PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD

COMBINED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT AND 

RECORD OF DECISION 

Prepared for:

Federal Railroad Administration

Mississippi Department of Transportation

December 2019
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

	



	

	

PART 1: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT................................................................. 1–1

1.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1–1 

1.2. Errata Sheets and Combined FEIS/ROD ............................................................................. 1–3 

1.3. Identification of the Preferred Alternative ........................................................................ 1–4 

1.4. Public Outreach since the Release of the DEIS .................................................................. 1–9 

1.5. DEIS Errata Sheets ............................................................................................................ 1–11

PART 2: RECORD OF DECISION..................................................................................................... 2–1

2.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2–1 

2.2. Alternatives Considered in the DEIS .................................................................................. 2–3 

2.3. Public Outreach and Opportunities to Comment .............................................................. 2–8 

2.4. Description of the Selected Alternative, Environmental Effects, and Mitigation .............. 2–8 

2.5. Measures to Minimize Harm ........................................................................................... 2–10

2.6. Monitoring and Enforcement .......................................................................................... 2–14

2.7. Determinations and Findings Regarding Other Laws ...................................................... 2–15

2.8. FRA Decision..................................................................................................................... 2–18



APPENDIX A: Public Hearing Distribution List 

APPENDIX B: Public Hearing Legal Notices 

APPENDIX C: Public Hearing Materials 

APPENDIX D: Public Hearing Sign-in Sheets 

APPENDIX E: Copy of All Comments Received During DEIS Comment Period 

APPENDIX F: Response to Comments Matrix

APPENDIX G: Revised DEIS Sections
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

This page intentionally left blank. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT 

Prepared for:

Federal Railroad Administration

Mississippi Department of Transportation

December 2019
This page intentionally left blank.

This final environmental impact statement (FEIS) evaluates a new freight rail line that would provide a 

direct connection between the Port Bienville Railroad (PBRR) and the Norfolk Southern (NS) rail line near 

Interstate 59 (I-59), north of NASA’s John C. Stennis Space Center (SSC). This connection would provide a 

second Class I rail connection to Port Bienville and the Port Bienville Industrial Park. 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), an operating administration within the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, agreed to serve as the lead federal agency in the preparation of this environmental 

impact statement. The build alternative would provide a direct connection between the PBRR and the 

NS rail line near I-59, north of SSC.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

1–i 

	

PART 1: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT................................................................. 1–1

1.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 1–1 

1.2. Errata Sheets and Combined FEIS/ROD ............................................................................. 1–3 

1.2.1 Use of Errata ....................................................................................................... 1–3 

1.2.2 Combined FEIS/ROD ........................................................................................... 1–4 

1.3. Identification of the Preferred Alternative ........................................................................ 1–4 

1.3.1 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................... 1–5 

1.3.2 Comparison of Environmental Consequences .................................................... 1–5 

1.4. Public Outreach since the Release of the DEIS .................................................................. 1–9 

1.4.1 Notice of Availability ........................................................................................... 1–9 

1.4.2 Public Hearing (2018) .......................................................................................... 1–9 

1.4.3 DEIS Comments Received ................................................................................. 1–10

1.5. DEIS Errata Sheets ............................................................................................................ 1–11

1.5.1 Revised DEIS Sections ....................................................................................... 1–11

1.5.2 Minor Text Revisions ......................................................................................... 1–11
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

1–ii

This page intentionally left blank
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

1–1 

PART 1: FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT 

STATEMENT 

1.1. Introduction 

The Mississippi Department of Transportation (MDOT), in coordination with Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA), and the Hancock County Ports and Harbor Commission (HCPHC) has prepared this 

final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the proposed Project. The proposed Project includes

new freight rail line, approximately 24 miles in length, which would provide a single-track, direct 

connection between the Port Bienville Railroad (PBRR), located at the Port Bienville Industrial Park in 

Hancock County and the existing Norfolk Southern Railroad (NS) near Interstate 59 (I-59) north of 

NASA’s John C. Stennis Space Center (SSC) in Pearl River County (herein referred to as the “Project”). 

This connection would provide a second Class I rail connection to Port Bienville and the Port Bienville 

Industrial Park. The Surface Transportation Board (STB), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), are cooperating 

agencies for the Project. 

