from LAUS to Coachella has regional 

implication for future planning processes and potential environmental effects spanning portions of four 

counties, numerous jurisdictions, and multiple independent planning processes. 

The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, along with the concurrent preparation of the SDP, are the first steps in 

the tiered environmental review process. Based on the decisions made in the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR 

and SDP, future site-specific proposals of infrastructure improvements will be evaluated through one 

or more Tier 2 environmental clearance processes. A description of the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR, SDP, 

and Tier 2 project-level analysis processes are further discussed below:

• Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR: The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation addresses broad questions 

and likely environmental effects within the Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, 

evaluation of the type of service(s) being proposed and identification of major infrastructure 

components based on conceptual engineering and rail operations simulation conducted as 

part of the SDP process. The Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR evaluation closely aligns with the service 

planning process and identifies areas of effect and resources that could be affected within the 

context of a resource specific study area. 

• SDP: The SDP defines the project’s service mode, estimated ridership to include demand and 

revenue forecasts, operational strategy, station and access analysis, operating and 

maintenance costs, required infrastructure improvements and capital programming, and public 

benefits analysis necessary to implement the proposed intercity passenger rail service. As part 

of the SDP process, the site-specific infrastructure improvement requirements are being

identified, including the number of stations and the general areas/communities in which 

stations might be located. The SDP infrastructure analysis is being informed by rail operations 

simulation modeling and would occur parallel to the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR analysis process. 

• Tier 2 Project-Level Analysis: Based on the environmental evaluation conducted in this Tier 

1/Program EIS/EIR and the site-specific infrastructure improvements identified in the SDP, a 

Tier 2 project-level analysis would be required. The Tier 2 project-level analysis would be a 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project – Administrative Draft EIS/EIR

Project Description

August 2019 | 1-2

separate environmental review potentially led and funded by an agency other than FRA. In 

addition, the Tier 2 process would not automatically follow the Tier 1 process, rather a Tier 2 

project would need to be defined based on the Tier 1/Program EIS/EIR broad project scope 

and funding. The Tier 2 project-level analysis would closely align with the future preliminary 

engineering process and would analyze site-specific direct and indirect project-level effects, in 

addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for construction. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project – Administrative Draft EIS/EIR

Project Description

August 2019 | 2-3

Project Location and Description 

2.1 Project Location

The Build Alternative Alignment is divided into two sections for ease of analysis: a Western Section 

and an Eastern Section, both occurring within existing railroad rights-of-way, for a total corridor 

distance of 144 miles (Figure 2-1). 

• The Western Section consists of a 68-mile segment along the existing Burlington Northern 

Santa Fe (BNSF) San Bernardino Subdivision corridor between LAUS and the city of Colton 

within Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino, and Riverside counties. 

• The Eastern Section consists of a 76-mile segment along the existing Union Pacific Railroad 

(UP) Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of Colton and Coachella within San 

Bernardino and Riverside counties.

From west to east, the cities traversed by the Build Alternative Alignment include Los Angeles, Vernon, 

Bell, Commerce, Montebello, Pico Rivera, Santa Fe Springs, Norwalk, La Mirada, Buena Park, 

Fullerton, Anaheim, Placentia, Yorba Linda, Chino Hills, Corona, Riverside, Grand Terrace, Colton, 

San Bernardino, Loma Linda, Redlands, Calimesa, Beaumont, Banning, Cabazon, Palm Springs, 

Cathedral City, Thousand Palms, Rancho Mirage, Palm Desert, Indio, and Coachella.

2.2 Project Description

2.2.1 Construction

Western Section

In the Western Section, existing rail infrastructure would be used to accommodate the proposed 

service and no additional track improvements would be required to accommodate the proposed 

service. LAUS would serve as the western terminus, and existing stations in the cities of Fullerton and 

Riverside would be used, as depicted on Figure 2-2. No new stations or construction to existing 

stations would be required to accommodate the proposed service. The Western Section Tier 1 project 

area encompasses the right-of-way within 100-feet on either side of the railroad centerline.

Eastern Section

In the Eastern Section, proposed new infrastructure improvements could include sidings, additional 

mainline track, wayside signals, drainage, grade-separation structures, and stations to accommodate 

the proposed service. The Eastern Section would utilize the existing station in the city of Palm Springs, 

which is the only existing station in the Eastern Section. Additionally, as depicted on Figure 2-3, up to 

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

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

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

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

Indio, and/or 5) the city of Coachella as the eastern terminus. 

To determine the corridor infrastructure needs (including number of stations and station locations), rail 

operations simulation modeling would be conducted as part of the SDP process. This Tier 1/Program 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project – Administrative Draft EIS/EIR

Project Description

August 2019 | 2-4

EIS/EIR analyzes the construction of infrastructure improvements and stations along the Eastern 

Section conceptually to assist in identification of potential corridor-level constraints and broad impacts 

to resources. 

As depicted on Figure 2-3, the Eastern Section Tier 1 project area encompasses the area of potential 

construction and station locations within 1,000 feet on either side of the railroad centerline. This 

Eastern Section Tier 1 project area encompasses the area where physical changes may occur (new 

infrastructure improvements such as sidings, additional mainline track, wayside signals, drainage, 

grade-separation structures, and stations) and preserves flexibility for consideration of up to five new 

station alignments and associated track infrastructure at any point within the corridor. 

2.2.2 Operation

Passenger train frequencies proposed as part of the project would consist of the addition of two daily 

round-trip intercity diesel passenger trains operating the entire length of the corridor between Los 

Angeles and Coachella, with one morning departure and one afternoon departure from each end of 

the corridor. 
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project – Administrative Draft EIS/EIR

Project Description

August 2019 | 2-5

Figure 2-1. Build Alternative Alignment
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project – Administrative Draft EIS/EIR

Project Description

August 2019 | 2-6

Figure 2-2 Build Alternative Western Section Tier 1 Project Area
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project – Administrative Draft EIS/EIR

Project Description

August 2019 | 2-7

Figure 2-3 Build Alternative Eastern Section Tier 1 Project Area
Coachella Valley-San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project – Administrative Draft EIS/EIR

Project Description

August 2019 | 2-8

This page is intentionally blank.
ATTACHMENT B: 

IDENTIFIED CULTURAL RESOURCES 

Separate lists are provided for archaeological and built environment resources. 

Archaeological resources are sorted first by time period (historic, prehistoric, or both) and then 

by California Historical Resource Status Code. Please see Attachment B for an explanation of 

these codes, which combine information on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and 

California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) status of the resource. 

Built environment resources are sorted first by NRHP property type (building, structure, or 

object) and then by California Historical Resource Status Code.
Archaeological Resources

A total of 117 archaeological sites (81 historic, 27 prehistoric, 7 both historic and prehistoric, and 2 unknown) wproject area. 

 Historic archaeology – 81 sites: 

o 5 sites appear (i.e., were recommended) eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or the CRHR as the result 

code 3). However, they have not been formally evaluated and their NRHP eligibility status has not bedetermined. Therefore, they are currently not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. 

o 1 site is recommended eligible for local listing or designation as the result of a survey but was not eva

eligibility at the time it was recorded (status code 5). 

o 27 sites were previously recommended ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP as a result of a survey (st

o 48 sites were previously identified as the result of a survey but were either not evaluated for NRHP el

they were recorded, or need to be reevaluated (status code 7). 

 Prehistoric archaeology – 27 sites: 

o 3 sites (all considered one site) were previously determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP (status o 2 sites appear (i.e., were recommended) eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or the CRHR as the result 

code 3). They have not been formally evaluated and their NRHP eligibility status has not been determ

are currently not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. 

o 6 sites were previously recommended or determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP (status code o 16 sites were previously identified as the result of a survey but were either not evaluated for NRHP el

they were recorded, or need to be reevaluated (status code 7). 

 Both – 7 sites: 

o 1 site was previously recommended ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP (status code 6). o 6 sites were previously identified as the result of a survey but were not evaluated for NRHP eligibility 

recorded (status code 7). 

