NORTH RAIL CONNECTOR

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

October 2021
North Rail Connector Project 

Environmental Assessment 

PREPARED BY: 

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

Pursuant to: 

National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.), and implementing regulations (40 CPR Parts 

1500-1508), 23 CPR Part 771 ; 23 U.S.C. § 139; Section 4(f) of the United States Department of 

Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. § 303) and implementing regulations (23 CPR Part 774); National Historic 

Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. § 306101 et seq.) and implementing regulations (36 CPR Part 800); Clean Air 

Act as amended (42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq.) and implementing regulations (40 CPR Parts 51 and 93); the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1531-1544) and implementing regulations (50 CPR Part 

402); the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251-1387) and implementing regulations (33 CPR Parts 320 to 

324 and 40 CPR Part 230); and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) 

Public Law 94-265 as amended by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 

Reauthorization Act (P.L. 109-479) and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition 

Policies Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 4601). 

APPROVED: 

DATE Marlys Osterhues 

Chief 

Environment and Project Engineering Division 

Federal Railroad Administration 

The following person may be contacted for information on the Environmental Assessment: 

AMANDA MURPHY 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

Environment and Project Engineering Division 

Office oflnfrastructure Investment 

Federal Railroad Administration 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Amanda.murphy2@dot.gov 

MARLYS A 

10/20/2021 OSTERHUES 

Digitally signed by MARLYS A 

OSTERHUES 

Date: 2021.10.20 16:13:26 -04'00' 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

 iii 

ABSTRACT 

The United States Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in 

cooperation with the Jackson County Port Authority (JCPA) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in 

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to evaluate the potential environmental 

impacts for the proposed North Rail Connector Project (Project), which would construct a rail line to connect 

an existing rail owned by Mississippi Export Railroad (MSE) that crosses over the Escatawpa River in Moss 

Point, Mississippi to existing JCPA owned rail line that crosses through the Moss Point Industrial and 

Technology Complex (MPITC) and provides access to the Port of Pascagoula Bayou Casotte Harbor. 

FRA is administering Fiscal Year 2018 funding for the Project under Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety 

Improvement (CRISI) grant program and is the lead federal agency under NEPA. The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE) is a cooperating agency for this EA, due to their role in Project and the need for a Clean 

Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit for the proposed Project. The Southern Rail Commission (SRC) is the 

recipient of the CRISI grant funding, JCPA is the Project Sponsor and rail owner, and MSE is the railroad 

operator. JCPA is conducting engineering design and acting in coordination with SRC and FRA. JCPA will be 

responsible for obtaining necessary permits, construction, and any mitigation requirements. MSE, as operator, 

will acquire right-of-way without using federal funds, and will be responsible for maintenance activities. The 

new rail will be granted to MSE after 1,000 rail cars are exchanged across the North Rail Connector. 

The purpose of the proposed Project is to provide additional railroad capacity and connectivity between existing 

infrastructure to support the growing needs of the Port of Pascagoula, Bayou Casotte Harbor. The proposed 

Project is needed to remove operational conflicts between railroads, reduce congestion, and accommodate the 

proposed restoration of passenger rail service. 

The proposed Project is located in Section 19, Township 7 South, and Range 5 West of Jackson County, MS. 

The anticipated improvements consist of construction of approximately 2,852 feet of elevated rail and 807 feet 

of rail constructed on fill or existing uplands for a total length of 3,659 feet. There would be approximately 

39,261 square feet (0.9 acres) that will be filled at the pile abutments for the elevated rail and in an area of 

estuarine wetland which will require 2,649 cubic yards of fill. The elevated rail and rail on fill would be 

constructed in new right of way that is being acquired with private funds. In addition, to support the Project, a 

staging area would be established within the MPITC in an area that was recently used as a staging area. The 

staging area would be approximately 1 acre in size. Work site access locations would be from existing rail or 

from existing access points. The estimated timeframe for construction is approximately 12-24 months, once 

JCPA obtains necessary permits and other approvals. 

This EA evaluates and assesses the environmental impacts of the proposed Project. This EA examines a Build 

Alternative and a No Build Alternative. FRA has selected the Build Alternative as the Preferred Alternative. 

The EA is prepared pursuant to: NEPA (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.), and implementing regulations (40 CFR Parts 

1500-1508), 23 CFR § 771; 23 U.S.C. § 139; Section 4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation 

Act (49 USC §303) and implementing regulations (23 CFR Part 774); National Historic Preservation Act (54 

USC §306101 et seq.) and implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800); Clean Air Act as amended (42 USC 

§7401 et seq.) and implementing regulations (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93); the Endangered Species Act of 1973 

(16 USC §1531- 1544) and implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 402); the Clean Water Act (33 USC §1251-

1387) and implementing regulations (33 CFR Parts 320 to 324 and 40 CFR Part 230 and the Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and Management Act Public Law 94-265 as amended by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (P.L. 109-479) and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and 

Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 4601). 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

 iv 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED ...................................................................................................................... 10

1.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 10

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED .................................................................................................................. 11

2.0 ALTERNATIVES ............................................................................................................................... 13

2.1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................... 13

2.1.1 Alternatives Considered But Removed From Further Consideration...................................... 13

2.2 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE ......................................................................................................... 14

2.3 BUILD ALTERNATIVE ................................................................................................................ 15

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT........................................................................................................... 17

3.1 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................................... 19

3.2 WATER QUALITY ........................................................................................................................ 21

3.3 NOISE AND VIBRATION............................................................................................................. 22

3.4 WETLAND AREAS ....................................................................................................................... 23

3.5 FLOODPLAINS AND COASTAL ZONE ..................................................................................... 23

3.6 ENDANGERED SPECIES ............................................................................................................. 24

3.6.1 Federally Listed Species.......................................................................................................... 24

3.6.2 State Listed Species................................................................................................................. 25

3.6.3 Essential Fish Habitat .............................................................................................................. 26

3.7 ENERGY USE ................................................................................................................................ 26

3.8 AESTHETIC AND DESIGN QUALITY ....................................................................................... 26

3.9 LAND USE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES............................................................................ 27

3.10 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT.......................................................................................... 27

3.11 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE...................................................................................................... 28

3.12 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS......................................................................................................... 29

3.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................................................ 29

3.13.1 Section 106 Consultation......................................................................................................... 30

3.14 SECTION 4(F) PROPERTIES........................................................................................................ 30

3.15 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL........................................................................................................... 31

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES.......................................................................................... 32

4.1 AIR QUALITY ............................................................................................................................... 34

4.1.1 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................... 34

4.1.2 Build Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 34
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

 v 

4.2 WATER QUALITY ........................................................................................................................ 36

4.2.1 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................... 36

4.2.2 Build Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 36

4.3 NOISE AND VIBRATION............................................................................................................. 37

4.3.1 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................... 37

4.3.2 Build Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 37

4.4 WETLAND AREAS ....................................................................................................................... 39

4.4.1 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................... 39

4.4.2 Build Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 39

4.5 FLOODPLAINS AND COASTAL ZONE ..................................................................................... 40

4.5.1 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................... 40

4.5.2 Build Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 40

4.6 ENDANGERED SPECIES ............................................................................................................. 40

4.6.1 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................... 40

4.6.2 Build Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 41

4.7 ENERGY USE ................................................................................................................................ 41

4.7.1 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................... 41

4.7.2 Build Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 41

4.8 AESTHETIC AND DESIGN QUALITY ....................................................................................... 42

4.8.1 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................... 42

4.8.2 Build Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 42

4.9 LAND USE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES............................................................................ 42

4.9.1 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................... 42

4.9.2 Build Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 43

4.10 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT.......................................................................................... 43

4.10.1 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................... 43

4.10.2 Build Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 43

4.10.2.1 Employment Impacts........................................................................................................... 43

4.10.2.2 Freight Transportation Impacts ........................................................................................... 44

4.10.2.3 Traffic Impacts .................................................................................................................... 44

4.11 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE...................................................................................................... 44

4.11.1 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................... 44

4.11.2 Build Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 44

4.12 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS......................................................................................................... 45
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

vi

4.12.1 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................... 45

4.12.2 Build Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 46

4.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES............................................................................................................ 46

4.13.1 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................... 46

4.13.2 Build Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 46

4.14 SECTION 4(F) PROPERTIES........................................................................................................ 47

4.14.1 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................... 47

4.14.2 Build Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 47

4.15 SOLID WASTE DISPOAL............................................................................................................. 47

4.15.1 No Build Alternative ............................................................................................................... 47

4.15.2 Build Alternative ..................................................................................................................... 47

5.0 PUBLIC AND AGENCY COORDINATION.................................................................................... 48

5.1 PUBLIC COORDINATION ........................................................................................................... 48

5.2 AGENCY COORDINATION......................................................................................................... 48

FIGURES

Figure 1.1 – Main Line and Proposed Project 

Figure 2.1 – Build Alternative 

Figure 3.1 – Resource Survey Areas

TABLES 

Table 3-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards....................................................................................... 20

Table 3-2 Attainment Classifications and Definitions.................................................................................... 21

Table 3-3 List of Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Species................................................................ 25

Table 4-1 Anticipated Impacts to Affected Environment Resources for the Build Alternative..................... 32
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

 vii 

APPENDICES

• Appendix A – Figures

o Project Overview Map

o Project Detail Sheets, C2.0-C2.3 

o Alternative Project Locations 

• Appendix B – MDEQ Air Quality Data Summary 

• Appendix C – Escatawpa River Phase One Total Maximum Daily Load for Mercury

• Appendix D – Noise and Vibration Report

• Appendix E – Wetland Delineation Report 

• Appendix F – FEMA FIRM Map 

• Appendix G – IPaC Report 

o USFWS Consultation Letters

• Appendix H – Photographs of the Proposed Project Area

o Proximity to Residential Properties 

• Appendix I – Census Data for Project Area

 Drawings Showing Right of Way

• Appendix J – 2019 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 

• Appendix K – Section 106

o FRA Designation Letter 

o Section 106 Cultural Resources Report

o SHPO and THPO Consultation Letters 

• Appendix L – Agency Consultation/Correspondence

• Appendix M – Pre-NEPA Meeting Attendees

• Appendix N - USACE List of Agencies Contacted 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

 viii 

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Notation Definition

μg/m3 micrograms per cubic meter

ABRT Alabama Red-Bellied Turtle

APE Area of Potential Effect

CAA Clean Air Act

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CAN Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

CO carbon monoxide

CRISI Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement 

CWA Clean Water Act

CZM Coastal Zone Management 

CZMA Coastal Zone Management Act 

DMR Department of Marine Resources 

EA Environmental Assessment

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EJ Environmental Justice

EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact 

FRA Federal Railroad Administration

FTA Federal Transit Administration

GHG greenhouse gas

GIS geographic information system

IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation

JCPA Jackson County Port Authority 

LOD Limit of Disturbance

MBCI Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians 

MDAH Mississippi Department of Archives and History 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

 ix 

MDEQ Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

MPITC Moss Point Industrial and Technology Complex 

MSA Magnuson – Stevens Fishery and Conservation Management Act

MSE Mississippi Export Railroad 

MSRP Mississippi State Rail Plan 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NHPA National Historic Preservation Act

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service 

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NWPR Navigable Waters Protection Rule

O3 ozone

Pb lead

PM Particulate Matter

PRMP Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan 

ppb parts per billion

ppm parts per million

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 

ROW Right-of-Way

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SRC Southern Rail Commission 

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USC United States Code

USDOT United States Department of Transportation 

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Services 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

10 | Page

1.0 PURPOSE AND NEED

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The United States Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) in 

cooperation with the Jackson County Port Authority (JCPA) prepared this Environmental Assessment (EA) in 

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to evaluate the potential environmental 

impacts for the proposed North Rail Connector Project (Project). FRA is administering Fiscal Year 2018 

funding for the Project under Consolidated Rail Infrastructure and Safety Improvement grant program and is 

the lead federal agency under NEPA. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is a cooperating agency 

for this EA, because they intend to issue a Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 permit for the proposed 

Project. The Southern Rail Commission (SRC) is the recipient of the CRISI grant funding. The Jackson County 

Port Authority (JCPA) is the Project Sponsor and rail owner, and MSE is the railroad operator. JCPA is 

conducting engineering design and acting in coordination with SRC and FRA. JCPA will be responsible for 

obtaining necessary permits, construction, and any mitigation requirements. MSE, as operator, will acquire 

right-of-way without using federal funds and be responsible for maintenance activities. The new rail will be 

granted to MSE after 1,000 rail cars are exchanged across the North Rail Connector. 

Planning efforts began in 2012 when JCPA received a TIGER grant for rail improvements from Bayou Casotte 

to the MPITC. Project location and design were evaluated but funding was not available at that time. JCPA 

continued future planning for the North Rail Connector and worked with the State legislature to obtain funding 

for the proposed Project. In 2017, JCPA obtained a RESTORE grant for planning assistance for the North Rail 

Connector. Rail design and permitting were included in the RESTORE scope of work and completed in June 

2020. 