In 2013, a feasibility study was commissioned by HCPHC and led by MDOT, in coordination with FRA, as 

the first step in developing the Project. This feasibility study developed and analyzed a number of 

alternatives for the proposed rail corridor alignment. The streamlined screening and alternatives 

identification process for this Project incorporated geographic information systems (GIS) analysis, an 

automated corridor analysis tool called the Alignment Alternatives Research Tool (AART), limited field 

reconnaissance and data validation, engineering design criteria, and review and evaluation by 

professional planners and engineers that comprise the Project team. These activities were performed as 

part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and incorporated input from FRA, and 

HCPHC, in addition to public and other stakeholder comments and concerns, as well as consideration of 

previous studies. The alternatives development process was iterative in nature, providing a continuous 

quantification and comparison of impacts to an equal level of detail as MDOT made modifications to 

alternatives based on design criteria, cost, and other considerations during Project development. One 

main corridor of least impact was identified for the majority of the alignment; four segments along the 

corridor still had multiple alternates. As these segments were evaluated using an impact matrix, 

alternate segments were eliminated, and a reasonable Build Alternative was brought forward for 

detailed study in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) by MDOT. 

Currently, there is no funding identified for construction of the Project. FRA, an operating administration 

within the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT), agreed to serve as the lead federal agency in the 

preparation of the EIS. However, FRA has not committed any Federal funding for further design or 

construction of the Project. 

The DEIS for the Project was issued on September 11, 2018 and published in the Federal Register on 

September 21, 2018 (Federal Register Vol. 83, No. 184/Friday, September 21, 2018/Notices)1

. The public 

comment period occurred between September 21, 2018 and November 5, 2018. 

1

 83 FR 47922 (September 21, 2018) 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

1–2 

Project stakeholders, members of the public, local governments, elected officials, nongovernmental 

organizations, and federal, state, and local agencies have been involved in the preparation of the DEIS 

and FEIS through public meetings, scoping meetings, agency and stakeholder meetings, and individual 

briefings. 

FRA determined that a single, combined FEIS and record of decision (ROD) could be issued for the 

Project, pursuant to Public Law 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, § 1319(b), also known as Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21).2 MAP-21 streamlined the NEPA process, including the 

issuance of a combined FEIS/ROD document and a FEIS errata sheet, where appropriate. On December 

4, 2015, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act) (Public Law 114-94) was signed into 

law. Section 1304(j) repeal Section 1319 of MAP-21 but included a new provision providing FRA with 

similar authority. See FAST Act, Section 1311. Section 1311 allows for the development of a combined 

FEIS and ROD as well as the use of errata. In accordance with the FAST Act, a combined FEIS and ROD 

and errata can be used when no substantial changes are being made to the proposed action and when 

no significant new circumstances or environmental concerns would affect the proposed action. The 

primary purpose of this combined FEIS/ROD is to respond to substantive comments received during the 

public comment period and to state the decision, identify the alternatives considered in reaching the 

decision, identify changes made to the DEIS as a result of public and agency comments, and state the 

means to avoid, minimize, or mitigate effects appropriate for an EIS. This combined FEIS/ROD is 

organized as follows: 

• Part 1: Final Environmental Impact Statement 

− Section 1.1 provides the introduction to the FEIS. 

− Section 1.2 provides an overview of the FAST Act for the completion of a combined 

FEIS/ROD by errata. 

− Section 1.3 documents the selection of the Preferred Alternative.

− Section 1.4 provides an overview of the public outreach that has occurred since the 

release of the DEIS. 

− Section 1.5 contains the errata to the DEIS. 

• Part 2: Record of Decision

− Section 2.1 contains the introduction to the ROD. 

− Section 2.2 provides a summary of the alternatives considered. 

− Section 2.3 contains a summary of the public outreach and opportunities to comment 

on the DEIS.

− Section 2.4 provides the Preferred Alternative description and basis for decision. 

− Section 2.5 contains mitigation measures. 

2

 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/MAP-21_1319_Final_Guidance.pdf 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

1–3 

− Section 2.6 provides a list of the anticipated permits and approvals required for 

construction of the rail line.

− Section 2.7 provides the determinations and findings regarding other laws 

− Section 2.8 contains the FRA Decision. 

The FEIS/ROD also contains the following appendices: 

• Appendix A: Public Hearing Distribution List 

• Appendix B: Public Hearing Legal Notices 

• Appendix C: Public Hearing Materials 

• Appendix D: Public Hearing Sign-in Sheets 

• Appendix E: Copy of All Comments Received During DEIS Comment Period

• Appendix F: Response to Comments Matrix 

• Appendix G: Revised DEIS Sections 

1.2. Errata Sheets and Combined FEIS/ROD 

ͳǤʹǤͳ 

The use of errata sheets in lieu of writing a FEIS that repeats a large amount of information already 

published in the DEIS, is appropriate when comments received on a DEIS are minor and the responses to 

those comments are limited to factual corrections or explanations of why the comments do not warrant 

further response. Comments on the Project required factual corrections, expanded analyses, and minor 

clarifications to the DEIS. However, no comments resulted in further response in the form of additional 

alternatives or consideration of undisclosed environmental consequences or impacts.3

In accordance with 49 U.S.C. § 304(a), the errata sheets are being utilized and made available to the 

public to the same extent as the DEIS. Continued availability of the DEIS is also being ensured. 