 Unknown – 2 sites: 

o Information about these sites is unavailable in the archives of the South Central Coastal Information C

Information Center. 
Archaeological Resources 

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type Time Period Resource Attributes Description Human Remains 

33-010971 CA-RIV-06633H Site Historic AH2; AH3; 

AH4 

Southern Pacific Railroad 

employee housing tract 

Absent 

33-014135 CA-RIV-07757 Site Historic AH2; AH4 Two adobe building 

foundations, associated 

artifacts 

Absent 

33-015004 Site Historic HP33; HP3; 

AH4; AH6 

Singleton Ranch District Unknown 

33-007888 Site Historic HP20 Historic water 

conveyance system 

Absent 

33-014871 CA-RIV-07926 Site Historic HP20; AH6 Millard Stone Canal Absent 33-022374 CA-RIV-11426 Site Historic AH2 Foundations, rockwork,

and associated artifacts 

Absent 

33-005625 Site Historic AH15; AH3; 

AH11 

Kubic Ranch Site Unknown 

33-008075 CA-RIV-05973H Site Historic AH4 Refuse Scatter Absent 33-008076 CA-RIV-5974H Site Historic AH4 Refuse scatter Absent 33-008296 CA-RIV-06095 Site Historic AH4 Faunal bone refuse 

deposit 

Absent 

33-009496 CA-RIV-06379H Site Historic AH6; AH11; 

AH4 

Historic water 

conveyance system 

Absent 

33-009748 CA-RIV-06495H Site Historic AH4; AH7 Historic refuse deposits 

along historic road spur 

Absent 

33-013428 Site Historic AH6 Historic irrigation system Absent 33-013431 Site Historic AH2; AH5; 

AH6 

Historic foundation, 

cistern, and irrigation 

system 

Absent 

33-013779 CA-RIV-07544 Site Historic HP33; AH6 Historic ranch remains 

and water conveyance 

featurers 

Absent 

33-015002 Site Historic HP21; HP22; 

HP4; HP39 

Singleton Ranch Water 

Transportation System 

Absent 
Archaeological Resources 

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type Time Period Resource Attributes Description Human Remains 

33-015847 CA-RIV-08227 Site Historic AH2 Historic residence 

remains 

Absent 

33-015848 CA-RIV-08228 Site Historic AH2 Historic residence 

remains 

Absent 

33-015923 Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 33-016025 Site Historic AH6 Cement and rock canal Absent 33-017259 CA-RIV-10847 Site Historic AH6; HP20; 

HP11 

Coachella Valley 

Stormwater Channel 

Absent 

33-020420 CA-RIV-10328 Site Historic AH4 Large scatter of historic 

refuse 

Absent 

33-022376 CA-RIV-11428 Site Historic AH7; AH9; 

AH4 

Hstoric truck stop / refuse 

scatter / sand quarry 

Absent 

33-022387 Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 33-022388 CA-RIV-11440 / 

CA-RIV-11439 

Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 

33-024169 CA-RIV-11922 Site Historic AH4 Glass scatter Absent 33-024713 CA-RIV-12237 Site Historic AH7 Historic unpaved road

segment 

Absent 

33-024714 Site Historic AH7 Historic paved road 

segment 

Absent 

33-024715 CA-RIV-12238 Site Historic AH4 Refuse Scatter Absent 33-024926 Site Historic HP2; AH15; 

AH1 

Single family residence 

and outbuildings 

Absent 

33-026649 CA-RIV-12550 Site Historic AH2 Historic foundation and 

wells 

Absent 

33-026824 CA-RIV-12609 Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 36-024899 CA-SBR-15936H Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse deposit Absent 33-005624 Site Historic AH1 Site of Fort Oliver- Now 

demolished 

Absent 

33-007787 Site Historic AH2 Site of Whitewater Adobe Absent 
Archaeological Resources 

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type Time Period Resource Attributes Description Human Remains 

33-000178 CA-RIV-00178H Site Historic AH2; AH15; 

AH4 

Demolished Palm Springs 

Station 

Absent 

33-003439 CA-RIV-03439H Site Historic AH4; AH15 Historic refuse scatter Absent 33-003441 CA-RIV-03441H Site Historic AH2; AH4 Architectural debris and 

refuse related to Garnet 

Station 

Absent 

33-003442 CA-RIV-03442H Site Historic AH2; AH4 Historic footings and 

refuse scatter related to 

Cabazon Station 

Absent 

33-003443 CA-RIV-03443H Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 33-003444 CA-RIV-03444H Site Historic AH2; AH4 Historic foundations and 

refuse scatter 

Absent 

33-003445 CA-RIV-03445H Site Historic AH2; AH4 Historic foundations and 

refuse scatter 

Absent 

33-003446 CA-RIV-03446H Site Historic AH2; AH4 Historic foundations and 

refuse scatter 

Absent 

33-003447 CA-RIV-03447H Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 33-003448 CA-RIV-03448H Site Historic AH2; AH4 Historic foundations and 

refuse scatter 

Absent 

33-003449 CA-RIV-03449H Site Historic AH2; AH4 Historic foundations and 

refuse scatter related to El 

Casco Siding Station 

Absent 

33-003972 CA-RIV-03972 Site Historic AH2; AH4 Historic residential refuse 

scatter and architectural 

debris 

Absent 

33-009194 CA-RIV-06374H Site Historic AH2; AH4; 

AH3 

Historic dog kennel 

remains 

Absent 

33-009195 Site Historic AH6; HP20; 

AH3 

Historic water 

conveyance system and 

olive grove 

Absent 

33-009497 CA-RIV-06380H Site Historic AH6; AH2; 

HP20 

Historic water 

conveyance system 

Absent 
Archaeological Resources 

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type Time Period Resource Attributes Description Human Remains 

33-009500 CA-RIV-06383H Site Historic AH4 Architectural debris 

dumpsite 

Absent 

33-009747 CA-RIV-06494H Site Historic AH6 Historic water 

conveyance systemDestroyed 

Absent 

33-010795 CA-RIV-06514H Site Historic AH4 Extensive Refuse Deposit 

(4 loci) 

Absent 

33-010815 CA-RIV-06531 Site Historic AH4 Refuse Scatter associated 

with railroad 

Absent 

33-012893 CA-RIV-07166H Site Historic HP20 Stone and Mortar canal Absent 33-013722 Site Historic AH4 Architectural debris 

dumpsite 

Absent 

33-014999 CA-RIV-07972 Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse deposits 

along historic road spur 

Absent 

33-015849 CA-RIV-08229 Site Historic AH2; AH11; 

AH4; AH6 

Historic residence 

remains and associated 

fenceline, refuse, and 

water conveyance feature 

Absent 

33-015850 CA-RIV-08230 Site Historic AH3; AH11 Historic homestead 

remains and landscaping 

remnants 

Absent 

33-017005 CA-RIV-08852 Site Historic AH4 A series of discrete 

deposits of refuse related 

to the Edom train station 

Absent 

33-017588 CA-RIV-09117 Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 33-017947 Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 33-017948 Site Historic HP18 Two all wood refrigerator 

train cars 

Absent 

33-018128 Site Historic AH11 Barbed wire fence line Absent 33-023358 CA-RIV-11408 Site Historic AH2; AH5 Historic foundation and 

cistern 

Absent 

33-023964 Site Historic AH7 Historic road segment Absent 33-023965 Site Historic AH7 Historic road segment Absent 33-026892 CA-RIV-12628 Site Historic AH7 Historic era spur road Absent 
Archaeological Resources 

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type Time Period Resource Attributes Description Human Remains 

33-026893 CA-RIV-12629 Site Historic AH6 Historic catchment sump Absent 36-000573 CA-SBR-00575-H Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 36-000574 CA-SBR-00573-H Site Historic AH4; AH2 Historic refuse scatter and 

architectural debris 

Absent 

36-000647 CA-SBR-00647-H Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 36-006008 CA-SBR-06008-H Site Historic AH2; AH4; 

AH3 

Historic residential 

remains 

Absent 

36-006069 CA-SBR-06069-H Site Historic HP20; HP11; 

HP21 

Water control system Absent 

36-006169 CA-SBR-06169-H Site Historic AH4 Historic domestice refuse 

scatter 

Absent 

36-006173 CA-SBR-06173-H Site Historic HP1; AH2; 

AH4 

Bryn Mawr Townsite Absent 

36-006856 CA-SBR-06856H Site Historic AH2; AH11; 

AH15; AH16 

Historic ranch complex 

remains 

Absent 

36-011287 CA-SBR-11287H Site Historic AH4 Historic refuse scatter Absent 36-023573 Site Historic AH3; AH6 Historic orange grove and 

irrigation system 

Absent 

36-023574 Site Historic AH3; AH6 Historic orange grove and 

irrigation system 

Absent 

36-023575 Site Historic AH3; AH6 Historic orange grove and 

irrigation system 

Absent 

33-011573 CA-RIV-06896 

(incorporated into 

CA-RIV-12669) 

Site Prehistoric AP15; AP11; 

AP3 

Large lakeshore 

habitation site 

Present 

33-011574 CA-RIV-06897 

(incorporated into 

CA-RIV-12669) 

Site Prehistoric AP15; AP3; 

AP2 

Lakeshore habitation site Unknown 

33-028059 CA-RIV-12669 

(subsumes CA-RIV06896 and CA-RIV06897) 

Site Prehistoric AP15; AP11; 

AP3; AP9 

Large lakeshore 

habitation site 

Present 
Archaeological Resources 

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type Time Period Resource Attributes Description Human Remains 

33-011438 CA-RIV-06823 Site Prehistoric AP3; AP16; 

AP2 

Prehistoric habitation site Present 

33-014809 CA-RIV-07882 Site Prehistoric AP3; AP2; 

AP11 

Village of Palsetahut. 

Ceremonial coyote 

burials, extensive artifacts 

and features. Reported 

destroyed. 