The Project would construct a rail line to connect an existing rail owned by Mississippi Export Railroad 

(MSE) to rail that is owned by JCPA. The MSE line crosses over the Escatawpa River in Moss Point, 

Mississippi and the JCPA owned rail line crosses through the Moss Point Industrial and Technology Complex

(MPITC) and provides access to the Port of Pascagoula, Bayou Casotte Harbor. The proposed Project would 

be approximately 3,659 linear feet with 2,852 feet of elevated rail and 807 feet of non-elevated rail constructed 

on an area of marsh wetlands that will be filled and an area of existing uplands. An existing grade crossing 

on Orange Grove Road would be relocated approximately 475 feet to the west to allow for the curve needed 

to accommodate the train lengths and speed. The existing MSE rail at the west end (just south of the 

Escatawpa River) would need to be adjusted to allow insertion of a turn out to join with the new elevated rail 

line. For construction, a staging area would be established within the MPITC in an area that was recently used 

for the same purpose. The staging area would be approximately 1 acre in size.

The location of the proposed Project would be in Section 19, Township 7 South, and Range 5 West of Jackson 

County, MS. The approximate center point of the proposed rail is at 30.415546 degrees latitude and -

88.514452 degrees longitude. The new rail resulting from the Project would extend from mile post 2.89 

(30.251207/-88.310005) on the north and extend to mile post 2.05 (30.413308/-88.508269) on the east where 

it would join existing rail that runs to the Kreole Interchange located within the MPITC. 

The Project Area is located mostly within undeveloped marsh and wooded uplands. The Project Area is 

bordered on the north by the tidal marsh that borders the Escatawpa River; on the west by tidal marsh followed 

by the existing MSE rail line and the Highway 63 high-rise bridge; on the south by wooded uplands and 

residential properties along Orange Grove Road/Elder Street; and on the east by wooded uplands. The 

residential area in general was developed when the former International Paper Mill (now the MPITC) was in 

operation from the early 1900’s until approximately 2001. There is one residence that would be approximately 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

11 | Page

175 feet south of the new rail (there is existing rail greater than approximately 600 feet south of this property). 

Six other residences would be approximately 100-150 feet south of the new rail, which is further away than 

the existing rail. The existing rail would be abandoned and relocated to the north side of Orange Grove Road

within the proposed project footprint. There are no sidewalks along the Orange Grove Road and it is not a 

corridor to commercial development. There is additional residential development between 200 and 1000 feet 

of the proposed rail on the south side. These residences consist of rental properties that are duplex apartments 

and single-family residences. All of the residential structures in the area were constructed in the 1950’s and 

1960’s. There is no commercial development within 1000 feet. There is one church approximately 500 feet 

from the southeast end of the existing and proposed new rail. There is an electric substation located 

approximately 500 feet south of the proposed new rail alignment. 

The North Rail Connector would move the current interchange of MSE and CSX (the Pascagoula Interchange) 

from the western portion of CSX’s main line in Pascagoula (between Market Street and Pascagoula Street) to 

the north near the new interchange yard (the Kreole Interchange) located within the MPITC. The Project

leverages improvements completed as part of a TIGER 2013 Project for the Port of Pascagoula to allow trains 

to access MSE’s railroad more effectively and ease congestion on the CSX main line for both freight and 

future passenger rail traffic.

1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED

The purpose of the proposed Project is to provide additional railroad capacity and connectivity between 

existing infrastructure to support the growing needs of the Port of Pascagoula, Bayou Casotte Harbor. 

Currently, freight trains that travel from the north on the MSE line must pass through downtown Moss Point 

and Pascagoula to the Pascagoula Interchange to join CSX rail. This operation regularly blocks vehicular 

traffic and creates delays at four major roadway intersections. Also, the geometry of the curve between the 

existing MSE line that joins with the existing rail line that enters into the MPITC is too tight to allow trains 

that may have up to 60 cars to travel through. The proposed Project is needed to remove operational conflicts 

between railroads, reduce congestion, and accommodate the proposed restoration of passenger rail service. 

The need for the proposed Project is supported by the following goals: 

1. Achieve a more streamlined and seamless interchange of operations between MSE and CSX; 

2. Remove freight operations from CSX’s rights-of-way (ROW) along its main line that could aid in 

reducing congestion and accommodating other freight operations;

3. Reduce potential conflicts with the proposed, restored intercity passenger rail service from New 

Orleans, LA to Mobile, AL; and, 

4. Allow MSE to operate longer trains that are pulled by six-axle locomotives as the current track has a 

tight curve that is hard for larger trains to navigate.

The current main line and the proposed Project are shown on Figure 1.1. 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

12 | Page

Figure 1.1
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

13 | Page

2.0 ALTERNATIVES

2.1 INTRODUCTION 

This section reviews the alternatives development process and describes both the No Action Alternative and 

the Build Alternative. The Build Alternative is the Preferred Alternative. Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations for NEPA define a reasonable alternative as those that are technically and economically 

feasible, meet the purpose and need for the proposed action, and, where applicable, meet the goals of the 

applicant. While the No Build Alternative does not meet the purpose and need of the Project, it is considered

in this EA as a requirement of NEPA and to serve as a baseline for which to compare the impacts of the Build 

Alternative. 

2.1.1 Alternatives Considered But Removed From Further Consideration

Several alternatives were considered and were determined to not meet the purpose and need of the proposed 

Project, or could not be reasonably constructed. These alternatives considered the rail location, which would 

determine the length of rail required and various construction methods and are shown on Figure 3 in Appendix 

A. All alternatives considered were located within a 100-year floodplain. These alternatives included: 

• Rail on fill through 4,800 feet of marsh wetlands – This alignment was permitted by USACE ), and the 

Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (DMR), received water quality certification from the 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and concurrence from US Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration/ National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NOAA/NMFS) and Mississippi Department of Archives and History (MDAH). This alignment crossed 

over marsh, freshwater forest and uplands and included approximately 3,576 linear feet through marsh 

and through 1,115 feet of forested wetlands. The rail would cross over 107 feet of uplands. This alignment 

was proposed to be constructed by filling the alignment from the south end working towards the north 

and using the previously filled area to access further along the alignment, so the areas outside of the fill 

area would not be impacted. Silt fence would be placed along the Project footprint to prevent fill from 

moving outside of the Project area. This alignment would impact 3.73 acres of marsh and 1.16 acres of 

freshwater forested wetlands for a total of approximately 4.89 acres. Permittee responsible mitigation was 

required and JCPA would be required to create a similar amount of tidal marsh to compensate for the 

impacts. A public hearing sponsored by DMR was held in January 2020 for this alignment. No comments 

were received in response to the public hearing. 

This alternative construction method and alignment was permitted, however, additional geotechnical 

work performed on the previously permitted alignment Project footprint indicated that subsurface 

conditions were not suitable for construction on fill. In order to meet the geotechnical requirements, there 

would need to be two layers of fill on a footprint twice as wide as initially designed. Subsidence and 

compaction could cause unacceptable maintenance issues with the rail constructed on fill. This drove up 

the estimated costs to more than other construction methods and alignments. The initial estimated 

construction cost was approximately $15 million, and the revised construction cost estimate was 

approximately $33 million. This alignment and construction method did meet the proposed Project’s 

purpose and need. However, due to the environmental and human risks inherent in the potential for future 

subsidence, and high estimated costs, this alternative was not reasonable. 

• Using existing rail line – JCPA considered using the existing MSE rail line that crosses under Highway 

63 and joins the main line at the MSE rail yard on the west side of Highway 63, however, this route 

includes a tight curve that would not be safe for unit trains (trains that are 50-60 cars long) to travel. This 

section of rail also is flooded on a frequent basis. Use of this section of rail has been discontinued due to 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

14 | Page

safety considerations. Trains are not permitted to travel on a rail that is under water. The planned rail 

traffic will need to travel at approximately 20-25 miles per hour in order to make rail use economically 

advantageous. This alternative does not meet the proposed Project’s purpose and need. For this reason, 

this alternative is not reasonable.

• Alternative alignments that avoided marsh – Two alternate alignments (2a and 2b, seen on Figure 3 in 

Appendix A) were considered that established an acceptable radius that would allow the trains to maintain 

the optimal speed. These alignments required the rail to be added south of the existing MSE rail line and 

impacted several single-family residential properties. In addition, these alignments would pass under a 

portion of the Highway 63 bridge which would not provide enough vertical clearance for the trains to 

pass underneath. An acceptable vertical clearance for a main line rail is 22 feet. The two alignments 

considered only provided 21’7” and 20’7” of clearance. This alternative does not meet the proposed 

Project’s purpose and need and is infeasible due to the engineering constraints. For these reasons, this 

alternative is not reasonable.

• An alternative construction method – An alternative construction method utilizing sheet pile was

considered. This would involve driving sheet pile along the layout, filling in between the sheet pile and 

constructing the rail line on top of the fill. This allows a narrower footprint; however, it is significantly 

more expensive than filling and involves additional heavy equipment to drive the sheet piles that would 

damage additional wetlands outside of the rail footprint and does not eliminate the potential for 

subsidence. The estimated permanent impact is approximately 1.6 acres with an additional 1.6 acres of 

temporary impact to marsh that would need to be restored after construction. This alternative would meet 

the proposed Project’s purpose and need, but due to the high estimated costs, damage to wetlands outside 

of the proposed Project footprint, and the potential for subsidence, this alternative is not reasonable. 

• Construction of elevated rail in permitted footprint of approximately 4,800 linear feet – Construction of 

a combination of elevated rail and construction on fill was considered in the permitted alignment. This 

alternative would reduce the amount of fill (approximately 2.75 acres) discharged into the alignment but 

construction costs for this length of elevated rail were estimated at approximately $33 million (more than 

double the original estimate of $15 million). In addition, the method for building an elevated railroad at 

this location could require construction from barges or construction of a temporary access road adjacent 

to the railroad alignment resulting in additional destruction of the wetland habitat. The area was 

previously impacted by construction of power lines that cross the area and continues to be impacted by 

power line maintenance activities and it does not appear that the marsh vegetation has recovered. This 

alternative would meet the proposed Project’s purpose and need, but based on the high estimated costs, 

required construction methods and destruction of wetland habitat, this alternative is not reasonable.

2.2 NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE 

Under the No Build Alternative, a new rail layout to connect MSE and the JCPA line at the interchange 

located within the MPITC would not be constructed. The connectivity and capacity of the line would remain 

unchanged. The existing rail line that passes through downtown Moss Point and Pascagoula would remain 

operational and conflicts with MSE and CSX freight operations would continue to occur at the downtown 

Pascagoula Interchange. Rail would not be freed up for use for the potential passenger rail operations planned 

for the area. 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

15 | Page

2.3 BUILD ALTERNATIVE

The Build Alternative layout is shown on Figure 2.1. A detailed Project overview map and Project detail sheets 

are included in Appendix A, Project Overview Map and Sheets 2.0-2.3. The proposed Project would begin at 

mile post 2.89 south of the Escatawpa River swing bridge and end at mile post 2.05 where it ties into existing 

rail that provides access to the MPITC. The new single-track rail would be constructed at the same elevation 

as the existing rail, however, it will be constructed on pilings instead of on fill. Construction would be from 

existing rail in order to avoid impacts to the marsh outside of the proposed footprint. The rail bed would be 15 

feet wide and the elevation would be approximately 5 feet above the mean high tide. New right of way would 

be established for the portion of the rail that crosses over marsh. The rail would cross over some existing 

undeveloped private property and MSE is in the process of obtaining right of way through these parcels. MSE 

provided JCPA their Acquisition and Relocation Policies that are used for obtaining the right of way. These 

policies were adopted by the Board of MSE railroad and implement the procedures defined in the Uniform 

Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended (42 U.S.C. § 4601). 

The proposed Build Alternative would cross over approximately 3,265 feet of marsh wetlands and 394 feet of 

uplands. This distance over the wetlands would allow use of elevated rail. This alternative includes 2,852 feet 

of elevated rail over marsh, approximately 413 feet of rail on fill through marsh and 394 feet of new or modified

rail on uplands. An existing road crossing over Orange Grove Road would be relocated approximately 475 feet 

to the west to provide a curve that will accommodate longer trains and faster speeds. This alternative would 

impact approximately 0.90 acres of wetlands from fill at the elevated rail pilings and abutments and through 

the 413 feet of marsh. Mitigation would be required, and a draft Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan has 

been prepared and submitted to NMFS, USACE and DMR for review and approval. The plan includes creation 

of approximately 1.0 acres of tidal marsh. Engineers estimates to construct this alternative layout indicate that 

the cost would be approximately $15 million. 

Permits required for the Project include Section 404 from the USACE for impacts to marsh wetlands, Coastal 

Zone Consistency from the DMR, and Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the MDEQ. Project

advertisement and bidding would begin once all permits are received which is anticipated to be late 2021 to 

early 2022. Construction is anticipated to last approximately one year. 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

16 | Page

Figure 2.1
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

17 | Page

3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

The EA is prepared pursuant to: NEPA (42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq.), and implementing regulations (40 CFR 

Parts 1500-1508), 23 CFR § 771; 23 U.S.C. § 139; Section 4(f) of the United States Department of 

Transportation Act (49 USC §303) and implementing regulations (23 CFR Part 774); National Historic 

Preservation Act (54 USC §306101 et seq.) and implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800); Clean Air Act 

as amended (42 USC §7401 et seq.) and implementing regulations (40 CFR Parts 51 and 93); the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973 (16 USC §1531-1544) and implementing regulations (50 CFR Part 402); the Clean Water 

Act (33 USC §1251-1387) and implementing regulations (33 CFR Parts 320 to 324 and 40 CFR Part 230) ); 

and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) Public Law 94-265 as 

amended by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (P.L. 109-

479). 