The DEIS is currently available to the public on the MDOT and FRA websites: 

http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Environmental/Pages/Projects.aspx or at https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0798. 

Hard copies of the DEIS can also be reviewed at the following locations: 

• Pearlington Public Library, 6096 First Avenue, Pearlington, MS 39572 

• Pearl River County Library, 900 Goodyear Boulevard, Picayune, MS 39466

• MDOT Lyman Project Office, 16499 US Highway 49, Saucier, MS 39574 

• Hancock County, Office of County Administrator, 854 Highway 90, Bay St. Louis, MS 39520 

• Pearl River County, 200 South Main Street, Poplarville, MS 39470

The errata sheets are included in this FEIS/ROD in Section 1.5 and will also be provided with the DEIS on 

the MDOT and FRA websites and at the locations noted above. The revised DEIS sections are included in 

Appendix G to this FEIS/ROD. 

3

 https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/mission/transportation-policy/permittingcenter/337371/feis-rod-guidance-final04302019.pdf 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

1–4 

ͳǤʹǤʹ 	Ȁ

In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations, FEIS and ROD documents are 

traditionally issued separately with a minimum 30-day period between the FEIS and ROD (40 CFR § 

1506.10(b)(2)). However, as explained previously in Section 1.2, directs the lead agency to expeditiously 

develop a single, combined FEIS and ROD, to the maximum extent practicable, unless: 

• The FEIS makes substantial changes to the proposed actions that are relevant to 

environmental or safety concerns. 

• A significant new circumstance or information relevant to environmental concerns bears on 

the proposed action or the impacts of the proposed action.

Additionally, the applicable requirements for both an FEIS and a ROD must be met for the issuance of a 

single combined FEIS and ROD document. This combined FEIS and ROD document does not include 

substantial changes to the proposed action in terms of environmental or safety concerns, nor are there 

significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns of the proposed action 

or its impacts. 

In accordance with USDOT Guidance this combined FEIS and ROD includes the following: 

• Identification of the Preferred Alternative (included in Section 1.3.2.2 of this FEIS). 

• List of commitments for mitigation measures for the Preferred Alternative (included in 

Section 2.5 of the ROD). 

• Summary of the public outreach efforts, comments received on the DEIS, public hearing 

responses, and public and agency coordination activities that have taken place since the 

issuance of the DEIS (included in Section 1.4 of this FEIS). 

1.3. Identification of the Preferred Alternative 

This section discusses the Project Purpose and Need and identifies the Preferred Alternative as the Build 

Alternative (Alternative C) presented in the DEIS. This section also discusses the potential 

transportation, economic, and environmental effects of the Preferred Alternative as compared to the 

No-Build Alternative (refer to Section 1.3.2 for further detail on the Preferred Alternative). The 

discussions within Section 1.3.2 demonstrate why the Preferred Alternative remains the preferred 

alternative following the formal DEIS comment period (see Section 1.4 for public outreach since the 

release of the DEIS). 

EPA published the Notice of Availability for the DEIS in the Federal Register on Friday, September 21, 

2018, beginning the formal 45-day public review and comment period. Distribution of the DEIS to local, 

regional, state, and federal agencies, interested and affected parties, and the public provided 

opportunity for review and comment. The review and comment period ended on November 5, 2018. 

MDOT held a public hearing on October 23, 2018, where verbal and written comments could be made 

regarding the DEIS.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

1–5 

No substantive comments were received on the DEIS that would result in changes to the Preferred 

Alternative. Additionally, no comments raised new circumstances or provided new information relevant 

to environmental or safety concerns that would warrant a change to the recommended Preferred 

Alternative. 

ͳǤ͵Ǥͳ 

MDOT, FRA, and HCPHC prepared the Port Bienville EIS to evaluate a proposed new freight rail line that 

would provide a single-track, direct connection between the PBRR and the NS rail line near Interstate 59 

(I-59), north of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) John C. Stennis Space 

Center (SSC) (the Project). Port Bienville is currently served by one Class I rail connection, provided by 

CSX Transportation (CSX). The Project would provide a second Class I rail line connection for Port 

Bienville and the Port Bienville Industrial Park. 

The full detailed Purpose and Need can be found in Chapter 2.0 of the DEIS. 

ͳǤ͵ǤͳǤͳ 

The purpose of the Project is to provide dual Class I access to the Port Bienville Industrial Park to support 

the access needs, reliability, and competitiveness of its tenants and other industries in the area. 