Unknown 

33-000676 CA-RIV-00676 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP3; 

AP11 

Habitation with pottery 

scatter and associated 

midden 

Unknown 

33-002639 CA-RIV-02639 Site Prehistoric AP4 Bedrock Milling Feature, 

now removed 

Absent 

33-009499 CA-RIV-06382 Site Prehistoric AP3 Pottery scatter Absent 33-011636 CA-RIV-06915 Site Prehistoric AP3 Two distinct pottery 

scatters 

Absent 

33-016252 CA-RIV-08403 Site Prehistoric AP16; AP15; 

AP3 

Human cremation with 

associated pottery and 

flaked stone 

Present 

33-017288 CA-RIV-08988 Site Prehistoric AP3; AP2 Large scatter of historic 

fragmented bone and 

shell; prehistoric artifact 

scatter 

Absent 

33-009780 CA-RIV-06508 Site Prehistoric AP3; AP2 Prehistoric artifact scatter Unknown 33-009781 CA-RIV-06509 Site Prehistoric AP2 Prehistoric lithic scatter Absent 33-000790 CA-RIV-00790 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP3 Pehistoric campsite Absent 33-000809 CA-RIV-00809 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP3; 

AP2 

Prehistoric artifact scatter 

disturbed by pipeline 

Absent 
Archaeological Resources 

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type Time Period Resource Attributes Description Human Remains 

33-001767 CA-RIV-01767 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP3; 

AP11 

Complex Lakeshore 

habitation site 

Unknown 

33-002733 CA-RIV-02733 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP11 Habitation site Unknown 33-003222 CA-RIV-03222 Site Prehistoric AP2; AP15 scatter of prehistoric 

artifacts 

Absent 

33-007425 CA-RIV-05799 Site Prehistoric AP15; AP3; 

AP11 

Habitation site with 

assciated features and 

artifacts 

Unknown 

33-013718 CA-RIV-07516 Site Prehistoric AP3 Prehistoric pottery scatter 

and one fragment if olive 

glass 

Absent 

33-013795 CA-RIV-07553 Site Prehistoric AP2; AP1 Scatter of ground stone 

artifacts, possible 

cremation, and possible 

hearth feature 

Present 

33-015893 CA-RIV-08256 Site Prehistoric AP4; AP2 Bedrock Milling feature 

with associated artifacts 

Absent 

33-017006 CA-RIV-08853 Site Prehistoric AP2; AP3 Resource processing site Absent 33-017011 CA-RIV-08858 Site Prehistoric AP2 Resource processing

site/lithic scatter 

Absent 

33-026895 CA-RIV-12631 Site Prehistoric AP2; AP3; 

AP15 

Prehistoric seasonal 

habitation site 

Unknown 

33-026896 CA-RIV-12632 Site Prehistoric AP3 Prehistoric Pottery scatter Absent 36-006123 CA-SBR-06123 Site Prehistoric AP2 Prehistoric groundstone 

scatter 

Absent 

33-015337 Site Both AP3; AH4 SCL fragment and one 

buffware fragment 

Absent 

33-000179 CA-RIV-00179 Site Both AP9; AP16 1840s Historic era 

Cahuilla smallpox burial 

site 

Present 

33-000794 CA-RIV-00794 Site Both AP15; AP3; 

AH4 

Historic era Cahuilla 

campsite 

Unknown 
Archaeological Resources 

Primary 

Number Trinomial Number Property Type Time Period Resource Attributes Description Human Remains 

33-001634 CA-RIV-01634 Site Both AP15; AP16; 

AH4 

Multi component site 

including prehistoric food 

processing and associated 

artifact scatter and 

Historic refuse scatter 

Unknown 

33-001768 CA-RIV-01768 Site Both AP3; AP11; 

AP15; AH4 

Complex Dune habitation 

site 

Absent 

36-002314 CA-SBR-02314 Site Both AP15; AP3; 

AP2; AP16 

Historic era Cahuilla 

Campsite 

Unknown 

36-002999 CA-SBR-02999/H Site Both AP1 Jumuba Rancheria Unknown 36-016147 Unknown Unknown Information missing at 

SCCIC 

unknown CA-RIV-12188 Site Unknown Information missing at 

EIC 
Built Environment Resources

A total of 267 built environment resources (242 buildings, 23 structures, and 2 objects) were identified in the pro

 Buildings – 242 buildings: 

o 1 building, the San Timoteo Canyon Schoolhouse, is listed in the NRHP (status code 1). o 30 buildings appear (i.e., were recommended) eligible for inclusion in the NRHP or the CRHR as the 

(status code 3). They have not been formally evaluated and their NRHP eligibility status has not been 

Therefore, they are currently not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. 

o 66 buildings were previously recommended or determined eligible for local listing or designation but 

for NRHP eligibility at the time they were recorded (status code 5). 

o 106 buildings were previously recommended ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP as a result of a surv

o 39 buildings were previously identified as the result of a survey but were either not evaluated for NRH

time they were recorded, or need to be reevaluated (status code 7). 

 Structures – 23 structures: 

o 3 structures appear (i.e., were recommended) eligible for inclusion in the NRHP as the result of a surv

They have not been formally evaluated and their NRHP eligibility status has not been determined. Thcurrently not eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. 

o 14 structures were previously recommended or determined ineligible for inclusion in the NRHP as a r

(status code 6). 

o 6 structures were previously identified as the result of a survey but were not evaluated for NRHP elig

were recorded (status code 7). 

 Object – 2 objects: 

o 2 objects were previously identified as the result of a survey but need to be reevaluated for NRHP elig

7). 

Note: In the table that follows, an asterisk (*) next to the primary number designates resources that appear to hav

since they were last recorded. 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

33-007292 HP15 San Timoteo 

Canyon 

Schoolhouse 

El Casco 

Schoolhouse 

31985 San 

Timoteo Canyon 

Road 

El Casco Riverside Building 

33-008351 HP38; 

HP13 

Club house Banning 

Women's 

Club 

175 W Hays 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-013720* HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 34200 San 

Timoteo Canyon 

Road 

Beaumont Riverside Building 

36-019926* HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence 

Howard Van 

Der Wall 

House 

26472 Mission 

Road 

Loma Linda 

San 

Bernardino 

Building 

33-005619* HP33; 

HP2; 

HP30; HP4 

Ranch house San Cayetano 

Ranch; Bell 

Ranch 

Chase School 

Road 

Thousand 

Palms 

Riverside Building 

33-005652 HP16 Church Our Lady of 

Soledad 

Catholic 

Church 

1612 1st Street Coachella Riverside Building 

33-005659 HP6 Commercial 

building 

Lopes 

Hardware 

Store; First 

National 

Bank 

1604 6th Street Coachella Riverside Building 

33-005663* HP4 Outdoor 

summer 

sleeping 

quarters 

Submarine 1463 7th Street Coachella Riverside Building 

33-005666 HP9 Power office California 

Electric 

Office 

1684 9th Street Coachella Riverside Building 

33-005792 HP15; 

HP16; 

HP13 

Church built 

by Japanese 

Christians 

Coachella 

Church of 

Jesus Christ; 

Friends of 

Jesus Church 

85490 Avenue 

50 

Coachella Riverside Building 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

33-006211 HP6 Commercial 

bank 

building 

Beaumont 

Bank; 

Precision 

Stamping 

252 W 5th Street Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-006215 HP15; 

HP14 

Beaumont 

Civic Center 

Beaumont 

High School 

550 E 6th Street Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-007293 HP2; HP19 Single 

family 

residence 

and SPRR 

Bridge 

n/a 31710 San 

Timoteo Canyon 

Road 

El Casco Riverside Building 

33-007295* HP33; 

HP2; HP3; 

HP4; 

HP22; 

HP46 

Haskell 

Ranch 

Noble Ranch; 

Clough 

Ranch; 

Singleton 

Ranch 

34200 San 

Timoteo Canyon 

Road 

Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-007879 HP6; AH2; 

AH3 

Commercial 

building 

Henderson / 

Reid Building 

NE corner of San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue and 

Livingston Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-008299 HP5 Hotel Hotel Indio 82923 Miles 

Avenue 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008305 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence 

and guest 

house 

n/a 45120 King 

Street 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008307 HP4 outdoor 

summer 

sleeping 

quarters 

Submarine 44885 Oasis 

Street 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008337 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Davis Home 933 E Barbour 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

33-008357 HP10 Art Deco 

Theater 

Corey 

Building; Fox 

Theater 

84 W Ramsey 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-008358 HP5 Commercial 

building 

Hotel 

Banning 

225 W Banning 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-009109 HP16 Church Saint Agnes 

Church; 

Grace 

Lutheran 

Church 

111 N 2nd Street Banning Riverside Building 

33-009110 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

C. D. 

Hamilton 

Home 

181 N 2nd Street Banning Riverside Building 

33-009132 HP6 Commercial 

building 

Hendrick's 

Market; Tri 

City 

Stationery 

141 N San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-009134 HP6; HP13 Commercial 

building 

Oddfellows 

Building 

25 S San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-017933 HP3; 

HP36; 