Each resource with a potential to be affected, either temporarily during construction or permanently as a result 

of operation of the completed Project, is discussed in the sections below. This section describes the current 

environment for each resource potentially affected by the Project and presents the underlying laws, Executive 

Orders, and methodologies for assessing Project impacts. The limits of disturbance for the proposed Project

and the associated construction staging area are collectively referred to as the Project Area. Study Areas vary 

and were determined by resource. The Study Area for each resource is shown on Figures 3.1. Discussion of 

potential impacts for each resource are included in Section 4.0, Environmental Consequences.

The following resources are not present within the Study Area or would not be impacted by construction or 

operation of the Project: recreational opportunities. Therefore, this resource is not discussed further in this 

document. Effects to public health are discussed in several of the resource areas listed below. Effects to 

transportation are discussed in the socioeconomic environment section. The following resources were 

evaluated in this Environmental Assessment:

• Air Quality

• Water Quality

• Noise and Vibration

• Wetland Areas

• Floodplains

• Endangered Species

• Use of Energy Resources

• Aesthetic and Design Quality

• Socioeconomic Environment

• Environmental Justice

• Hazardous Materials

• Cultural Resources

• Section 4(f) Properties 

• Solid waste disposal
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

18 | Page

Figure 3.1 Resource Study Areas 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

19 | Page

3.1 AIR QUALITY

The Clean Air Act (CAA) is the statute regulating air quality in the United States, which requires the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 

designate areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS, and subsequently approve state plans for achieving 

those standards. The NAAQS are established for six criteria pollutants including carbon monoxide (CO), 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), lead (Pb), particulate matter (PM; particulate matter sized 10 microns or 

less [PM10] and particulate matter sized 2.5 microns or less [PM2.5]), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). 

The CAA Amendments of 1990 and the Final Transportation Conformity Rule (40 Code CFR Parts 51 and 

93) direct the EPA to implement environmental policies and regulations that ensure acceptable levels of air 

quality. In addition to the CAA, other major regulations within the Project Area that apply to the potential air 

quality impacts of transportation Projects include:

• The General Conformity Rule, 40 CFR part 93 subpart B

• 11 Mississippi Administrative Code, Part 2, Chapter 1 Amended May 24, 2018, Air Emission 

Regulations for the Prevention, Abatement, and Control of Air Contaminants

Pursuant to CAA requirements, the EPA establishes, enforces, and periodically reviews the NAAQS. The 

NAAQS are set to safeguard public health and environmental welfare against the detrimental impacts of 

outdoor air pollution and are defined as primary and/or secondary standards. Primary NAAQS are healthbased standards geared toward protecting sensitive or at-risk portions of the population such as asthmatics, 

children, and the elderly. Secondary NAAQS are welfare oriented and are designed to prevent decreased 

visibility and damage to animals, vegetation, and physical structures. See Table 3-1, National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards for information on standards.
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

20 | Page

Table 3-1 National Ambient Air Quality Standards

The EPA designates areas as either meeting (attainment) or not meeting (nonattainment) the NAAQS. An 

area with measured pollutant concentrations which are lower than the NAAQS is designated as an attainment 

area, and an area with pollutant concentrations that exceed the NAAQS is designated as a nonattainment area. 

Once a nonattainment area meets the NAAQS and the additional re-designation requirements in the CAA, the 

EPA will designate the area as a maintenance area. Ozone nonattainment areas are further classified as 

extreme, severe, moderate, or marginal. An area is designated as unclassifiable when there is a lack of 

sufficient data to form the basis of an attainment status determination. The EPA’s area designations are shown 

in Table 3-2. 

 Source: EPA National Ambient Air Quality Standards, (NAAQS) 1990 

https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/naaqs-table
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

21 | Page

Table 3-2 Attainment Classifications and Definitions

Note: Ozone thresholds are for locations inside an Ozone Transport Region (OTR). 

Classification Definition

Attainment Area is in compliance with the NAAQS.

Unclassified Area has insufficient data to make determination and 

is treated as being in attainment.

Maintenance Area once classified as nonattainment but has since 

demonstrated attainment of the NAAQS.

Nonattainment Area is not in compliance with the NAAQS.

Source: USEPA, De-Minimis Levels, 

http://www.epa.gov/oar/genconform/deminimis.html. 

The CAA requires states to develop a general plan to attain and/or maintain the primary and secondary 

NAAQS in all areas of the country and to develop a specific plan to attain the standards for each area 

designated nonattainment for a NAAQS.

The Project Area is located in Jackson County, which is in attainment for all criteria pollutants, pursuant to 

the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 and, therefore, it is not subject to review under the EPA’s 

General Conformity Rule. Consequently, a development of emissions inventories of criteria pollutants of the 

Project was not necessary and not performed for General Conformity evaluation purposes. The MDEQ 2020 

Air Quality Data Summary is included in Appendix B. Information presented for Jackson County indicates 

that Jackson County is in attainment. 

Diesel combustion also releases air toxins and greenhouse gases (GHGs), pollutants for which many states 

have established reduction programs. GHG emissions are a result of fossil fuel combustion in vehicles and 

diesel trains. Greenhouse gases contribute to climate change which is described by the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as any significant change in the measures of climate lasting for an 

extended period of time (several decades or longer). The State of Mississippi has not established a GHG 

reduction program. 

The methodology for considering the impact of the Project to air quality uses a qualitative approach to 

evaluate existing conditions using available data sources for the area, identify construction related emission 

sources and identify potential impacts from operation of the build alternative. The Study Area for evaluation 

of air quality impacts includes the Project Build Alternative footprint and a local evaluation to include the 

nearby residential neighborhood and a regional evaluation to include the cities of Moss Point and Pascagoula

in an approximately five mile radius. 

No sensitive air quality receptors, such as residences, schools, or parks are located within the proposed Project

footprint. Seven residential properties are located within the local Study Area, approximately 200 feet south 

of the proposed Project. Industrial and commercial developments are located between approximately 1500 

and 3000 feet from the Project. 

3.2 WATER QUALITY

The Project crosses brackish marsh wetlands south of the Escatawpa River. Waters of the United States are 

protected from water pollution by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (as amended by the Clean Water 

Act of 1972) and/or by state-specific water quality regulations as managed by the Mississippi Department of 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

22 | Page

Environmental Quality. Any discharge of stormwater must comply with the states’ National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit conditions for stormwater discharges from construction 

activities.

The methodology for considering the impact of the Project to water quality uses a qualitative approach to 

evaluate existing conditions using available data sources for the area, identify construction related discharges 

to the Project Area and identify potential impacts from operation of the Build Alternative. This includes 

evaluation of the waters within the Project footprint and the adjacent estuary within 500 feet that is subject to 

tidal flow for any limitations on discharges associated with Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) for the 

water body. The evaluation also identifies any sensitive areas such as wetlands or fish habitat. The MDEQ 

report “Escatawpa River Phase One Total Maximum Daily Load For Mercury”, dated 2000, was reviewed 

for information on the water quality status for the proposed Project area. A copy of the MDEQ report is 

included in Appendix C. The Study Area for evaluation of water quality impacts includes the Project footprint 

and surrounding estuary. 

3.3 NOISE AND VIBRATION

Guidance has been developed by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) for conventional rail noise and 

vibration impact assessments, and FRA has developed complementary guidance for high-speed rail. FTA 

transit noise and vibration impact assessment procedures (FTA Manual) are relied on by FRA in evaluating 

improvements to conventional passenger rail lines and stationary rail facilities and for assessments of horn 

noise and vibration. 

A noise and vibration assessment was conducted in order to assess potential noise and vibration impacts as a 

result of construction and operation of the Project. The assessment report is attached as Appendix D and 

presents a Traffic Noise and Vibration Assessment that includes a screening and a general assessment. The 

methodology for the noise and vibration assessment is included in the attached report and uses a qualitative 

and quantitative approach to evaluate existing conditions and the changes to the area as a result of 

implementation of the Build Alternative. 

The identification of the Study Area was conducted using the Screening Procedure defined in the FTA 

Manual. The Study Area for the noise and vibration evaluation was determined to be 1600 feet radius around 

the rail footprint. The land use surrounding the Project location is classified as Class 2 (i.e., Residential) as 

per the FTA Manual. In the FTA manual, the Residential Category also encompasses “buildings where people 

normally sleep”, including hotels. As per this definition, the Project Area is classified as residential for the 

purposes of the noise and vibration analysis. The surrounding land uses were identified based on physical 

observation of the Project Area as well as information available from the tax assessor geoportal of Jackson 

County. Based on the results of the screening procedure a General Assessment was conducted to determine 

direct impacts from the Project. The General Assessment is used to evaluate potentially impacted areas 

identified in the Study Area by examining the location and estimated severity of noise and vibration direct 

impacts.

In addition to the Traffic Noise and Vibration Assessment, the CREATE Railroad Noise Model (Harris, 

Miller, Miller & Hanson Inc, 2006) was used to evaluate the noise impact from the resumption of rail traffic 

in the residential area south of Orange Grove Road. The model considers inputs such as rail type (passenger 

vs. freight), speeds, type of track, hours of operation, shielding and distance to a sensitive receptor. 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

23 | Page

3.4 WETLAND AREAS

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged and 

fill material into waters and wetlands of the United States. Activities within waters of each state are also 

regulated by each state’s regulatory body. In Mississippi, the DMR has regulatory authority to permit Projects 

that impact wetlands and administers the Mississippi Coastal Program (Title 22, Part 23) and the Coastal 

Wetlands Protection Law (49-21-1). 

The methodology for considering the impact of the Project to wetlands uses a quantitative approach to 

evaluate existing conditions using available data sources for the area, identify construction related discharges 

to the Project Area and identify potential impacts from operation of the Build Alternative. A project-specific 

Wetland Delineation Report was used to quantify wetlands in the Project Area (included in Appendix E). By 

comparing the Project footprint and construction methods with the location of wetlands, the impact on the 

wetlands was determined. 

The Study Area for evaluation of wetland impacts includes the proposed Project footprint and adjacent upland 

areas within approximately 500 feet that would be used for mitigation purposes. 

A wetland delineation was conducted for the Project area in January 2020. Results of the investigation are

included in the Wetland Delineation Report attached as Appendix E. Tidal wetlands were identified in the 

Project footprint. A Section 404 wetland permit is required to construct Project the Build Alternative. 

Additional coordination with USACE Mobile District, the Mississippi DMR, and the MDEQ is necessary for 

Project approval. This coordination is ongoing as part of the environmental permitting process prior to 

construction.

3.5 FLOODPLAINS AND COASTAL ZONE 

Executive Order 11988 “Floodplain Management” requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible 

the long and short-term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains and 

to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative.

In accordance with Executive Order 11988 “Floodplain Management” as amended by Executive Order 12148, 

USDOT Order 5650.2, Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR) Part 635A, and US DOT Order 5650.2 

(Floodplain Management and Protection), the Project Area was evaluated for possible impacts to floodplains. 

Based on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) for 

Moss Point, Mississippi, portions of the ROW are within mapped 100-year floodplains (see Appendix F). 

The methodology for considering the impact of the Project to the floodplain uses a qualitative approach to 

evaluate existing conditions using available data sources for the area, identify construction related discharges 

to the Project Area and identify potential impacts from operation of the build alternative. A significant impact 

to floodplains from a project would be one that meets the definition of a significant encroachment in USDOT 

Order 56505.2. The evaluation also considers the impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values, the 

degree to which the action provides direct or indirect support for development in the floodplain and measures 

to minimize harm or to restore or preserve the natural and beneficial floodplain values affected by the Project. 

The Study Area for evaluation of floodplain impacts includes the Project footprint, the surrounding estuary 

and nearby upland areas that are adjacent to and within approximately 500 feet of the project footprint. The 

Project involves construction in areas already impacted from existing railroad tracks and construction of new 

rail line over undeveloped tidal marsh. The elevation of the rail on pilings would be similar to that on fill 

which is approximately five feet above mean high tide. Stormwater drainage features on the existing rail will 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

24 | Page

be modified to incorporate drainage from the proposed new rail line. The Federal Coastal Zone Management 

Act (CZMA) of 1972 encourages coastal states to manage development within the states’ designated coastal 

areas, reduce conflicts between coastal developments, and protect resources within the coastal zone. 

Requirements for federal approval of Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Programs and grant application 

procedures for development of the state programs are included in 15 CFR Part 923, CZM Program 

Development and Approval Regulations. The CZMA requires that federal activities within a state’s coastal 

zone be consistent with that state’s coastal zone management plan.

The Office of Coastal Resources Management is responsible for implementing the Mississippi Coastal 

Program, which was mandated by the Legislature in Section 57-15-6 of the Mississippi Code of 1972 and 

approved by NOAA. Coastal Zone Management is provided by the Mississippi Department of Marine 

Resources. Programs administered by DMR include Coastal Preserves, Invasive Species, Wetlands 

Permitting and Beneficial Use. 