HP13 

Multiple 

family 

property 

Fred Young 

Farm Labor 

Center 

47155 Van 

Buren Street 

Indio Riverside Building 

36-006172 CA-SBR06172-H HP33; HP2; 

HP36; HP4 

Winery 

complex 

VacheBrookside 

Winery 

complex, 

including 

Chinese 

worker 

housing 

W of intersection 

of San Timoteo 

Canyon Road 

and W Fern 

Avenue 

Redlands San 

Bernardino 

Building 

36-017260 CA-SBR06172H HP8; HP36 The old Brookside 

Winery 

see resource 

36-006172 

W of intersection 

of San Timoteo 

Canyon Road 

and W Fern 

Avenue 

Redlands San 

Bernardino 

Building 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

36-020801 HP15 Educational 

building 

Evans Hall / 

Cutler Hall, 

Loma Linda 

University 

24785 Stewart 

Street 

Loma Linda 

San 

Bernardino 

Building 

36-020802 HP15 Educational 

building 

Shyrock Hall, 

Loma Linda 

University 

24745 Stewart 

Street 

Loma Linda 

San 

Bernardino 

Building 

33-006170 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Bogart House 545 Euclid 

Avenue 

Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-005651 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 1105 Vine 

Avenue 

Coachella Riverside Building 

33-005653* HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 1451 3rd Street Coachella Riverside Building 

33-005654* HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 1445 4th Street Coachella Riverside Building 

33-005655 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Syrus Hughs 

House 

1457 4th Street Coachella Riverside Building 

33-005658 HP6 Original 

business 

building in 

Coachella 

Reed 

Building 

1601 6th Street Coachella Riverside Building 

33-005660 HP13 Masonic 

Hall 

Masonic Hall; 

Rolavision 

Store 

1694 6th Street Coachella Riverside Building 

33-005662 HP15 Elementary 

school 

Palm View 

School 

1390 7th Street Coachella Riverside Building 

33-005664 HP6 Coachella's 

fist 

newspaper 

"The 

Submarine" 

Ceramics 

shop; 

Submarine 

Newspaper 

Office 

1604 7th Street Coachella Riverside Building 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

33-005665 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Home built 

by the 

Thomases, 

pioneer 

family of 

Coachella 

Valley 

1609 7th Street Coachella Riverside Building 

33-005668 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Hamner 

Family 

Home; Harry 

Bloom Home 

85735 Highway 

111 

Coachella Riverside Building 

33-005670 HP39: 

Other 

Old Fire 

House 

Old Fire 

House 

1517 6th Street Coachella Riverside Building 

33-006093* HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Valdivia 

Home 

368 B Street Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-006110* HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 635 California 

Avenue 

Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-006131 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 620 Edgar 

Avenue 

Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-006132 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 634 Edgar 

Avenue 

Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-006142 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 644 Edgar 

Avenue 

Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-006160 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Sones Home 615 Egan 

Avenue 

Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-006161 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 629 Egan 

Avenue 

Beaumont Riverside Building 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

33-006162 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Kirkpatrick 

House 

633 Egan 

Evanue 

Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-006164 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 655 Egan 

Avenue 

Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-006167 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 330 Elm Avenue Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-006196 HP16 Guadalupe 

Chapel 

St. John 

Christian 

Community 

Church 

419 Olive 

Avenue 

Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-006200 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 552 Palm 

Avenue 

Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-006201 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 556 Palm 

Avenue 

Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-006202 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Lynne Bebee 

Home 

638 Palm 

Avenue 

Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-006205 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 532 Wellwood 

Avenue 

Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-006206* HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Martin Home 625 Wellwood 

Avenue 

Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-006207* HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Hershey 

Home; King 

Home 

651 Wellwood 

Avenue 

Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-006218 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 349 W 7th Street Beaumont Riverside Building 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

33-006228* HP39 McCullough

/Merkel 

Ranch 

Three Rings 

Ranch 

n/a Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-007294 HP33 Ranch house 

(two 

buildings) 

Silas Cox 

Ranch; 

Fisherman's 

Retreat 

32300 San 

Timoteo Canyon 

Road 

El Casco Riverside Building 

33-007873* HP39 The 

Cabazon 

Poker 

Casino 

n/a 50580 Main 

Street 

Cabazon Riverside Building 

33-008319 HP3 Bungalow 

court 

n/a 82684 Miles 

Avenue 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008323 HP3 Bungalow 

court 

n/a 44911 - 44925 

Oasis Street 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008324 HP6 Indio Realty 

Building 

n/a 44967 Oasis 

Street 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008328 HP10 Desert 

Theatre in 

Indio 

n/a 42265 Fargo 

Street 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008333 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 225 E Barbour 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-008334 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Russell Jones 

House; W. E. 

Jones House 

391 E Barbour 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-008335 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Russell Jones 

House 

434 E Barbour 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-008336 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 451 E Barbour 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-008352 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 322 E John 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

33-008356 HP5 The San 

Gorgonio 

Inn 

Bryant House 150 E Ramsey 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-009098 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Charlie 

Morris House 

486 W Williams 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-009099 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 530 W Williams 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-009104 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Mc Allister 

Home 

111 N 1st Street Banning Riverside Building 

33-009105 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 125 N 1st Street Banning Riverside Building 

33-009106 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 144 N 1st Street Banning Riverside Building 

33-009107 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 157 N 1st Street Banning Riverside Building 

33-009108 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 160 N 1st Street Banning Riverside Building 

33-009112 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Dr. Ryan 

Home 

115 N 3rd Street Banning Riverside Building 

33-009113 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Methodist 

Parsonage 

180 N 3rd Street Banning Riverside Building 

33-009117 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

F. F. Lemon 

Home 

181 N 4th Street Banning Riverside Building 

33-009120 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 899 W Hays 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

33-009121 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 1015 W Hays 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-009122 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 1067 W Hays 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-009130 HP6 Commercial 

building 

n/a 170 W Ramsey 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-009150 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 1222 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-009153 HP6 Commercial 

building 

Hopper Café; 

Constantino's 

140 W Ramsey 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-009157 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 385 W Ramsey 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-009164 HP6; HP14 U.S. Post 

Office 

Hazel's Thrift 

Shop 

125 N San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-009165 HP6 Commercial 

Building 

B.D.Wilson 

Building; 

Stagecoach 

Press 

Building 

137 N San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-009178 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 116 N 4th Street Banning Riverside Building 

33-009179 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 141 N 4th Street Banning Riverside Building 

36-012363 HP15; 

HP13; 

HP16 

Educational 

/ religious 

building 

Bryn Mawr 

Schoolhouse; 

Loma Linda 

Seventh-Day 

Adventist 

Church 

27261 Mayberry 

Street (old 

Barton Road) 

Loma Linda 

San 

Bernardino 

Building 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

33-007874* HP39 Adobe, 

incorporated in to historic 

hotel 

complex 

The Cabazon 

Inn, 

Manager's 

Quarters 

90250 Main 

Street 

Cabazon Riverside Building 

36-012492 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a original 25676 

Lawton Avenue, 

moved to 25092 

Barton Road 

Loma Linda 

San 

Bernardino 

Building 

33-007875* HP39 Restaurant 

and Bar with 

living 

quarters 

above 

Cabo's 

Wateringhole 

50400 E Main 

Street 

Cabazon Riverside Building 

33-008063* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence 

Building A 78887 Varner 

Road 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008064* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence 

Building B 78887 Varner 

Road 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008065* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence 

Building C 78887 Varner 

Road 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008066* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence 

Building D 78887 Varner 

Road 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008067* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence 

Building E 78887 Varner 

Road 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008068* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence 

Building F 78887 Varner 

Road 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008069* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence 

Building G 78887 Varner 

Road 

Indio Riverside Building 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

33-008070* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence 

Building H 78887 Varner 

Road 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008071* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence 

Building I 78887 Varner 

Road 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008072* HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence 

Building J 78887 Varner 

Road 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008073* HP4; HP33 Garage Structure K 78887 Varner 

Road 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008074* HP4; HP33 Wash House Structure L 78887 Varner 

Road 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-011918 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Law Property 1389 E Williams 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-013804* HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

converted to 

office 

Hadley 

Orchards 

Office 

13595 Apache 

Trail 

Cabazon Riverside Building 

33-013805 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 48910 Mojave 

Drive 

Cabazon Riverside Building 

33-014376 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 80783 Indio 

Boulevard 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-014377 HP39 Date 

packinghous

e 

n/a 80783 Indio 

Boulevard 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-014738* HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 40995 Adams 

Street 

Bermuda 

Dunes 

Riverside Building 

33-015192 HP2; HP16 Single 

family 

residence 

Primera 

Iglesia 

390 E Ramsey 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

converted to 

church 

Bautista Hispana 

33-015193 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Bonilla 

Residence 

402 E Ramsey 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015802 HP14 Government 

buildings 

City of 

Banning 

Public Works 

Department 

building 

complex 

176 Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015806 HP6; HP4 Commercial 

building 

Statewide 

Towing 

building 

275 E Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015809 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 1380 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015810 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Doolittle 

Residence 

1430 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015811 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Doolittle 

Residence 

1476 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015813 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 1617 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015814 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Hall 

Residence 

1661 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015815 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and wall 

Snyder 

Residence 

1692 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015816 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Thompson 

Residence 

1706 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

33-015817 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and fence 

Weatherly 

Residence 

1722 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015818 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 2005 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015819 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 2008 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015820 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 2025 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015821 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and wall 

Schafer 

Residence 

2028 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015822 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Hamby 

Residence 

2044 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015823 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and fence 

Higgins 

Residence 

2049 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015824 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and gate 

Higgins 

Residence 

2071 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015825 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Gray and 

Girton 

Residence 

2080 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015826 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and fence 

n/a 2102 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

33-015827 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and fence 

with gate 

Ross 

Residence 

2120 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015828 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and wall 

Higgins 

Residence 

2131 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015829 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Malicki 

Residence 

2148 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015830 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Huston and 

Strafford 

Residence 

2156 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015831 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Holmquist 

and Kallstrom 

Residence 

2174 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015835 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Graham 

Residence 

2413 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015836 HP2; HP46 Single 

family 

residence 

and fence 

n/a 2437 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015837 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 2539 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015838 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Reiger 

Residence 

2637 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015839 HP6; HP4; 

HP46 

Comercial 

building 

All American 

Towing 

2671-2673 W 

Lincoln Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015840 HP3 Single 

family 

n/a 2699 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

residence 

complex 

33-015841 HP3 Single 

family 

residence 

Complex 

n/a 2705 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015842 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 2721 W Lincoln 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-015843 HP11 Engineering 

structure 

Banning 

Substation 

Lincoln Street Banning Riverside Building 

33-016857 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Davis 

Property 

219 Allen Street Banning Riverside Building 

33-016880 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Fultz 

Property 

221 Cherry 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-016883 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Pelayo 

Property 

1073 E Gilman 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-016886 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Pellum 

Property 

275 N Hathaway 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-016893 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Rivera Estate 170 S Phillips 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-016894 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Martinez 

Property 

228 N Phillips 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-016913 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Flores 

Property 

985 E Williams 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-016914 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 1138 E Williams 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

33-016915 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

McMahon 

Property 

1209 E Williams 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-016916 HP3 Multiple 

family 

residence 

complex 

Green's 

Rentals 

1330-1350-1370 

E Williams 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-016917 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Formento/Ber

umen 

Property 

1367 E Williams 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-016918 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Law Property 1389 E Williams 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-016919 HP3 Multiple 

family 

residence 

complex 

Jones 

Apartments 

1420-1424 E 

Williams Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-016920 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Laster 

Property 

1467 E Williams 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-016921 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Magana 

Property 

1477 E Williams 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-016922 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Alonso 

Property 

1501 E Williams 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-016923 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Perez/Moreno 

Property 

1537 E Williams 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-016924 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Bennett 

Property 

1561 E Williams 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-017729 HP6 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 2169AB W 

Ramsey Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

converted to 

commercial 

33-017731 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 375 S 22nd 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-017732 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 335 S 22nd 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-017733 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 295 S 22nd 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-017734 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 227 S 22nd 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-017735 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 3310 W Ramsey 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-017736 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 3298 W Ramsey 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-017737 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 3278 W Ramsey 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-017738 HP6 Commercial 

Building 

n/a 2873 W Ramsey 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-017739 HP6 Commercial 

Building 

n/a 2772 W Ramsey 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-017740 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 2736c W 

Ramsey Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-017741 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 2736b W 

Ramsey Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-017742 HP6 Commercial 

Building 

n/a 2736A W 

Ramsey Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

33-017743 HP6 Commercial 

Building 

n/a 2711 W Ramsey 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-017744 HP8 Commercial 

building 

complex 

n/a 2691 W Ramsey 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-017745 HP8 Commercial 

building 

complex 

n/a 2642 W Ramsey 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-017746 HP6 Commercial 

Building 

Pepe's 

Mexican 

Seafood 

2579 W Ramsey 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-017747 HP5 Commercial 

Building 

Sunset Motel 2475 W Ramsey 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-017749 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 361 S 22nd 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-017750 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 259 S 22nd 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-017781 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 379 S 22nd 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-024165 HP6 Garage 

converted to 

rescue 

mission / 

men's 

dormitory 

Coachella 

Valley 

Rescue 

Mission 

47518 Van 

Buren Street 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-024166 HP6 Military 

barracks 

moved to 

site and 

converted 

into 

women's 

dormitory 

Coachella 

Valley 

Rescue 

Mission 

47522 Van 

Buren Street 

Indio Riverside Building 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

33-024167 HP6 Auto repair 

building 

n/a 84169 Highway 

111 

Indio Riverside Building 

36-012313 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Miko 

Property 

1657 Smiley 

Heights Drive 

Redlands San 

Bernardino 

Building 

36-012871 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 10753 Poplar 

Street 

Loma Linda 

San 

Bernardino 

Building 

36-012872 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 10763 Poplar 

Street 

Loma Linda 

San 

Bernardino 

Building 

36-012873 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 10845 Poplar 

Street 

Loma Linda 

San 

Bernardino 

Building 

36-012874 HP3; HP4 Duplex 

family 

residence 

n/a 10861 Poplar 

Street 

Loma Linda 

San 

Bernardino 

Building 

36-027713 HP3 Duplex 

family 

residence 

n/a 25401-25403 

Cole Street 

Loma Linda 

San 

Bernardino 

Building 

36-027714 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 25405 Cole 

Street 

Loma Linda 

San 

Bernardino 

Building 

36-027715 HP4 Shed n/a 25405 Cole 

Street 

Loma Linda 

San 

Bernardino 

Building 

36-027716 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 25407 Cole 

Street 

Loma Linda 

San 

Bernardino 

Building 

36-027717 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 25417 Cole 

Street 

Loma Linda 

San 

Bernardino 

Building 

33-007880 HP5 Coplin House 

/ Spokane 

Hotel 

SE corner of San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue and 

Ramsey Street 

Banning Riverside Building 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

33-009491 HP39 Single 

family 

residence 

Smiley Place 82161 Miles 

Avenue 

Indio Riverside Building 

36-017533 CA-SBR017533 HP15 Site of Mound City 

(Loma Linda) 

Shyrock Hall, 

Loma Linda 

University 

24745 Stewart 

Street 

Loma Linda 

San 

Bernardino 

Building 

33-009154 HP14 Government 

building 

Banning City 

Hall 

161 W Ramsey 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-006191* HP39 Orange 

Juice Sales 

Room 

n/a 501 Maple 

Avenue 

(backyard) 

Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-007296 HP33; 

HP2; HP4; 

HP21; HP35; HP20; 

AH2; HP37 

James 

Singleton/W

oodhouse 

Ranch 

n/a Woodhouse/Sing

leton Road 

Calimesa Riverside Building 

33-008303 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 44860 King 

Street 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008304 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 44893 King 

Street 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008306 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence 

and garage 

n/a 45158 King 

Street 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008317 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 45161 King 

Street 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008320 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence 

and shed 

n/a 44885 Oasis 

Street 

Indio Riverside Building 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

33-008321 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Michaelson 

Family Home 

44885 Oasis 

Street 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008322 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence 

and garage 

n/a 44899 Oasis 

Street 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008329 HP6; HP13 Commercial 

building 

Elk's Club; 

The Oasis 

45297 Fargo 

Street 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008330* HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 45555 Fargo 

Street 

Indio Riverside Building 

33-008362 HP6 Commercial 

building 

Holcomb 

Building 

40 S San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-009096 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

Mary Ellis 

Home 

170 W Williams 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-009129 HP6 Commercial 

building 

O'Briens 

Pharmacy 

160 W Ramsey 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-009131 HP6 Commercial 

building 

Mason Moore 

Building 

185 W Ramsey 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-009163 HP6 Commercial 

Building 

1920s Berlin 

Building 

65 N San 

Gorgonio 

Avenue 

Banning Riverside Building 

36-013890 HP2; HP4 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 23658 First 

Street 

Loma Linda 

San 

Bernardino 

Building 

36-017269 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

John T. Tolle 

House 

231 Sonora 

Street 

Redlands San 

Bernardino 

Building 

36-020253 HP15; 

HP13; 

HP16 

Educational 

building 

Loma Linda 

Academy 

10650 Anderson 

Street 

Loma Linda 

San 

Bernardino 

Building 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

33-005669 HP14 Coachella 

City Hall 

Coachella 

City Hall 

1515 6th Street Coachella Riverside Building 

33-009155 HP6 Commercial 

Building 

n/a 260 W Ramsey 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-009156 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

converted to 

commercial 

Banning 

Medical 

Clinic 

330 W Ramsey 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-009159 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

converted to 

commercial 

Bird 

Insurance 

Agency 

1025 W Ramsey 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-023524 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 451 E Livingston 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-023529 HP6 Commercial 