The methodology for considering the impact of the Project to the coastal zone uses a qualitative and 

quantitative approach to evaluate existing conditions using available data sources for the area, identify 

construction related discharges to the Project Area and identify potential impacts from operation of the Build 

Alternative. The Study Area for evaluation of coastal zone impacts includes the Project footprint and the 

surrounding estuary. The Project involves construction in areas already impacted from existing railroad tracks 

and construction of new rail line over undeveloped tidal marsh. A Coastal Use Consistency determination 

would be required for the proposed Project. Jackson County Port Authority received a permit (DMR 000346) 

from DMR on September 16, 2021 to construct the project as presented. 

3.6 ENDANGERED SPECIES

The methodology for considering the impact of the Project to endangered species and essential fish habitat 

uses a qualitative and quantitative approach to evaluate existing conditions using available data sources for 

the area, identify construction related discharges to the Project Area and identify potential impacts from 

operation of the Build Alternative. Desktop analysis and consultation with federal and state agencies were 

conducted in order to determine potential suitable habitat and presence of threatened and endangered species 

and critical habitat within the Project Area. Temporary and permanent impacts were considered. The Study 

Area for evaluation of impacts to endangered species includes the proposed Project footprint, the surrounding 

estuary, the proposed mitigation area and nearby upland areas that are within approximately 100 feet of marsh 

vegetation. 

3.6.1 Federally Listed Species 

Threatened and endangered species are legally protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended

(ESA). In accordance with Section 7 of the ESA, the Project Study Area was evaluated for potential 

occurrences of federally threatened and endangered species. The ESA requires any Federal agency that funds, 

authorizes, or carries out an action to ensure that their action is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence 

of any endangered or threatened species (including plant species) or result in the destruction or adverse 

modification of designated critical habitats (FEMA 1996).

Desktop analysis via the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) System lists thirteen

federally listed endangered, threatened or candidate speciesthat could potentially be located within the Project

Area. These threatened, endangered or candidate species are:
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

25 | Page

Table 3-3 List of Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Species

Group Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status 

Amphibians Rana sevosa Dusky gopher frog Endangered 

Birds Laterallusjamaicensis 

jamaicensis 

jamaicensis 

Eastern Black Rail Threatened

Birds Grus canadensis pulla Mississippi sandhill crane Endangered

Birds Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered

Ferns and Allies Isoetes louisianensis Louisiana quill wort Endangered 

Fishes Acipenser oxyrinchus desotoi Gulf sturgeon Threatened 

Fishes Percina aurora Pearl darter Candidate

Mammals Trichechus manatus West Indian manatee Endangered 

Mammals Ursus americanus luteolus Louisiana black bear Threatened 

Reptiles Chelonia mydas Green sea turtle Endangered 

Reptiles Dermochelys coriacea Leatherback sea turtle Endangered

Reptiles Eretmochelys imbricata Hawksbill sea turtle Endangered

Reptiles Caretta caretta Loggerhead sea turtle Threatened 

Reptiles Gopherus polyphemus Gopher tortoise Threatened 

Reptiles Graptemys flavimaculata Yellow-blotched map turtle Threatened 

Reptiles Lepidochelys kempii Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle Endangered 

Reptiles Pseudemys alabamensis Alabama red-bellied turtle Endangered 

Source: United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Official Species List, February 15, 2021

Review of the habitat requirements for the above referenced species indicates that with the exception of the 

Alabama red-bellied turtle, the Project area is not suitable habitat for these threatened and endangered species. 

The IPaC report is included in Appendix G. 

3.6.2 State Listed Species

In Mississippi, protection for state-listed threatened and endangered species is required via the Nongame and 

Endangered Species Conservation Act (Miss. Code Ann. § 49-5-101 to 49-5-119). The Mississippi 

Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks provides a list of threatened and endangered species that may be 

present in the state. The State list was compared with the Federal list and no additional state species of concern 

were identified. 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

26 | Page

3.6.3 Essential Fish Habitat 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) Public Law 94-265 as amended 

by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Reauthorization Act (P.L. 109-479) 

mandates that federal agencies conduct an essential fish habitat (EFH) consultation with National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries on any actions they authorize, fund, or undertake that 

may adversely affect EFH. An adverse effect is any impact that reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH. 

Adverse effects may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological alterations of the waters or 

substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their habitat, and other ecosystem 

components. Adverse effects to EFH may result from actions occurring within EFH or outside of EFH and 

may include site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic 

consequences of actions.

The estuarine waters near the Escatawpa Rivers and in the Project Area provide EFH for three species or 

groups of species. Through consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 1 , it was 

determined that EFH surrounding the Project Area is present for coastal red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), 

brown shrimp (Farfantepenaeus aztecus), and white shrimp (Litopenaeus setiferus). 

3.7 ENERGY USE

Relevant regulations and executive orders include 23 CFR Part 771 Environmental Impact and Related 

Procedures, Executive Order 12815, Conservation of Petroleum and Natural Gas (44 F.R. 75093), and 

Executive Order 13990 Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the 

Climate Crisis. The proposed Project would be approximately 3,659 linear feet of new rail line that will 

potentially eliminate the need for approximately 19,600 linear feet (3.7 miles) of existing rail through 

downtown Moss Point and Pascagoula. 

The methodology for considering the impact of the Project to energy use uses a qualitative approach to 

evaluate existing conditions using available data sources for the area, identify construction related energy 

resources/uses in the Study Area and identify potential impacts from operation of the build alternative. 

Temporary and permanent impacts were considered. Data from the USDOT Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics was used to evaluate potential changes in energy use associated with the Project. 

The Study Area for evaluation of impacts to energy use includes the transportation system in the Project Area 

and throughout Moss Point and Pascagoula. This Study Area was chosen because the Project involves 

potential reduction of freight traffic and reduction of idling at road crossings by closure of these road 

crossings. 

3.8 AESTHETIC AND DESIGN QUALITY

The Project is located in an area that is characterized partially as undeveloped marsh and partially prior 

developed rail providing access to an industrial facility. The marsh is already crossed by existing rail and 

high-power electrical transmission lines. The existing rail is constructed on fill and has been part of the 

viewshed since the early 1900s. The surrounding area is generally developed with industrial facilities along 

the Escatawpa River to the north and with residential development to the south. The residential are developed

around the location of the former International Paper Company paper mill during the early 1900s. The 

1 National Marine Fisheries Service, March 23, 2021.
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

27 | Page

proposed new rail line would be similar in characteristics to the existing rail although a portion would be built 

on pilings instead of fill. The elevation of the rail on pilings would be similar to that on fill which is 

approximately five feet above mean high tide. 

The methodology for considering the impact of the Project to aesthetics and design quality uses a qualitative 

approach to evaluate existing conditions using available data sources for the area, identify the affected 

population, identify construction related impacts in the Study Area and identify potential impacts from 

operation of the Build Alternative. Temporary and permanent impacts were considered. 

The Study Area for evaluation of impacts to aesthetics and design includes the Project footprint and 

surrounding areas within approximately 1⁄2 mile radius that can be observed from the nearby residential 

properties, businesses that are along the Escatawpa River, and from boats or roadways. Photographs of the 

Study Area are included in Appendix H. 

3.9 LAND USE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES 

The proposed Project is located within undeveloped brackish marsh and on uplands and is surrounded by 

similar land uses. There is existing rail line, power lines and elevated highway in the Project Area. An existing 

single family residential neighborhood is approximately 175 feet south of the eastern portion of the Project. 

Seven homes are separated from the Project footprint by Orange Grove Road and wooded vegetation. The 

Project is located within the city limits of Moss Point, Mississippi and is zoned Heavy Industrial within the 

Project Area. 

The methodology for considering the impact of the Project to land use and community facilities uses a 

qualitative approach to evaluate existing conditions using available data sources for the area, identify 

construction related impacts in the Study Area and identify potential impacts from operation of the Build 

Alternative. Temporary and permanent impacts were considered. 

The Study Area for evaluation of impacts to land use and community facilities includes the Project footprint 

and surrounding areas within a 1⁄2 mile radius that can be observed from the nearby residential properties, 

businesses, or roadways. A drawing showing the proximity of the single family home to the Project Area is 

shown on Figure 4 in Appendix H. Photographs of the Study Area are included in Appendix H. 

3.10 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

This EA considers the Project’s Projects potential to impact the socioeconomic environment—including 

available jobs, community disruption or cohesion, demographic shifts, and the need for and availability of 

relocation housing, as well as impacts on existing businesses and local government services and revenues. 

The Study Area for socioeconomics includes Jackson County and the city of Moss Point, Mississippi. 

According to Census.gov Quickfacts for the Study Area, the municipalities have a total population of 

approximately 143,617 residents. The predominant racial groups in the Study Area’s municipalities are 

black/African American and Caucasian, which together comprise approximately 85 percent of the population. 

The majority of the residents in the Study Area are non-Hispanic in ethnicity (93.2 percent to 97.7 percent 

non-Hispanic by geographic area). Within Moss Point, the area that would be directly affected by the 

proposed Project, the race is predominately black/African American (69.8 %) while Caucasians are 25.3% of 

the population. The percentage of the population in poverty within Moss Point is 22.2% and within Jackson 

County is 15.1 %. Census data reports from the Census.gov Quickfacts website are included in Appendix I. 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

28 | Page

According to the Mississippi State Rail Plan (MSRP) dated 2011, freight rail plays a prominent role in the 

livability and sustainability of a community. The ability to efficiently transport goods and create access to 

economic centers is critical to the overall success of a region’s economy. Time wasted due to transportation 

inefficiency and congestion has significant impacts on profitability and the ability to attract new business to 

a region.

The efficiency of rail freight is especially important in rural areas where agriculture, local industries and 

communities rely on freight shipping. Many communities have seen a loss or reduction in rail freight services 

in recent years. Improving, expanding and preserving the rail network can improve the competitive stature of 

local industries, agriculture and communities. A revitalized rail line can lower shipping costs, provide pricing 

power for local industries and agriculture vis-à-vis trucking, provide redundancy in the transportation 

network, and shield local industries and agriculture from predicted increases in the cost of fossil fuel.

The methodology for considering the impact of the Project to the socioeconomic environment uses a 

qualitative approach to evaluate existing conditions using available data sources for the area, identify 

construction related impacts in the Study Area and identify potential impacts from operation of the Build 

Alternative. Evaluation of impacts to employment, to freight transportation and other transportation types 

were considered. Temporary and permanent impacts were also considered. 

The Study Area for evaluation of impacts to socioeconomics includes the Project footprint and surrounding 

residential and commercial areas as well as the cities of Moss Point and Pascagoula. 

3.11 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income 

Populations) requires agencies to analyze the environmental effects of a project on minority and low-income 

communities and to avoid the disproportionate placement of high and adverse environmental, economic, 

social, or health impacts from federal actions and policies on minority and low-income populations. 

An Environmental Justice (EJ) analysis was completed for the Project and conducted in accordance with 

Executive Order 12898 and included several steps: defining the Study Area, identifying minority and lowincome populations, identifying any high and adverse human health or environmental impacts, and 

determining whether any high and adverse impacts would disproportionately affect minority or low-income 

populations.

The Study Area for the EJ analysis includes a 1,000-foot buffer around the Project. Census data was evaluated 

for all tracts that overlap with the Study Area. Census tracts within the Study Area were examined to 

determine the presence of minority and low-income populations. A potential EJ area is one that has a minority 

(non-white and/or Hispanic) population that exceeds 50 percent and/or a low-income (below poverty level) 

population that exceeds 20 percent of the tract’s total population. The City of Moss Point is considered an 

Environmental Justice Area and the census tract within the Study Area is also considered an EJ area. Census 

data was obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau Quick Facts website and is included in Appendix I. 

The residential area near the proposed new rail line in general was developed when the former International 

Paper Mill (now the MPITC) was in operation from the early 1900’s until approximately 2001. There is one 

residence that would be approximately 175 feet south of the new rail (no existing rail is within approximately 

600 feet of this property) and six residences that would be approximately 100-150 feet south of the new rail. 

These six residences are approximately 75-125 feet south of existing rail; therefore, the new rail would be 

further away than existing conditions. The existing rail would be relocated to the north side of Orange Grove 

Road. There is additional residential development between 200 and 1000 feet of the proposed rail on the south 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

29 | Page

side of the rail. These residences consist of rental properties that are duplex apartments and single-family

residences. All of the residential structures in the area were constructed in the 1950’s and 1960’s. There is 

no commercial development within 1000 feet. There is one church approximately 500 feet from the southeast 

end of the existing and proposed new rail.

The proposed Project alignment would require obtaining new ROW within seven undeveloped privately 

owned parcels. These parcels are located within the Study Area for the EJ analysis.2 There are no structures 

located within the areas to be obtained for ROW. There would be no relocations of residential or commercial 

properties. Drawings showing the parcel and ROW location are included in Appendix I. 

3.12 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

Hazardous materials are substances in quantities or forms that may pose a reasonable risk to health, property, 

or the environment. Hazardous waste, as defined by the EPA is any waste material “ solid, liquid, or gaseous 

“that because of its quantity, concentration, or physical, chemical or infectious characteristic may cause or 

significantly contribute to an increase in mortality, serious irreversible illness, or incapacitating reversible 

illness; or pose a substantial present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly 

treated, stored, transported or disposed of, or otherwise managed. Hazardous wastes can be liquids, solids, 

gases, or sludges. They can be discarded commercial products, like cleaning fluids or pesticides, or the byproducts of manufacturing processes. A 2019 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (see Appendix J) 

prepared for the previously permitted alignment (see 2.1.1), included the Project Area in the search radius. 

No facilities that would potentially use, store, or dispose of hazardous materials in a way that would create a 

recognized environmental condition were identified within, adjacent to, or within a 1⁄2-mile radius of the 

Project Area. According to ASTM 1527-13, Environmental Site Assessments should only be relied on for 

six months from the date of preparation. A site-specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment will be 

prepared for the Project within 6 months of construction. 

The methodology for considering the impact of the Project associated with hazardous materials includes a 

qualitative approach to evaluate existing conditions using available data sources for the area, identify 

construction related impacts in the Study Area and identify potential impacts from operation of the Build 

Alternative. Temporary and permanent impacts were considered. 

The Study Area for evaluation of hazardous materials impacts includes the proposed Project footprint and 

construction staging area. 

3.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended (54 U.S.C. 

306108) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800), FRA is required to take into account the 

effects of the Project on historic properties. USACE designated FRA as lead federal agency for Section 106 

purposes, and to streamline and fulfill collective Federal responsibilities under 36 CFR 800.2(a)(2), in a 

letter dated January 28, 2021 (Appendix K). 

A historic property, as defined in the NHPA, is any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or 

object included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Eligibility 

2 The Project Sponsor plans to purchase new right-of-way (ROW) on undeveloped land to support the Project. The ROW 

purchase will not involve Project funds and is mentioned in this document to provide additional context for the analysis. 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

30 | Page

criteria for listing a property in the NRHP are found at 36 CFR Part 60. National Register criteria for 

evaluation are: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and 

culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, objects that possess integrity of location, design, 

setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that:

A. are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our

history; or 

B. are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 

C. embody the distinctive characteristics of type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the 

work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable 

entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

D. have yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory or history.

3.13.1 Section 106 Consultation

FRA initiated Section 106 consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) 3 and Federally 

recognized tribes (the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians [MBCI] and the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma

[CNO]) on April 13, 2021 and provided them a Phase I Cultural Resources Survey. The survey was prepared 

to identify archaeological or architectural historic properties within the area of potential effect (APE). 

The Study Area for cultural resources is known as the APE, which is defined as the “geographic area or areas 

within which an undertaking may directly or indirectly cause alterations in the character or use of historic 

properties, if any such properties exist” (36 CFR Part 800.16). The APE was established based on the nature, 

size, and scale of the Project. The APE includes consideration for both direct and indirect effects. The 

archaeological APE is defined at the Project limit of disturbance (LOD) and encompasses one continuous 

survey area identified as the footprint for the proposed rail layout. In consultation with SHPO, the 

architectural APE was defined as encompassing a 50-foot buffer around the archaeological APE (See the 

CRS report, Figure 3.13.1 in Appendix K). 

No historic properties were identified in the APE. Copies of consultation letters and the Phase I Cultural 

Resource Survey are provided in Appendix K.

3.14 SECTION 4(F) PROPERTIES

Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 specifies that a transportation Project requiring 

the use of publicly owned parks, recreation areas, historic sites ( publicly or privately owned), wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges, and many other types of resources can be approved only if there is no feasible and prudent 

alternate to using that land and if the Project is planned to minimize harm to the property. These types of 

properties are often referred to as Section 4(f) resources. 

The methodology for considering the impact of the Project associated with Section 4(f) properties was to

evaluate existing conditions using available data sources for the area (including the results of Section 106 

consultation with SHPO), identify construction related impacts in the Study Area and identify potential 

3 Mississippi Department of Archives and History (MDAH)
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

31 | Page

impacts from operation of the Build Alternative. The Study Area for evaluation of Section 4(f) properties 

included the proposed Project footprint and properties within a 1000-foot radius of the Project footprint. 

There are no publicly owned parks, recreation areas, historic sites (publicly or privately owned), wildlife and 

waterfowl refuges or other types of publicly owned lands within the Study Area. 

3.15 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

Solid waste disposal includes the management of solid waste created by the Project and potential impact to 

solid waste disposal sites. Non-hazardous solid waste is defined in the Resource and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

Section 4001 of Subtitle D as any garbage, refuse, sludge from a wastewater treatment plant, water supply 

treatment plant or air pollution control facility and other discarded materials including solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material, resulting from industrial, commercial, mining and agricultural 

operations. The State of Mississippi regulates solid waste disposal in 11 Mississippi Administrative Code 

Part 4, Chapter 1 – Non-hazardous Solid Waste Management Regulations. 

The methodology for considering the impact of the Project associated with solid waste disposal was to 

evaluate existing conditions using available data sources for the area, identify construction related impacts in 

the Study Area and identify potential impacts from operation of the Build Alternative. The Study Area for 

evaluation of solid waste impacts associated with the Project included the proposed Project footprint and local 

and county solid waste disposal facilities. 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

32 | Page

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES

This section discusses the impacts from the No Build Alternative and from construction and operation of the 

Build Alternative for each resource described in Section 3.0, Affected Environment. This chapter also 

identifies mitigation for the Project’s environmental effects, where appropriate. As Project Sponsor, JCPA 

is responsible for all mitigation. Sections 4.1 through 4.14 discuss the anticipated impacts for the Build and 

No Build alternatives. 

As defined in CEQ regulations 1508.1(g), effects or impacts means changes to the human environment from 

the proposed Project that are reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal relationship to the 

proposed action or alternatives. Effects can occur at the same time and place as the proposed Project or may 

occur later in time or farther removed in distance. Table 4-1 summarizes the anticipated impacts to the affected 

environment for the Build Alternative.

Table 4-1 Anticipated Impacts to Affected Environment Resources for the Build Alternative

Affected Environment Resources Anticipated Impacts – Build Alternative 

Air Quality Construction: Minor and temporary impacts due 

to construction activities. 

Operational: Long term net benefit due to 

decrease of vehicle emissions from freight 

volume transferring from highways to rail 

system. 

Water Quality Construction: Minor and temporary impacts due 

to construction activities. Construction 

discharges are controlled by implementation of 

a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. 

Operational: No long term impacts associated 

with operation of the Project. 

Noise and Vibration Construction: minor and temporary impacts due 

to construction activities (trucks and heavy 

equipment operation) may occur. Temporary 

vibration impacts from pile driving. 

Operational: Two properties are within the 

Moderate Impact zone for noise. These 

properties are in an area where the railroad 

already exists, so there are no new impacts from 

the Build Alternative. No properties would be 

significantly negatively impacted by vibration

associated with operation of the Project. No long 

term impacts to adjacent properties. 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

33 | Page

Wetland Areas Construction: Permanent impact due to 

approximately 0.90 acres of wetland from 

filling. Impact is mitigated by creation of 1.0 

acres of tidal wetlands. 

Operational: None

Floodplains Construction: Fill of 413 linear feet of marsh 

and would reduce the floodplain function at this 

location. Filling of approximately 0.90 acres of 

wetlands would be offset by creation of 

approximately 1.0 acre of tidal wetlands. This is 

“in kind” wetland creation and would allow the 

floodplain function of flood protection to 

continue. 

Operational: No reduction in the function of the 

floodplain due to operation of the Project. With 

implementation of the Project’s in-kind tidal 

wetland creation, there would be no significant 

encroachment on floodplains as defined in US 

DOT Order 5650.2. 

Endangered Species or Wildlife Construction: Temporary disturbance of the 

area during construction. 

Operational: No long term adverse impact.

USFWS concurs that filling of wetlands “may 

effect but is not likely to adversely affect” the 

Alabama Red-bellied Turtle. With 

implementation of the PRMP, NMFS concurs 

the proposed Project would not have an adverse 

effect on EFH in the area. Project

Use of Energy Resources Construction: Minor impacts due to 

construction activities. 

Operational: Long term beneficial impacts. 

Aesthetic and Design Quality Impacts Construction: Minor and temporary due to the 

presence of construction equipment. 

Operational: None

Land Use and Community Facilities Construction: None

Operational: None

Socioeconomic Environment Construction: Temporary positive impacts to 

employment and income from construction 

activity. 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

34 | Page

Operational: Fuel and cost savings related to 

freight shipping. Long term positive impacts to 

employment at the Port of Pascagoula and 

potential tenants. 

Environmental Justice Construction: None

Operational: None 

Public Safety and Hazardous Materials Construction: None

Operational: None 

Cultural Resources Construction: None

Operational: None 

Section 4(f) Properties Construction: None

Operational: None 

Solid Waste Disposal Construction: Minor and temporary due to 

construction waste

Operational: None

4.1 AIR QUALITY 

4.1.1 No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would involve no action to construct a new rail layout to connect MSE and the 

JCPA line at the interchange located within the MPITC. The existing rail line that passes through downtown 

Moss Point and Pascagoula would remain operational and conflicts with MSE and CSX freight operations 

would continue to occur at the downtown Pascagoula Interchange. Disruption to vehicular traffic increases 

idling time, and therefore associated GHG emissions would remain unchanged. Continued use of the MSE 

mainline would continue to result in emissions from freight engines. Rail would not be freed up for use for 

the potential passenger rail operations planned for the area Increased emissions of criteria pollutants and air 

toxins would result from the predicted increase in truck traffic related to the transport of freight. No construction 

activities are associated with the No Build Alternative; therefore, no temporary or permanent impacts to air 

quality from construction would occur.

4.1.2 Build Alternative 

The Project is located within an attainment area for all air pollutants. The Build Alternative would result in 

minor and temporary effects to local air quality and GHG emissions due to the various emission sources 

associated with construction. These construction activities are not anticipated to exceed attainment area 

thresholds because of the type of equipment and construction methods that would likely be used; therefore, 

the Project would not have a significant impact on climate change as it is not anticipated to exceed air pollution 

thresholds. 

Pollutant emissions during construction would occur from emissions from on-site diesel equipment, increased 

truck traffic to and from the construction site, and fugitive dust as a result of vehicle travel on paved/unpaved 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

35 | Page

roadways. Most of the work is being constructed within the marsh environment over water and dust emissions 

will not occur for this portion of the rail construction. The only unpaved area is within the MPITC which is 

separated from the nearby paved roads and residential properties by a forested strip of land. Therefore, 

increases in dust emissions during construction would not impact the nearby residential properties and best 

management practices would be implemented for dust management if needed. 

Although the Build Alternative would not cause any major adverse impacts during construction, minor 

emissions impacts are anticipated from operation of construction equipment, however, compliance with all 

applicable laws and regulations would reduce pollutant emissions from construction activity. In order to 

mitigate emissions, construction activities would be performed in accordance with construction level BMPs. 

Strategies that would be considered during construction include:

• use of dust suppression measures such as a water truck on unpaved areas;

• apply water suppression at least twice a day to all active construction areas to minimize dust;

• tarp all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require that all trucks maintain at least two 

feet of freeboard;

• use water sweepers to sweep all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites 

daily, use water sweepers to sweep all streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public 

streets;

• hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas 

inactive for ten days or more);

• enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.);

• limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour;

• introduce appropriate erosion control measures to reduce sediment runoff to public roadways;

• replant vegetation as quickly as possible to minimize erosion in disturbed areas;

• use alternative fuels for construction equipment;

• when feasible, minimize equipment idling time, and maintain properly tuned equipment

The Build Alternative would generally result in a long-term net benefit to regional air quality by reducing 

emissions of criteria pollutants and air toxins from truck traffic and idling. The Project would result in 

improvements to air quality in and around Moss Point and Pascagoula due to removing the existing main line 

through these cities. Various data sources indicate that freight transport by rail and water vessels generate 

significantly less environmental impacts and costs than truck transport. Based on the ton-mile, rail and water 

transportation are significantly more efficient than truck transportation. As reported in the Mississippi State 

Rail Plan4 produced by the Mississippi Department of Transportation (2011), the fine particle matter (PM2.5) 

impact per million ton-miles of rail and water transport is approximately one-tenth of truck transport (0.0158 

and 0.0128 versus 0.1126, respectively). Similarly, the nitrogen oxide (NO2) emission tons per ton-mile 

4 Mississippi Department of Transportation, Mississippi State Rail Plan – 2011.
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

36 | Page

traveled for rail and water transport are approximately one fifth of truck transport (0.5954 and 0.5171 versus 

2.8549, respectively). 

Rail traffic through areas of vehicular traffic congestion increases vehicle idling time. An hour of automobile 

idling burns approximately one-fifth of a gallon of gas and releases nearly 4 pounds of CO2 into the air5

. 

Excessive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere can contribute to diminished air quality. Relocation of the main 

line to a less populated and congested location will reduce congestion and idling time and thereby reduce 

emissions of CO2 and NO2 into the atmosphere. This reduction would also result in reduction of potential 

impacts to climate change. 

Overall, the operation of the proposed Project would not adversely affect air quality at the local or regional

level; therefore, the Project would not result in any long-term impacts to climate change. When considered 

with other improvements, the proposed Project would result in benefits to air quality.