Building 

n/a 601 W Luis 

Estrada Road 

Beaumont Riverside Building 

33-023532 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 489 E Livingston 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-023533 HP6 Commercial 

Building 

n/a 512 E Ramsey 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-023534 HP6 Commercial 

Building 

n/a 533 E Ramsey 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-023535 HP6 Commercial 

Building 

n/a 635 E Ramsey 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-023536 HP6 Commercial 

Building 

n/a 685 E Ramsey 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-023537 HP3 Multiple 

family 

residence 

Complex 

n/a 719 E Ramsey 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

33-023550 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 425 E Livingston 

Street 

Banning Riverside Building 

33-023909 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 48878 Mojave 

Drive 

Cabazon Riverside Building 

36-023572 HP2; HP33 Single 

family 

residence 

Parker House 1160S San 

Timoteo Canyon 

Road 

Redlands San 

Bernardino 

Building 

36-025603 HP2 Single 

family 

residence 

n/a 25919 Juanita 

Street 

Loma Linda 

San 

Bernardino 

Building 

33-010792 HP21 Flood 

control 

structure 

Oak Valley 

flood control 

structure 33-

10792 

Along San 

Timoteo Canyon 

Road, 3.4 mi 

west of I-10 

Beaumont Riverside Structur

33-005705 CA-IMP7658 HP20 Coachella Canal Coachella Branch of the 

All-American 

Canal 

Crosses rail line 

E of I10/Jefferson 

Street 

interchange 

Indio Riverside Structur

33-011265 CA-RIV06726H HP20 Canal/aqued uct Colororado River 

Aqueduct 

n/a n/a Riverside Structur

33-009498 CA-RIV06381H HP39 Railroad Union Pacific Railroad, 

Southern 

Pacific 

Railroad 

n/a n/a Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino 

Structur

33-008410 HP37 Road Dillon 

Highway/ 

MWD Garnet 

Dillon Road North 

Palm 

Springs to 

Coachella 

Riverside Structur
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

to Indio truck 

road 

33-015035 HP11 Electrical 

transmission 

line 

Southern 

California 

Edison 

Company 

HayfieldChino 220kV 

Transmission 

Line 

n/a n/a Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino 

Structur

33-015720 CA-RIV08189 HP37 Road San Timoteo Canyon 

Road; Oak 

Valley 

Parkway 

San Timoteo 

Canyon Road 

Calimesa, 

Beaumont 

Riverside Structur

33-020721 CA-RIV10642 HP37 Road First Street E and W of Highway 79 at 

post mile 40.1 

Beaumont Riverside Structur

33-023389 HP11 Electrical 

transmission 

line 

The DeversSan 

Bernardino 

#1 220kV 

transmission 

line 

n/a n/a Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino 

Structur

33-023484 HP11 Electrical 

distribution 

line 

SoCal Edison 

- Memphis 

12kV 

distribution 

Line 

n/a n/a Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino 

Structur

33-024895 HP39 Airport Banning 

Municipal 

Airport 

200 S Hathaway 

Street 

Banning Riverside Structur

33-026822 HP37 Road Segment of 

John Street 

n/a Banning Riverside Structur
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

33-028164 HP37 Road Paved 

segment of 

Avenue 48 

following 

historic 

highway 

alignment 

between Van 

Buren Street and 

Dillon Road 

Coachella Riverside Structur

36-007169* CA-SBR07169-H HP20 Canal/aqued uct Riverside - Warm Creek 

Canal, flume, 

and wells 

n/a Colton, 

Riverside 

Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino 

Structur

36-007764 CA-SBR07764H HP19 Bridge and drainage 

structure 

n/a N of railroad 

tracks in San 

Timoteo Wash 

Redlands San 

Bernardino 

Structur

36-026051 HP11 Electrical 

transmission 

line 

Southern 

California 

Edison 

Company 

HayfieldChino 220kV 

Transmission 

Line (see 33-

015035) 

n/a n/a Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino 

Structur

36-026224 HP11 Electrical 

transmission 

line 

Southern 

California 

Edison San 

BernardinoRedlands-San 

Timoteo and 

San 

BernardinoRedlandsTennessee 

66kV 

Subtransmisi

on Lines 

n/a n/a Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino 

Structur
Historic Built Environment Resources 

Primary 

Number 

Trinomial 

Number 

Resource 

Attributes Description Name of Resource Address Town County Propert

Type 

33-007582* HP11 Water 

Tower 

Palm Springs 

Station 

N of Highway 

111, west of 

Tipton Road 

Palm 

Springs 

Riverside Structur

33-020723 CA-RIV10645 AH7 Railroad Atchison, Topeka and 

Santa Fe 

Railroad 

segment 

E and W of 

Highway 79 at 

post mile 40.3 

Beaumont Riverside Structur

33-026891 CA-RIV12627 HP39 Mid- twentieth c. 

trasmission 

line 

n/a NE of 

intersection of 

Tipton Road and 

Highway 111 

Palm 

Springs 

Riverside Structur

33-026894 CA-RIV12630 HP39 Mid- twentieth c. 

trasmission 

line 

n/a north of Windy 

Point 

Whitewate

r 

Riverside Structur

36-006174* CA-SBR06174-H HP19 Bridge Historic "Bailey" type 

bridge 

W of intersection 

of Beaumont 

Avenue and 

Nevada Street 

Redlands San 

Bernardino 

Structur

36-010330 CA-SBR10330H AH7 Railroad Southern Pacific 

Railroad 

n/a n/a Riverside, 

San 

Bernardino 

Structur

36-015222 HP39 Monument / 

plaque 

Fort Benson 

Monument 

2192-2198 E 

Oliver Holmes 

Road 

Colton San 

Bernardino 

Object 

33-007876 HP39 Large-scale 

steel and 

concrete 

dinosaur 

sculptures 

Cabazon 

Dinosaurs, 

built between 

1964 and 

1985 by 

famous artist 

Claude Bell 

50900 Seminole 

Drive 

Cabazon Riverside Object 
From: Sheldon Peterson

To: admin@gabrielenoindians.org

Cc: Delu, Nina

Subject: RCTC Follow Up

Date: Monday, September 30, 2019 12:29:59 PM

Attachments: image001.png

image002.png

image003.png

image004.png

image005.png

Dear Chair Salas –

On August 27, 2019, the Riverside County Transportation Commission (Commission) sent your Tribe

a letter containing a refined project description for the Coachella Valley – San Gorgonio Pass Rail

Corridor Service Project (Project) to reconfirm your interest in consulting about tribal cultural

resources. The Commission is preparing a CEQA Program Environmental Impact Report (Program

EIR) for the Project, a Tier 1 Planning Level document; this analysis will address broad questions and

likely environmental effects within the Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of

the type of service(s) being proposed and identification of major infrastructure components based

on conceptual engineering. The subsequent Tier 2 project‐level analysis would closely align with the

future preliminary engineering process and would analyze site‐specific direct and indirect

project‐level impacts, in addition to any required permits, consultations, or approvals needed for

construction.

As proposed, the Project is broken down into a Western and Eastern Section. The Western Section,

which consists of a 68 mile segment along the existing Burlington Northern Santa Fe San Bernardino

Subdivision corridor between Los Angeles Union Station and the City of Colton would not require any

ground disturbance and would instead utilize existing infrastructure (tracks and stations) for the

Project’s proposed commuter train trips. In contrast, the Eastern Section, which includes a 76-mile

segment along the existing Union Pacific Railroad Yuma Subdivision corridor between the cities of

Colton and Coachella proposes physical improvements (e.g., rail spurs and stations) and therefore

ground disturbance will take place within the Eastern Section. As such, record searches and archival

research has been conducted only for the Eastern Section, since construction of the Eastern Section

would require ground disturbance. No archaeological survey or resource evaluation work will be

conducted until Tier 2 project-level analysis is undertaken.

Our understanding is that the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation Tribal Ancestral

Territory is largely within the Western Section of the Project where there is no proposed ground

disturbance. RCTC would like to reconfirm that the Kizh Nation would like to consult under AB 52 on

this Project. Please reply to RCTC prior to October 4, 2019 to confirm your intentions to consult on

this Project. In the future, AB 52 Consultation for Tier 2 Projects will be undertaken as a completely

separate process, with notifications given for each of those specific projects in the future.

Sincerely,

Sheldon Peterson

Rail Manager

Riverside County Transportation Commission

951.787.7928 W |951.453.8262 C

4080 Lemon St. 3rd Fl.| P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502

rctc.org





From: Jessica Mauck 

Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 5:26 PM

To: Sheldon Peterson <speterson@RCTC.org>

Subject: Coachella Valley - San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service (Riverside, San Bernardino, Los

Angeles, and Orange Counties)

Hello Sheldon,

Thank you for contacting the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) regarding the above

referenced project. SMBMI appreciates the opportunity to review the project documentation, which

was received by our Cultural Resources Management Department on 3 September 2019, pursuant

to CEQA (as amended, 2015) and CA PRC 21080.3.1. The majority of the proposed project area exists

outside of Serrano ancestral territory, as the southernmost portion of their territory extends only

partially into Riverside and Beaumont/Banning, though includes all of Colton, Loma Linda, and

Redlands. As the entirety of the western segment of the project area, which terminates at its east

end in Colton, will utilize existing infrastructure and result in no new ground disturbance, SMBMI

does not have concerns with that portion of the project within ancestral territory. However, the

portion from Colton to Beaumont/Banning within the eastern segment of the project area is both

within the Tribe’s ancestral territory and will be subjected, at least partially, to new ground

disturbance. As such, this is the Tribe’s area of concern, and the Tribe elects to consult on this

project, as it pertains to this area, under CEQA.

For your knowledge, there are at least two Sacred Lands Files (SLFs) within the Loma

Linda/Redlands/Colton area that may or may not be impacted by the proposed project. Given the

higher level locational information provided within the project notice, it is difficult to ascertain the

exact location(s) of proposed disturbance, and whether those resources are likely to be impacted.

The cultural resource information provided to the Tribe is equally high level, and consists of solely a

record search. As such, SMBMI is requesting the following information (at least for the ColtonBanning/Beaumont area), at this time:

- Cultural report

- Project plans showing the proposed depth of disturbance within the project footprint

The provision of this information will assist San Manuel Band of Mission Indians in ascertaining how

the Tribe moves forward in consultation. Please note that some e-mails do not come through due to

size restrictions for attachments, and neither the recipient nor sender are aware that the e-mail was

rejected. As a result, should you not receive a response within 1 week of your e-mail that SMBMI

received the documentation, please reach out with a separate e-mail so that I can create a

SecureShare folder for receipt of consultation documents. Conversely, if you elect to send the

documents by mail, we can accept paper copies or digital copies on a disc.

If you should have any questions with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at
your convenience, as I will be your Point of Contact (POC) for SMBMI with respect to this project.

However, please be aware that I will be out of the office on leave from 9/12 and 9/29 – I will review

and respond to all CEQA backlog the week of 9/30.

Once again, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians appreciates the opportunity to comment on the

proposed project.

Respectfully,

Jessica Mauck

CULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYST

O: (909) 864-8933 x3249

M: (909) 725-9054

26569 Community Center Drive Highland California 92346

 

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS

ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT

FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended

recipient or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby

notified that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have

received this electronic transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying it

and notify the sender by reply e-mail so that the email address record can be corrected. Thank You
From: Delu, Nina

To: "Sheldon Peterson"; Jessica Mauck

Cc: Williford, Vanessa

Subject: RE: Coachella Valley - San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service (Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and

Orange Counties)

Date: Monday, September 30, 2019 11:46:00 AM

Attachments: image010.png

image012.png

image014.png

image016.png

image018.png

image020.png

image022.png

image024.png

image026.png

Hi Jessica –

As a follow up to Sheldon’s email below, and per your request, please use this link to take you to a

PDF copy of the Draft Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Coachella Valley – San

Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project: https://hdrincmy.sharepoint.com/:b:/p/adelu/Eb2ThmpEEo5Elot1qiv3wsABS8j55HroxY5hsVtVp-QGvQ?

email=JMauck%40sanmanuel-nsn.gov&e=NnxnnG

I will give you a call later today to make sure that you are able to access the document, and to check

in to see if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Nina

Antonina “Nina” Delu, RPA

D 714.368.5658 M 949.892.9413

hdrinc.com/follow-us

From: Sheldon Peterson [mailto:speterson@RCTC.org] 

Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 2:21 PM

To: Jessica Mauck <JMauck@sanmanuel-nsn.gov>

Cc: Delu, Nina <Nina.Delu@hdrinc.com>; Williford, Vanessa <Vanessa.Williford@hdrinc.com>

Subject: RE: Coachella Valley - San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service (Riverside, San Bernardino,

Los Angeles, and Orange Counties)

Dear Ms. Mauck,

Thank you for your email response from September 19, 2019 regarding the Coachella Valley – San

Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (Project). We understand that the San Manuel Band of

Mission Indians (SMBMI) may have concerns regarding the Eastern Segment of the project from

Colton to Beaumont/Banning and it’s overlap within the SMBMI’s ancestral territory. To be

responsive to your request for further information regarding the Project, Riverside County

Transportation Commission (Commission) has asked our consultant, HDR, to send you an electronic

copy of the Draft Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for your review. This document was
written in support of the Draft Tier 1 Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact

Statement (Draft Program EIR/EIS) that we are currently preparing. Public review of the Draft

Program EIR/EIS has not started.

The Draft Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum includes background research/data obtained

from records search; it does not include data collected through archaeological survey, nor does it

include resource evaluations. As we move towards finalizing the draft report, the document will

incorporate any information on cultural resources received through consultation, if the information

is deemed appropriate for public circulation. The Draft Program EIR/EIS is a Tier 1 Planning Level

document and the included analysis broadly addresses questions and likely environmental effects

within the Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being

proposed and identification of major infrastructure components based on conceptual engineering.

The future Tier 2 project-level analysis (not started) based on preliminary engineering (not available

now) would analyze site-specific direct and indirect project-level impacts, in addition to any required

permits, consultations, or approvals needed for construction.

In regards to your request for project plans showing the proposed depth of ground disturbance

within the project footprint, at this point only conceptual engineering is available in support of the

Tier 1 Draft Program EIR/EIS. The level of engineering that you have requested would then be

prepared to support future Tier 2 CEQA and/or NEPA documentation. Future AB 52 Consultation as

part of the Tier 2 CEQA and/or NEPA documentation will be undertaken as a completely separate

process from this current AB 52 consultation, with notifications given to Tribes for each of those

specific Tier 2 CEQA and/or NEPA Projects.

Please review the Draft Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum and let us know how the SMBMI

would like to move forward in consultation. If you have any questions regarding the Project, the

documentation on cultural resources, or the Tier 1 Draft Program EIR/EIS, please reply to the

Commission prior to October 4, 2019 to confirm your intentions to consult on this Project. If

needed, we are happy to set up a meeting to discuss further.

Sincerely,

Sheldon Peterson

Rail Manager

Riverside County Transportation Commission

951.787.7928 W |951.453.8262 C

4080 Lemon St. 3rd Fl.| P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502

rctc.org
From: Jessica Mauck

To: Sheldon Peterson

Cc: Delu, Nina; Williford, Vanessa

Subject: RE: Coachella Valley - San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service (Riverside, San Bernardino, Los Angeles, and

Orange Counties)

Date: Friday, October 4, 2019 1:29:38 PM

Attachments: image001.png

image002.png

image003.png

image004.png

image005.png

image006.png

image007.png

image008.png

image009.png

image011.png

image0302db.PNG

Wonderful, thank you for those clarifications.

Jessica Mauck

CULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYST

O: (909) 864-8933 x3249

M: (909) 725-9054

26569 Community Center Drive Highland California 92346

From: Sheldon Peterson [mailto:speterson@RCTC.org] 

Sent: Friday, October 4, 2019 1:27 PM

To: Jessica Mauck

Cc: Delu, Nina; Williford, Vanessa

Subject: RE: Coachella Valley - San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service (Riverside, San Bernardino,

Los Angeles, and Orange Counties)

Hi Jessica,

Thank you for your response. The cultural resources memo that was sent to you is a preliminary

draft that will be updated to reflect the SMBMI comments noted in your email. These updates will

also be reflected in the upcoming Draft EIS/EIR available during the public review period. In regards

to the Section 106 process for the project, the Federal Railroad Administration is currently preparing

to launch their Section 106 consultation, and you can anticipate that invitations to consult under

Section 106 will be sent to your Tribe in upcoming weeks.

Thank you,

Sheldon Peterson, RCTC Rail Manager
951.787.7928 W |951.453.8262 C

From: Jessica Mauck 

Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2019 5:36 PM

To: Sheldon Peterson <speterson@RCTC.org>

Cc: Delu, Nina <Nina.Delu@hdrinc.com>; Williford, Vanessa <Vanessa.Williford@hdrinc.com>

Subject: RE: Coachella Valley - San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service (Riverside, San Bernardino,

Los Angeles, and Orange Counties)

Hi Sheldon,

Thank you again for the additional information regarding the broad scope of the project for Tier 1, as

well as for the documentation sent over by HDR. At this time, SMBMI does not have concerns with

the Tier 1 portion of the project, and will simply await the Tier 2 project notice so that we can

ascertain more specific levels of disturbance, and whether these activities will impact specific

resources of concern to SMBMI.

That being said, I did want to point out that the cultural memo only talks about the Commission’s

CEQA consultation efforts with Kizh Nation (I think there is an error here, as it says 2016 and 2018),

and SMBMI is requesting this section be updated to include the additional outreach conducted in

2019, as well as SMBMI’s response (including the identification of two Sacred Lands Files either

within or adjacent to the project area).