4.2 WATER QUALITY 

4.2.1 No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would involve no action to construct a new rail layout to connect MSE and the 

JCPA line at the interchange located within the MPITC. The existing rail line that passes through downtown 

Moss Point and Pascagoula would remain operational and conflicts with MSE and CSX freight operations 

would continue to occur at the downtown Pascagoula interchange. Rail would not be freed up for use for the 

potential passenger rail operations planned for the area. No construction activities are associated with the No 

Build Alternative; therefore, no temporary or permanent impacts to water quality would occur.

4.2.2 Build Alternative

According to the MDEQ report “Escatawpa River Phase One Total Maximum Daily Load For Mercury”, 

dated 2000, the Project is located within the Escatawpa River watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code 0317008)6

. 

The Escatawpa River is divided into three sub-watersheds with the Project Area located within area 3, the 

downstream segment. No advisories have been issued for this segment of the Escatawpa River. 

Potential impacts to water quality associated with the Project would be related to stormwater runoff. The 

Build Alternative is not expected to cause an increase in stormwater runoff, generate wastewater, or 

significantly alter surface or subsurface drainage to the waterbody. No impacts to water quality resulting 

from stormwater runoff from operation of the Project are anticipated. 

The Build Alternative would involve construction over water and construction on uplands. As part of the 

Section 404 wetland permit for the Project, JCPA applied for a 401 Water Quality Certification. On June 1, 

2020, EPA finalized the “Clean Water Act Section 401 Certification Rule” to implement the water quality 

certification process consistent with the text and structure of the CWA. The final rule establishes procedures 

that promote consistent implementation of CWA Section 401 and regulatory certainty in the federal licensing 

and permitting process. In accordance with the 401 Certification Rule, JCPA submitted a prefiling meeting 

request to the MDEQ, the Certifying Authority, on November 24, 2020. The prefiling meeting was held on 

December 4, 2020. MDEQ requested an updated Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and a 

Construction Notice of Intent, which JCPA provided to MDEQ on December 14, 2020. The SWPPP includes 

5 Mississippi Department of Transportation, Mississippi State Rail Plan – 2011. 6 MDEQ TMDL Report for Escatawpa River. 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

37 | Page

measures to prevent discharge of sediment to the environment. MDEQ provided final Water Quality 

Certification on March 12, 2021. A copy of the correspondence associated with water quality certification is 

included in Appendix L. 

Stormwater runoff during construction would be managed by using best management practices including silt 

fence or turbidity curtains. Stormwater management from the upland portion of the Project would be tied into 

the stormwater management features of the existing rail. 

4.3 NOISE AND VIBRATION

4.3.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would involve no action to construct a new rail layout to connect MSE and the 

JCPA line at the interchange located within the MPITC. The existing rail line that passes through downtown 

Moss Point and Pascagoula would remain operational and conflicts with MSE and CSX freight operations 

would continue to occur at the downtown Pascagoula interchange. Rail would not be freed up for use for the 

potential passenger rail operations planned for the area. No construction activities are associated with the No 

Build Alternative; therefore, no temporary or permanent impacts to noise and vibration would occur.

4.3.2 Build Alternative 

A noise and vibration assessment was conducted in order to assess potential noise and vibration impacts as a 

result of construction and operation of the Project. Construction activities would include pile driving for the 

elevated rail portion of the Project, and operation of heavy equipment for the entire Project footprint. 

Operation of the Project would include two trips per day with horn blows required at one crossing. The 

assessment report, attached as Appendix D, presents a Traffic Noise and Vibration Assessment for the Project. 

Calculations to evaluate the impacts from pile driving are also included in Appendix D. 

Construction Phase 

The Project would have moderate, temporary impacts to noise and vibration issues during the construction 

phase. Pile driving would be required during the construction phase for the elevated portion of the new rail 

line. Pile driving would take approximately 3 months to complete and would occur during daytime hours on 

weekdays only. The nearest sensitive noise receptor to the new rail line where pile driving would occur is a 

residence (4950 Crane Street), approximately 437 feet to the southeast. Using the FTA Manual and referenced 

in the Manual computer software Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM) by the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA), no impacts from pile driving were determined for both noise and vibration 

calculated at 437 feet from pile driving location. The equivalent sound level (Leq) was calculated at 75 dBA 

and peak ground vibration (PPV) below 0.05 inches per second (ips). The FTA Manual provides construction 

noise criteria in Table 7-3 for residential use Leq at 80 dBA (daytime). The FTA Manual Table 7-5 provides 

the vibration damage criteria with the lowest PPV at 0.12 ips for buildings extremely susceptible to vibration 

damage. The category of non-engineered timber and masonry buildings are listed at PPV 0.2 ips. The 

calculated ground motion generated by pile driving at 437 feet are significantly lower than these included in 

Table 7-5. 

Other noise and vibration impacts would result from the operation of heavy equipment and trucks accessing 

the project area. Construction would occur only in daylight hours and most trucks and heavy equipment would 

enter the construction area from the east, through the existing MPITC. These construction impacts would be 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

38 | Page

temporary. Construction noise would be limited to daytime hours at various locations along the Project 

corridor. The construction noise impacts would be mitigated as necessary by implementing the following:

• Avoid nighttime construction in residential neighborhoods.

• Locate stationary construction equipment as far as possible from noise sensitive sites. Re-route 

construction-related truck traffic along roadways that will cause the least disturbance to residents. 

• Monitor and maintain equipment to meet noise limits.

• Minimize the use of generators to power equipment.

• Limit use of public address systems.

Operation Phase 

There would be no significant long-term noise and vibration impacts from operation of the Project. Operation 

phase of the Project would allow relocating the MSE rail line out of downtown Pascagoula and Moss Point 

reduce long-term noise impacts in these areas. Operational noise and vibration would be associated with the 

transit of one freight train two times per day. The train would generally be travelling from north to south in 

the morning and from south to north in the afternoon. No night time operation would occur. A portion of the 

rail would be relocated further away from existing residential structures from approximately 66 feet to 

approximately 90 feet from the nearest residence (6101 Elder Street). The rail would be moved from 

approximately 70 feet to approximately 108 feet for a second residence that is close to the project footprint. 

This would reduce the operational noise and vibration impacts to these residences in the area. 

The noise screening procedure described in the FTA manual evaluates impacts associated with operation of 

the rail line. The procedure identified the screening distance as 1600 feet from the center line of the rail and 

identified the land use category as Residential. Numerous noise receptors were identified within this screening 

distance; therefore, a General Assessment was conducted. Using FTA methodology most residential 

structures were within the No Impact category and two residential structures were identified within the 

Moderate Impact category with a 2 dB increase above the generic existing noise level. The total noise 

exposure to these two residences from operation of the North Rail Connector was calculated as 62 dB which 

is in the range of conversational speech or a household air conditioner. Potential mitigation measures such as 

construction of a wall were considered. However, since the residential structures have been subject to 

operation of the existing railroad since they were constructed, and the decibel level is similar to conversational 

speech or a household air conditioner noise impacts from operation of the Build Alternative is not a significant 

increase and does not warrant mitigation. 

The Screening Procedure for vibration impacts was conducted according to the FTA Manual. The screening 

distance was determined according to Table 6-8 of the manual which established a screening distance of 200 

feet for residential use. Seven receptors were identified within this distance therefore, a general vibration 

assessment was conducted. The vibration level was determined using the base curves in the FTA manual and 

application of the relevant adjustments to the estimated level. This resulted in a calculated vibration level 

(VdB) for the nearby receptors that ranged from 73 to 79.5. The acceptable indoor ground borne vibration 

levels presented in Table 6-3 of the FTA manual for Category 2 land use is 80 VdB. Therefore, there are no 

receptors where the acceptable indoor ground-borne vibration levels are exceeded. 

The CREATE Railroad Noise Model (Harris Miller Miller & Hanson Inc, 2006) was used to evaluate the 

horn noise impact from the resumption of rail traffic in the residential area south of Orange Grove Road. The 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

39 | Page

model considers inputs such as rail type (passenger vs. freight), speeds, type of track, hours of operation, 

shielding and distance to a sensitive receptor. Using an average of 2 trains per 8 hour permit (0,25 trains/hour, 

the, the noise level was estimated at Ldn from all sources being 57 dB, the Leq daytime being 58 dB, and the 

Leq nighttime being 44 dB. Since these estimated noise levels are less than 65 dB, the noise impact is not 

significant. A printout of the noise model results is included in Appendix D. 

4.4 WETLAND AREAS

4.4.1 No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would involve no action to construct a new rail layout to connect MSE and the 

JCPA line at the interchange located within the MPITC. The existing rail line that passes through downtown 

Moss Point and Pascagoula would remain operational and conflicts with MSE and CSX freight operations 

would continue to occur at the downtown Pascagoula interchange. Rail would not be freed up for use for the 

potential passenger rail operations planned for the area. No construction activities are associated with the No 

Build Alternative; therefore, no temporary or permanent impacts to wetlands would occur.

4.4.2 Build Alternative

The Build Alternative would cross over 3,265 linear feet of tidal marsh. Elevated rail would cross over 

approximately 2,852 linear feet of marsh and approximately 413 feet of marsh would be filled for 

construction. There would be fill at the abutments to the elevated area and sheet pile would be driven at the 

turnout location at the north end of the proposed Project. This would result in approximately 0.90 acres of 

permanent fill in the tidal marsh and result in impacts to EFH for various life stages of federally managed 

species, including red drum, brown shrimp, and white shrimp. The primary categories of EFH affected by 

Project implementation, are estuarine emergent wetlands, estuarine water column, and estuarine water 

bottoms.

Construction of the proposed Project would require a permit from the US Army Corps of Engineers(USACE). 

JCPA prepared and submitted a Joint Notification and Permit Application to the Mississippi DMR and 

USACE. Project information was submitted to USACE and a permit is anticipated to be issued as soon as this 

EA is published and a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is issued (if appropriate). The permit 

application describes the construction details and environmental impacts which include filling 0.90 acres of 

wetlands and describes the need for and method of required mitigation. 

Mitigation to compensate for the impact by filling 0.90 acres of tidal wetland, would be implemented. There 

are currently no resources available to allow purchase of mitigation credits for tidal marsh impacts. Therefore, 

JCPA prepared a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan (PRMP) in accordance with USACE guidelines. The 

mitigation plan involves JCPA creating an appropriate amount of tidal wetlands that will be in-kind to those 

impacted by fill. A copy of the PRMP was provided to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) who 

provided correspondence that they agreed that implementation of the plan would adequately address the 

impacts to the marsh habitat. NMFS correspondence stated “The NMFS finds the EFH assessment, 

alternatives analysis, and draft PRMP dated March 2021, provided by FRA includes sufficient information to 

ensure adverse impacts to EFH would be adequately offset through a PRMP to create approximately 1.0 acre 

of tidal marsh habitat. With implementation of the PRMP, NMFS concurs the proposed Project would not 

have an adverse effect on EFH in the area.” Correspondence with NMFS is included in Appendix L. 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

40 | Page

4.5 FLOODPLAINS AND COASTAL ZONE 

4.5.1 No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would involve no action to construct a new rail layout to connect MSE and the 

JCPA line at the interchange located within the MPITC. The existing rail line that passes through downtown 

Moss Point and Pascagoula would remain operational and conflicts with MSE and CSX freight operations 

would continue to occur at the downtown Pascagoula interchange. Rail would not be freed up for use for the 

potential passenger rail operations planned for the area. No construction activities are associated with the No 

Build Alternative; therefore, no temporary or permanent impacts to the floodplain or the coastal zone would 

occur.

4.5.2 Build Alternative

Under the Build Alternative, the proposed new rail would be constructed within the 100-year floodplain. A 

portion of the Project is within the floodway of the Escatawpa River and in Zones AE and Zone X. A copy 

of the FIRM map is included in Appendix F. Zone AE areas are areas that are within the 100-year flood plain 

and have a 1% annual chance of flooding and a 26% chance of flooding over the life of a 30‐year mortgage. 

Zone X areas are outside of the 100-year floodplain. 

The Project would not directly affect the natural and beneficial floodplain values, nor would it provide indirect 

support for additional development in the floodplain. Further, there is no significant encroachment as defined 

in USDOT Order 56505.2 because there is not a considerable probability of loss of human life, and likely 

future damage would not be substantial in cost or extent. The conceptual design minimizes impacts to 

floodplains by placing proposed structures in upland areas and within the existing rights-of-way to the 

maximum extent possible. All new rail tracks would be on elevated structures. Therefore, adverse impacts to 

the floodplain for these areas are not anticipated. An area approximately 413 linear feet long would be 

constructed on fill which would reduce the floodplain functions at this location. However, mitigation by 

creation of in-kind tidal wetlands replaces the floodplain that would be filled resulting in no loss of function

of the floodplain. The rest of the rail would be elevated which would avoid impacts to the floodplain. While 

any support structures within the wetland area would displace some water, they would not have a substantial 

effect on flooding. The total amount of impact by fill is approximately 0.90 acres. This impact would be 

mitigated for by creation of tidal marsh which would replace the function of the floodplain. 

JCPA would avoid or minimize adverse impacts to floodplains and riparian zones during construction using 

best management practices that would be developed in consultation with MDEQ during the permitting phase. 

Construction activities would not displace water and would therefore not increase flooding. JCPA would 

coordinate with DMR during the permitting phase to ensure compliance with Mississippi regulations. 

Correspondence associated with the Coastal Zone is included in Appendix L

4.6 ENDANGERED SPECIES 

4.6.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would involve no action to construct a new rail layout to connect MSE and the 

JCPA line at the interchange located within the MPITC. The existing rail line that passes through downtown 

Moss Point and Pascagoula would remain operational and conflicts with MSE and CSX freight operations 

would continue to occur at the downtown Pascagoula interchange. Rail would not be freed up for use for the 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

41 | Page

potential passenger rail operations planned for the area. No construction activities are associated with the No 

Build Alternative; therefore, no temporary or permanent impacts to endangered species would occur.

4.6.2 Build Alternative 

Threatened and endangered species are federally protected by the l Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended. In Mississippi, protection for state-listed threatened and endangered species is required via the 

Nongame and Endangered Species Conservation Act (Miss. Code Ann. § 49-5-101 to 49-5-119). The State 

protected species are the same as the Federally protected species. The Build Alternative would impact 

approximately 0.90 acres of estuarine wetlands by filling. The fill would be at the abutments to the elevated 

sections of rail and in an area of marsh located between two uplands. The Project area was identified as 

potential habitat for the Alabama red-bellied Turtle (ABRT), a federally-listed endangered species. FRA 

initiated formal consultation with USFWS for the Project on February 23, 2021. The USFWS provided 

comments in letter dated March 2, 2021 and determined, “the Service concurs with your determination that 

the proposed Project ‘may affect but is not likely to adversely affect’ the Alabama Red-bellied Turtle. 

Although there would be minor impacts to foraging habitat associated with bridge pilings and abutments, the 

effects of the action on this species are expected to be insignificant.” A copy of the correspondence with the 

USFWS is included in Appendix G and Appendix L. 

A portion of the proposed Project would be located within brackish tidal marsh and the area has been 

designated as Essential Fish Habitat for the migratory pelagic species including the red drum, white shrimp 

and brown shrimp. During the scoping process, NMFS asked for information concerning the alternatives 

considered for the Project, an EFH assessment, and a Draft PRMP to offset impacts to the marsh habitat. FRA 

sent a letter to NMFS on March 10, 2021 providing the alternative analysis, the EFH assessment and the Draft 

PRMP and requested formal consultation on the potential impacts of the Project on Essential Fish Habitat. 

NMFS replied in a letter dated March 23, 2021 that “NMFS finds the EFH assessment, alternatives analysis, 

and draft PRMP dated March 2021, provided by FRA includes sufficient information to ensure adverse 

impacts to EFH would be adequately offset through a PRMP to create approximately 1.0 acre of tidal marsh 

habitat. With implementation of the PRMP, NMFS concurs the proposed Project would not have an adverse 

effect on EFH in the area. At this time, the NMFS is prepared to remove our conservation recommendations 

for the North Rail Connector Project, unless future modifications are proposed which may result in adverse 

impacts to EFH.” A copy of the correspondence with the NMFS is provided in Appendix L. 

4.7 ENERGY USE 

4.7.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would involve no action to construct a new rail layout to connect MSE and the 

JCPA line at the interchange located within the MPITC. The existing rail line that passes through downtown 

Moss Point and Pascagoula would remain operational and conflicts with MSE and CSX freight operations 

would continue to occur at the downtown Pascagoula interchange. Rail would not be freed up for use for the 

potential passenger rail operations planned for the area. No construction activities are associated with the No 

Build Alternative; therefore, no construction or operation-related changes in energy use would occur.

4.7.2 Build Alternative 

Energy consumption associated with construction of the Build Alternative would be associated with the use 

of petroleum and natural gas resources and use of manpower expenditures. These resources are generally 

non-renewable. Construction materials would consist largely of steel, concrete, ballast rock, and wood. These 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

42 | Page

resources are generally readily available and not in short supply; therefore, impacts to energy resources as a 

result of the construction of Build Alternative would be considered minor.

The Project would allow MSE freight trains to avoid an extra 3.7 miles of transport to reach the Port of 

Pascagoula Bayou Casotte Harbor, thereby reducing transport-related energy consumption (fuel). This would 

reduce the energy consumption in the Study Area. In addition, the Project would reduce the need for 

transportation by truck from northern Jackson County to the Bayou Casotte Harbor in Pascagoula. According 

to the 2016 Mississippi State Rail Plan Update, freight rail is 11.5 times more energy efficient (on a BTU per 

ton-mile basis) than trucks. Therefore, there will be beneficial impacts in the form of reductions to energy 

consumption from the operation of the Project. 

4.8 AESTHETIC AND DESIGN QUALITY

4.8.1 No Build Alternative

The No Build Alternative would involve no action to construct a new rail layout to connect MSE and the 

JCPA line at the interchange located within the MPITC. The existing rail line that passes through downtown 

Moss Point and Pascagoula would remain operational, and conflicts with MSE and CSX freight operations 

would continue to occur at the downtown Pascagoula interchange. Rail would not be freed up for use for the 

potential passenger rail operations planned for the area. No construction activities are associated with the No 

Build Alternative; therefore, no temporary or permanent impacts to aesthetics or design quality would occur.

4.8.2 Build Alternative

Since the new rail corridor would join with existing rail on both ends of the proposed Project, the proposed 

Project would result in no aesthetic and design impacts to the upland areas associated with rail line 

construction. The marsh is already crossed by existing rail and high-power electrical transmission lines. The 

existing rail has been part of the viewshed since the early 1900s. The surrounding area is generally developed 

with industrial facilities along the Escatawpa River to the north and with residential development to the south. 

The proposed new rail line would be similar in characteristics to the existing rail although a portion would be 

built on pilings instead of fill. The elevation of the rail on pilings would be similar to that on fill. Therefore, 

the proposed work associated with the Build Alternative would maintain viewsheds consistent with the 

current aesthetic. It does not appear that construction or operation of the Build Alternative would have an 

adverse effect on the aesthetics or design quality of the surrounding area. 

4.9 LAND USE AND COMMUNITY FACILITIES

4.9.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would involve no action to construct a new rail layout to connect MSE and the 

JCPA line at the interchange located within the MPITC. The existing rail line that passes through downtown 

Moss Point and Pascagoula would remain operational and conflicts with MSE and CSX freight operations 

would continue to occur at the downtown Pascagoula interchange. Rail would not be freed up for use for the 

potential passenger rail operations planned for the area. No construction activities are associated with the No 

Build Alternative; therefore, no temporary or permanent impacts to land use or community facilities would 

occur.
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

43 | Page

4.9.2 Build Alternative

The Build Alternative is compatible with the existing land uses because the proposed Project is in an area of 

existing rail line and linear utility features (power lines). No major or permanent impacts to land uses or land 

use patterns would occur. Impacts to the undeveloped marsh estuary are mitigated for by creation of tidal 

marsh wetlands. The Project would change a portion of the undeveloped marsh to that of a 0.69-mile railroad 

transportation corridor, however this use would be consistent with existing land use and zoning plans. As 

previously noted, undeveloped private property would be obtained by MSE for rail use. The new use is 

compatible with existing land use and zoning plans (heavy industrial). By elevating the rail to avoid filling, 

the impact to the estuarine environment is limited. Since the new rail corridor would join with existing rail 

on both ends of the proposed Project, the Project would result in no direct or indirect land use impacts to the 

upland areas associated with rail line construction.

No permanent impacts would occur to community facilities as a result of the Build Alternative, which would 

be constructed within the existing railroad ROW or within new right of way established in previously 

undeveloped land. MSE provided JCPA their Acquisition and Relocation Policies used for obtaining the right 

of way. These policies were adopted by the Board of MSE railroad and implement the procedures defined in 

the and the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended 

(42 U.S.C. 4601 et seq.) Right of way would be obtained within eight individual parcels. No residential or 

commercial structures would be impacted by the Project. The Project is compatible with local plans, land 

use, and zoning. Since a portion of the Project area is in an area of marsh vegetation, the City of Moss Point 

does not anticipate any growth in these areas. A portion of the Project is within the existing MPITC and 

additional industrial development could occur. The Project would be within the existing rail footprint within 

the MPITC and no changes to the land use within the MPITC would result from construction of the proposed 

Project. There would no major or permanent impacts to community facilities, including parks, as a result of 

the Build Alternative because they are not present in the Study Area. 

4.10 SOCIOECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT

4.10.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would involve no action to construct a new rail layout to connect MSE and the 

JCPA line at the interchange located within the MPITC. The existing rail line that passes through downtown 

Moss Point and Pascagoula would remain operational and conflicts with MSE and CSX freight operations 

would continue to occur at the downtown Pascagoula interchange. Rail would not be freed up for use for the 

potential passenger rail operations planned for the area. No construction activities are associated with the No 

Build Alternative; therefore, no temporary or permanent impacts to the socioeconomic environment would 

occur.

4.10.2 Build Alternative

Operation of the Project will not encroach upon residential property nor disrupt access to education and 

childcare facilities, community centers or places of worship, or other public facilities in the area. 

4.10.2.1 Employment Impacts

The proposed Project would result in temporary beneficial impacts from job creation during construction. 

The proposed Project would result in beneficial economic impacts, locally and regionally due to job creation 

from Project-related development opportunities. The proposed Project would result in additional jobs at the 

East Bank Port facility because it supports increased export of a product that will be shipped from the East 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

44 | Page

Bank facility. In addition, with the rail line available again at the MPITC, it is anticipated that new industry 

would be attracted to the site and provide overall long-term economic benefits to the region. 

4.10.2.2 Freight Transportation Impacts 

The proposed Project would not increase freight traffic in the short term but would remove MSE freight traffic 

from passing through downtown Moss Point and Pascagoula. 

The Project would result in reduced operational and maintenance costs associated with rail crossings for the 

local community. It may also provide the community with the ability to increase jobs by providing incentives 

for manufacturers to locate within the MPITC and efficiently transport goods for shipment.

4.10.2.3 Traffic Impacts 

The Project is designed to improve rail and traffic conditions in and around Pascagoula and Moss Point. 

Temporary disruptions would occur along Orange Grove Road when the rail crossing is moved to 

accommodate the adjustment of the rail to the north side of the road. Temporary impacts may be associated 

with construction with trucks and machinery in the area. A temporary detour, for approximately three weeks 

to a month, may be required during the relocation of the rail crossing. At least 7 days prior to establishing a 

detour on Orange Grove Road, the adjacent residents, the City of Moss Point and emergency response 

providers would be notified of the road closure. Most of the Project is over marsh, and no long term traffic 

impacts would result for this portion of the Project. Removal of rail crossings along the existing main line 

and the associated reduction of traffic being blocked at these rail crossings would be a long term positive 

effect from the proposed Project. 

4.11 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

4.11.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would involve no action to construct a new rail layout to connect MSE and the 

JCPA line at the interchange located within the MPITC. The existing rail line that passes through downtown 

Moss Point and Pascagoula would remain operational and conflicts with MSE and CSX freight operations 

would continue to occur at the downtown Pascagoula interchange. Rail would not be freed up for use for the 

potential passenger rail operations planned for the area. No construction activities are associated with the No 

Build Alternative; therefore, no temporary or permanent impacts to environmental justice would occur.

4.11.2 Build Alternative 

The Build Alternative is anticipated to generate both jobs and local spending, which are expected to improve 

the economic condition of the EJ areas. The proposed track construction would cause beneficial temporary 

impacts to employment and income during the construction period. Construction would impact traffic only 

during the relocation of the rail crossing. A temporary detour limiting access from the east would be required 

for traffic along Orange Grove Road for approximately three weeks to one month. This would only affect two 

residential properties if they are approaching from the east, however, they may already access their homes 

approaching from the west, which would result in no impacts associated with the detour. Options for access 

to these two homes may be reduced for approximately three weeks to a month, however, they will still have 

access to their homes. At least 7 days prior to establishing a detour, local residents, the City of Moss Point 

and emergency responders would be notified of the detour. Other construction activities are limited to the 

marsh wetlands and the wooded uplands and would have no impacts on traffic, walkability or community 

cohesion in the residential area.
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

45 | Page

The residents in the EJ areas would benefit from the job opportunities generated by the Project’s construction 

and operation. The economic activity created by the Project is expected to provide a short-term increase in 

incomes in the local EJ communities and have a positive effect on poverty rates. Minority business owners in 

the EJ areas would benefit as the result of secondary economic activity generated as construction workers and 

local suppliers spend income and revenues at local business, which in turn, could hire additional workers. 

After the Project’s completion, community cohesion in the EJ areas is not anticipated to be negatively 

impacted by the Project, as the proposed operations of the Project improvements would not geographically 

divide or isolate the residents or businesses within the Study Area. The proposed Project alignment would

require obtaining new ROW. The areas where ROW would be obtained are shown on drawings X1-X8

included in Appendix I. The ROW to be obtained is within seven privately owned parcels which consists of 

undeveloped land. There are no structures located within the areas to be obtained for ROW. There would be 

no relocations of residential or commercial properties Because there would be no relocation of residential or 

commercial properties associated with the Project, there is no adverse effect from the Project or the new ROW 

associated with the Project footprint. The Project’s operation would not encroach upon residential property 

or disrupt access to education and childcare facilities, community centers, or places of worship within the EJ 

areas surrounding the Project Area. The Project is not anticipated to have a substantial impact on public 

facilities in the Study Area. As discussed in other sections of the EA, no major adverse impacts are anticipated 

to air quality, water quality, wetlands, floodplains, or other environmental resources. Therefore, no adverse

impacts associated with the operation of the Project are anticipated. The long-term impacts of the actions in 

the Build Alternative include benefits to employment and income and would be neither adverse nor 

disproportionate in relation to the overall social, economic, health, and environmental characteristics of 

minority and low-income populations in the Study Area.