Additionally, I wanted to know if the statement in the Section 106 consultation section noting that

consultation is ongoing is meant to indicate that FRA has initiated consultation under Section 106.

The reason I ask is that, since my boss’ hire in mid-2016, SMBMI has not missed a response to a

federal notice that the Tribe’s cultural department received, and we have no record of this project

internally.

Thank you,

Jessica Mauck

CULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYST

O: (909) 864-8933 x3249

M: (909) 725-9054

26569 Community Center Drive Highland California 92346
From: Jessica Mauck 

Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 1:50 PM

To: 'Delu, Nina'; Sheldon Peterson

Cc: Williford, Vanessa

Subject: RE: Coachella Valley - San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service (Riverside, San Bernardino,

Los Angeles, and Orange Counties)

Hi Nina,

I have successfully retrieved the attached document – I will take a look and provide a response

before COB on 10/4.

Regards,

From: Delu, Nina [mailto:Nina.Delu@hdrinc.com] 

Sent: Monday, September 30, 2019 11:47 AM

To: Sheldon Peterson; Jessica Mauck

Cc: Williford, Vanessa

Subject: RE: Coachella Valley - San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service (Riverside, San Bernardino,

Los Angeles, and Orange Counties)

Hi Jessica –

As a follow up to Sheldon’s email below, and per your request, please use this link to take you to a

PDF copy of the Draft Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for the Coachella Valley – San

Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project: https://hdrincmy.sharepoint.com/:b:/p/adelu/Eb2ThmpEEo5Elot1qiv3wsABS8j55HroxY5hsVtVp-QGvQ?

email=JMauck%40sanmanuel-nsn.gov&e=NnxnnG

I will give you a call later today to make sure that you are able to access the document, and to check

in to see if you have any questions.

Thanks,

Nina

Antonina “Nina” Delu, RPA

D 714.368.5658 M 949.892.9413

hdrinc.com/follow-us

From: Sheldon Peterson [mailto:speterson@RCTC.org] 

Sent: Thursday, September 26, 2019 2:21 PM

To: Jessica Mauck <JMauck@sanmanuel-nsn.gov>

Cc: Delu, Nina <Nina.Delu@hdrinc.com>; Williford, Vanessa <Vanessa.Williford@hdrinc.com>

Subject: RE: Coachella Valley - San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service (Riverside, San Bernardino,
Los Angeles, and Orange Counties)

Dear Ms. Mauck,

Thank you for your email response from September 19, 2019 regarding the Coachella Valley – San

Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service Project (Project). We understand that the San Manuel Band of

Mission Indians (SMBMI) may have concerns regarding the Eastern Segment of the project from

Colton to Beaumont/Banning and it’s overlap within the SMBMI’s ancestral territory. To be

responsive to your request for further information regarding the Project, Riverside County

Transportation Commission (Commission) has asked our consultant, HDR, to send you an electronic

copy of the Draft Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum for your review. This document was

written in support of the Draft Tier 1 Program Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact

Statement (Draft Program EIR/EIS) that we are currently preparing. Public review of the Draft

Program EIR/EIS has not started.

The Draft Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum includes background research/data obtained

from records search; it does not include data collected through archaeological survey, nor does it

include resource evaluations. As we move towards finalizing the draft report, the document will

incorporate any information on cultural resources received through consultation, if the information

is deemed appropriate for public circulation. The Draft Program EIR/EIS is a Tier 1 Planning Level

document and the included analysis broadly addresses questions and likely environmental effects

within the Tier 1 project area including, but not limited to, evaluation of the type of service(s) being

proposed and identification of major infrastructure components based on conceptual engineering.

The future Tier 2 project-level analysis (not started) based on preliminary engineering (not available

now) would analyze site-specific direct and indirect project-level impacts, in addition to any required

permits, consultations, or approvals needed for construction.

In regards to your request for project plans showing the proposed depth of ground disturbance

within the project footprint, at this point only conceptual engineering is available in support of the

Tier 1 Draft Program EIR/EIS. The level of engineering that you have requested would then be

prepared to support future Tier 2 CEQA and/or NEPA documentation. Future AB 52 Consultation as

part of the Tier 2 CEQA and/or NEPA documentation will be undertaken as a completely separate

process from this current AB 52 consultation, with notifications given to Tribes for each of those

specific Tier 2 CEQA and/or NEPA Projects.

Please review the Draft Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum and let us know how the SMBMI

would like to move forward in consultation. If you have any questions regarding the Project, the

documentation on cultural resources, or the Tier 1 Draft Program EIR/EIS, please reply to the

Commission prior to October 4, 2019 to confirm your intentions to consult on this Project. If

needed, we are happy to set up a meeting to discuss further.

Sincerely,
Sheldon Peterson

Rail Manager

Riverside County Transportation Commission

951.787.7928 W |951.453.8262 C

4080 Lemon St. 3rd Fl.| P.O. Box 12008 Riverside, CA 92502

rctc.org

From: Jessica Mauck 

Sent: Wednesday, September 11, 2019 5:26 PM

To: Sheldon Peterson <speterson@RCTC.org>

Subject: Coachella Valley - San Gorgonio Pass Rail Corridor Service (Riverside, San Bernardino, Los

Angeles, and Orange Counties)

Hello Sheldon,

Thank you for contacting the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians (SMBMI) regarding the above

referenced project. SMBMI appreciates the opportunity to review the project documentation, which

was received by our Cultural Resources Management Department on 3 September 2019, pursuant

to CEQA (as amended, 2015) and CA PRC 21080.3.1. The majority of the proposed project area exists

outside of Serrano ancestral territory, as the southernmost portion of their territory extends only

partially into Riverside and Beaumont/Banning, though includes all of Colton, Loma Linda, and

Redlands. As the entirety of the western segment of the project area, which terminates at its east

end in Colton, will utilize existing infrastructure and result in no new ground disturbance, SMBMI

does not have concerns with that portion of the project within ancestral territory. However, the

portion from Colton to Beaumont/Banning within the eastern segment of the project area is both

within the Tribe’s ancestral territory and will be subjected, at least partially, to new ground

disturbance. As such, this is the Tribe’s area of concern, and the Tribe elects to consult on this

project, as it pertains to this area, under CEQA.

For your knowledge, there are at least two Sacred Lands Files (SLFs) within the Loma

Linda/Redlands/Colton area that may or may not be impacted by the proposed project. Given the

higher level locational information provided within the project notice, it is difficult to ascertain the

exact location(s) of proposed disturbance, and whether those resources are likely to be impacted.

The cultural resource information provided to the Tribe is equally high level, and consists of solely a

record search. As such, SMBMI is requesting the following information (at least for the ColtonBanning/Beaumont area), at this time:

- Cultural report

- Project plans showing the proposed depth of disturbance within the project footprint
The provision of this information will assist San Manuel Band of Mission Indians in ascertaining how

the Tribe moves forward in consultation. Please note that some e-mails do not come through due to

size restrictions for attachments, and neither the recipient nor sender are aware that the e-mail was

rejected. As a result, should you not receive a response within 1 week of your e-mail that SMBMI

received the documentation, please reach out with a separate e-mail so that I can create a

SecureShare folder for receipt of consultation documents. Conversely, if you elect to send the

documents by mail, we can accept paper copies or digital copies on a disc.

If you should have any questions with regard to this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at

your convenience, as I will be your Point of Contact (POC) for SMBMI with respect to this project.

However, please be aware that I will be out of the office on leave from 9/12 and 9/29 – I will review

and respond to all CEQA backlog the week of 9/30.

Once again, the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians appreciates the opportunity to comment on the

proposed project.

Respectfully,

Jessica Mauck

CULTURAL RESOURCES ANALYST

O: (909) 864-8933 x3249

M: (909) 725-9054

26569 Community Center Drive Highland California 92346

 

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS

ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT

FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended

recipient or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby

notified that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have

received this electronic transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying it

and notify the sender by reply e-mail so that the email address record can be corrected. Thank You

For suspicious emails please contact the IT Service Desk at extension 4500 or (909) 863-5700.

If you are on your Outlook client, report the suspicious email by clicking on Report Phish icon

in your Outlook toolbar.

If you are on a mobile device, forward the suspicious email to spam@sanmanuel.com.

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS

ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT

FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby

notified that any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have

received this electronic transmission in error, please delete it from your system without copying it

and notify the sender by reply e-mail so that the email address record can be corrected. Thank You

For suspicious emails please contact the IT Service Desk at extension 4500 or (909) 863-5700.

If you are on your Outlook client, report the suspicious email by clicking on Report Phish icon

in your Outlook toolbar.

If you are on a mobile device, forward the suspicious email to spam@sanmanuel.com.

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR

ENTITY TO WHICH IT IS ADDRESSED AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT

IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE UNDER

APPLICABLE LAW. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or agent

responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that

any dissemination or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have

received this electronic transmission in error, please delete it from your system without

copying it and notify the sender by reply e-mail so that the email address record can be

corrected. Thank You