Short-term construction impacts to EJ areas would include minor, temporary traffic disruptions of 

approximately one month (See section 4.10.2.3), temporary noise and vibration impacts of approximately 

three months during daylight hours on weekdays only (See section 4.3.2), and positive impacts on 

employment and income. There would be no additional mitigation other than limiting working hours and days 

associated with temporary noise and vibration impacts. 

Input from the public is an important consideration in the EJ process. Section 5.0, Public and Agency 

Coordination provides detail about the public outreach and coordination associated with the Build Alternative.

No groups or individuals have been or will be excluded from participation in public involvement activities, 

denied the benefit of the Project, or subjected to discrimination in any way on the basis of ethnicity, race, 

color, age, sex, national origin, or religion. 

4.12 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

4.12.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would involve no action to construct a new rail layout to connect MSE and the 

JCPA line at the interchange located within the MPITC. The existing rail line that passes through downtown 

Moss Point and Pascagoula would remain operational and conflicts with MSE and CSX freight operations 

would continue to occur at the downtown Pascagoula interchange. Rail would not be freed up for use for the 

potential passenger rail operations planned for the area. No construction activities are associated with the No 

Build Alternative; therefore, no temporary or permanent impacts associated with hazardous materials would 

occur.
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

46 | Page

4.12.2 Build Alternative 

It is not anticipated that the construction of the Build Alternative would generate hazardous waste. Based on 

the location of the Project within undeveloped marsh and uplands and within existing right of way, it is not 

anticipated that the Project would encounter materials with levels of impacts exhibiting characteristics which 

EPA would classify as hazardous waste. 

JCPA will have an environmental screening process in place during construction for the management of any 

impacted materials that are unexpectedly encountered. For excess materials generated during construction 

(e.g., soils, construction demolition debris) of the Build Alternative, JCPA will follow established protocols 

to comply with applicable state, local, and federal laws and regulations for waste handling, staging, 

characterization, and transportation for off-site disposal

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was previously prepared for a nearby alternative location with the 

proposed Project area within the search radius. In order to identify potential hazardous materials that may be 

encountered during construction, JCPA will ensure that a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment is prepared 

for the proposed Project area within 6 months prior to construction. Any recognized environmental condition 

identified that has the potential to impact the Project Area would be addressed by JCPA to ensure the 

appropriate responsible party maintains responsibility for any regulatory requirements for remedial actions 

or environmental closure. 

4.13 CULTURAL RESOURCES

4.13.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would involve no action to construct a new rail layout to connect MSE and the 

JCPA line at the interchange located within the MPITC. The existing rail line that passes through downtown 

Moss Point and Pascagoula would remain operational and conflicts with MSE and CSX freight operations 

would continue to occur at the downtown Pascagoula interchange. Rail would not be freed up for use for the 

potential passenger rail operations planned for the area. No construction activities are associated with the No 

Build Alternative; therefore, no temporary or permanent impacts to cultural resources would occur.

4.13.2 Build Alternative 

Based on the results of the Phase I Cultural Resources Survey, FRA determined there were no archaeological 

or architectural historic properties affected by the Project. SHPO concurred with FRA’s no historic properties 

affected determination in a letter dated May 2021. The CNO and MCBI concurred with FRA’s no historic 

properties affected determination in email correspondence from May and June 2021, respectively. 

In the event that Native American artifacts or human remains are inadvertently encountered during 

construction, JCPA will immediately stop work and contact the FRA, SHPO, MCBI, and CNO. JCPA will 

ensure that fill is obtained from a MDEQ permitted dirt pit. JCPA will provide SHPO with more information 

regarding the source of the fill material prior to start of construction.

The Section 106 Cultural Resources Survey Report is attached as Appendix K. All Section 106 

correspondence is included in Appendix K.
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

47 | Page

4.14 SECTION 4(F) PROPERTIES

4.14.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would involve no action to construct a new rail layout to connect MSE and the 

JCPA line at the interchange located within the MPITC. The existing rail line that passes through downtown 

Moss Point and Pascagoula would remain operational and conflicts with MSE and CSX freight operations 

would continue to occur at the downtown Pascagoula interchange. Rail would not be freed up for use for the 

potential passenger rail operations planned for the area. No construction activities are associated with the No 

Build Alternative; therefore, no temporary or permanent impacts to Section 4(f) properties would occur.

4.14.2 Build Alternative

FRA determined that no additional 4(f) analysis is required, because there are no Section 4(f) properties 

located within the Study Area. The Build Alternative would have no impacts on these types of properties. 

4.15 SOLID WASTE DISPOAL

4.15.1 No Build Alternative 

The No Build Alternative would involve no action to construct a new rail layout to connect MSE and the 

JCPA line at the interchange located within the MPITC. The existing rail line that passes through downtown 

Moss Point and Pascagoula would remain operational and conflicts with MSE and CSX freight operations 

would continue to occur at the downtown Pascagoula interchange. Rail would not be freed up for use for the 

potential passenger rail operations planned for the area. No construction activities are associated with the No 

Build Alternative; therefore, no temporary or permanent impacts to solid waste would occur.

4.15.2 Build Alternative 

Waste materials from construction of the rail would be managed by JCPA and the chosen contractor to avoid 

discharge to the environment. All structural components of the rail would be precast or prefabricated and cut 

to length. Concrete piles would be poured in place. Waste concrete would be discharged on site in a 

designated location and later removed to a landfill. Some wood components may be cut to length on site and 

the waste wood would be removed to a landfill. All waste material would be collected in dumpsters or roll 

off containers and disposed of or recycled as appropriate. Jackson County operates a solid waste landfill and 

several private landfills accept construction waste. Given these measures, no temporary or permanent impacts 

to solid waste management are anticipated from the Project. 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

48 | Page

5.0 PUBLIC AND AGENCY COORDINATION

5.1 PUBLIC COORDINATION

Public outreach efforts were coordinated with local committees, community groups, elected officials and local 

government entities to provide details on the Project and to discuss impacts to the community. Prior to 

publication of this EA, public outreach associated with the proposed Project included issue of a Public Notice 

by the USACE which was provided by email to their standard list of contacts for Section 404 permits. In 

addition, the adjacent property owners were notified by mail of the Project. The Mississippi DMR held a public 

hearing regarding the Project on July 14, 2021 to provide the public and any interested agencies an opportunity 

to comment at a public venue. No attendees other than DMR and JCPA were present at the hearing and no 

public comments were received in response to this hearing. 

The public will be informed of the release of the EA through a notice in the Press Register. Further, the City 

of Moss Point, City of Pascagoula, the Jackson County Economic Development Foundation and community 

groups including the Moss Point Rotary Club, Jackson County Civic Action Club, Riverfront Community 

Center and the Moss Point Garden Club will be contacted to comment on this EA. This EA will be posted to 

FRA’s webpage for 30-day public and agency review. Notice of the Draft EA comment period will also be 

posted to the Federal Infrastructure Permitting Dashboard. Questions and comments on the Project or EA can 

be made through the contact information provided on the webpage, or by contacting:

Amanda Murphy

Environmental Protection Specialist

Office of Infrastructure Investment

Federal Railroad Administration

U.S. Department of Transportation

Amanda.murphy2@dot.gov

202-339-7231

5.2 AGENCY COORDINATION

Coordination for the Project was initiated with numerous resource agencies. In accordance with 40 CFR 

§ 1501.8,in a letter dated January 15, 2021 FRA invited USACE to be a cooperating agency for this EA, and 

to designate FRA as lead federal agency for NHPA Section 106 consultation. USACE accepted the 

cooperating agency invitation and designated FRA as lead federal agency for NHPA Section 106 consultation 

purposes in a letter dated January 28, 2021. FRA sought and received USACE’s comments on the draft 

purpose and need, Project schedule, anticipated effects of the Project, and the administrative draft of this EA. 

See Appendix L for correspondence.

FRA and JCPA held a pre-NEPA meeting with interested agencies and Federally-recognized Tribes on 

February 1, 2021. Prior to the meeting a Project description, draft purpose and need statement, and Project

drawings were provided for review and to familiarize participants with the Project. Agencies and Tribes were 

given three weeks to respond to the information and materials.. A list of all the agencies who were invited to 

attend is included in Appendix M. 

FRA conducted Section 106 consultation as described in Section 3.2.13 with the MDAH and Federallyrecognized Tribes. As summarized in Section 3.2.6, FRA conducted consultation for endangered species and 

wildlife including EFH with USFWS and NMFS. Agency correspondence is included in Appendix L. The 

permits required for the Project include CWA Section 404 from USACE, Coastal Zone Consistency from the 

DMR and 401 Water Quality Certification from MDEQ. 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

49 | Page

The USACE conducts public and agency outreach as part of the permitting process. Interested agencies and 

adjoining property owners were contacted for comment. A Joint Public Notice from USACE, MDEQ and 

DMR was published on January 20, 2021. The information provided included a brief description of the Project

and the procedure to obtain more information. The agencies and property owners were asked to respond 

within 30 days. Comments that required a response with additional information were received from MDAH, 

NMFS and MDEQ. MDAH requested that a Cultural Resource Survey be completed for the proposed Project. 

This was completed and provided to MDAH for review and concurrence. MDAH provided concurrence on 

May 11, 2021. NMFS requested that an EFH Assessment be conducted for the proposed Project area. This 

was completed and provided to NMFS with a request for formal consultation. The EFH assessment was 

provided to NMFS and they provided concurrence on March 23, 2021. MDEQ requested that JCPA submit 

a pre-filing meeting request for 401 water quality certification and follow the submittal and waiting periods 

for obtaining water quality certification. The procedure was completed and the Project obtained 401 water 

quality certification on March 12, 2021. No comments were received from the adjacent property owners. The 

complete list of individuals and agencies notified by USACE about the proposed Project in included in 

Appendix N. 

Any additional permits will be identified and obtained by JCPA as engineering progresses. All agency 

coordination required for federal, state and local permitting will be completed prior to construction. 

Agencies consulted on this Project will receive notice from FRA regarding the 30-day review period for this 

EA, and they can send their comments to: Amanda Murphy, FRA Environmental Protection Specialist 

(Amanda.murphy2@dot.gov). 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

50 | Page

List of Sources, Agencies and Persons Consulted: 

Sources 

2019 Census data for Jackson County; City of Pascagoula, City of Moss Point, Quickfacts at Census.gov

Aerial mapping and photography accessed through GoogleTM Earth

Escatawpa River Phase One Total Maximum Daily Load for Mercury, prepared by Mississippi Department 

of Environmental Quality Office of Pollution Control TMDL/WLA Section/Water Quality Assessment 

Branch, June 6, 2000

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, May 24, 1977, 42 FR 26961 

FEMA DFIRM panel 28059C0432G, released March 16, 2009 (Appendix F) 

IPaC report, USFWS, http://www.fws.gov/mississippiES/endsp.html

Mississippi Department of Archives and History (MDAH), letter from Hal Bell on behalf of State Historic 

Preservation Officer, [May 11, 2021] (Appendix K) 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, Office of Pollution Control, Erosion Control, Sediment 

Control and Stormwater Management on Construction Sites and Urban Areas, Volumes 1-3.

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality, 2020 Air Quality Data Summary

Mississippi Department of Marine Resources, Permit from Mississippi Department of Marine Resources , 

DMR20-000346; [September 16, 2021 ] (Appendix L) 

Mississippi State Rail Plan Update, March 2016, Mississippi Department of Transportation 

National Park Service, National Registry of Natural Landmarks, www.nature.nps.gov/nnl/ 

National Wetlands Inventory Map, United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) Wetlands Online 

Mapper, http://wetlandsfws.er.usgs.gov/NWI/index.html (Appendix E)

Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Proposed North Rail Connector Project, Section 20 and 29, T7S, 

R5W, Jackson County Mississippi, MDAH Project Log #’s 11-119-20 and 01-084-21, Cobb Institute of 

Archaeology, April 8, 2021

US Fish and Wildlife Services, letter concerning impacts to threatened and endangered species [March 2, 

2021] (Appendix G)

Wildlife Solutions, Inc., 2021, Wetland Delineation of Rail Line Corridor in Moss Point, MS
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

51 | Page

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

City of Moss Point

City of Pascagoula

CSX Railroad

Jackson County Board of Supervisors

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians

Mississippi Department of Archives and History 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality – Air Quality 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality – Office of Pollution Control

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality – Water Quality 

Mississippi Department of Marine Resources – Regulatory Division

Mississippi Department of Transportation

Mississippi Department of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks

Mississippi Development Authority 

Mississippi Export Railroad

National Marine Fisheries Service

Oklahoma Band of Choctaw Indians

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District (Cooperating Agency)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service