ͳǤ͵ǤͳǤʹ 

Providing dual Class I rail access to the Port Bienville Industrial Park would address the following needs: 

• Improve rail transport time, reliability, and cost. 

• Foster greater economic opportunities and attract new industries to Hancock and Pearl 

River Counties. 

• Create flexibility and resilience in rail transportation options during storms and other

emergencies. 

ͳǤ͵Ǥʹ 

This section discusses the potential environmental effects of the Preferred Alternative (Build 

Alternative) compared with the No-Build Alternative. The No-Build Alternative would not impact either 

the natural or human environment; however, the anticipated economic benefits of the proposed Project 

would also not be realized. The Build (Preferred) Alternative would impact both the natural and human 

environment. As summarized in Table FEIS-1 at the end of this section, the primary impacts would 

include streams, wetlands, farmlands, floodplains, noise, vibration, and safety of at-grade crossings. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

1–6 

ͳǤ͵ǤʹǤͳ Ǧ

The No-Build Alternative does not meet the Purpose and Need for the Project, but was brought forward 

for further analysis and evaluation under NEPA to serve as the basis for comparison of the 

environmental impacts associated with the Build Alternative. Under the No-Build Alternative, 

construction of the new rail line and/or improvements to existing rail lines in the Study Area, shown in 

Figure FEIS-1, would not occur. There are no planned/proposed improvements to the existing Port 

Bienville shortline rail line; therefore, no changes would be made to this line under the No-Build

Alternative. The No-Build Alternative would not provide a connection to the NS rail line and therefore, 

would not provide dual Class I service to Port Bienville or the Port Bienville Industrial Park. 

ͳǤ͵ǤʹǤʹ 

The Build Alternative (Alternative C) includes the construction of a new proposed rail line, approximately 

24 miles in length. The proposed rail line would provide a direct connection between the PBRR and the 

NS rail line near I-59, north of SSC (Figure FEIS-1). The Build Alternative would begin in the northern 

section of the Study Area in Nicholson, Mississippi and would continue southwest along the existing NS 

rail line. It would leave the existing rail south of Texas Flat Road and continue in an easterly direction. It 

would turn to the southeast and would turn and travel south. The alignment continues in a southerly 

direction along the southern Alternative C and ties into the existing Port Bienville Rail Road. Figure 

FEIS-1 shows the proposed alignment of the Build Alternative. 

The Build Alternative would impact both the natural and human environment. As summarized in Table 

FEIS-1, the primary impacts would include streams, wetlands, farmlands, floodplains, noise, vibration, 

and safety of at-grade crossings. 

Because 76 percent of the land within the Study Area is within the SSC acoustical buffer zone, land use 

changes are not anticipated in the area. The Build Alternative would provide a link between the PBRR 

and the Norfolk Southern line, which would support economic development and growth in Hancock 

County and the Port Bienville Industrial Park. With the benefits of attracting new businesses and 

increasing workforce expected by the Project, it is likely that increases in employment and income may 

be experienced in the region. Noise and vibration associated with the Project has the potential to affect 

residential and commercial properties adjacent to the rail line near Nicholson. Using methods published 

by the Federal Transit Administration and FRA, Project-related noise and vibration were evaluated to 

assess the potential for impacts. In developing the Build Alternative, considerable effort was made to 

avoid waters of the U.S., including wetlands, during the planning and preliminary design process. 

Impacts to wetlands and other waters have been minimized by modifying the alignment to the extent 

practicable. During the design phase, construction limits would be defined; construction limits are 

estimated to be approximately 75 feet wide, which would further reduce impacts. Construction of the 

Project would require a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to authorize impacts to 

waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The Project would be designed to include features, such as 

bridges and culverts, so that it would not create over a foot of rise of flood water within the Study Area. 

FRA identified the Build Alternative (Alternative C) as the Preferred Alternative in the DEIS. No changes 

were made to the Preferred Alternative based on comments received on the DEIS. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

1–7 

Figure FEIS-1: Study Area & Preferred Alternative 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

1–8 

The DEIS showed that the Preferred Alternative would achieve the Purpose and Need and would 

represent the least environmentally damaging practicable alternative compared with the No-Build 

Alternative and the other segment alternatives considered and evaluated in the DEIS. Comments 

received during the public comment period for the DEIS raised points of information, clarification, or 

correction. However, the comments did not result in new information or introduce new discipline-based 

analyses that were not previously conducted or that would change the selection of the Preferred 

Alternative. 

Table FEIS-1: Summary of Impacts and Costs

Impact Category (Units) No-Build

Alternative Build Alternative 

HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

Cultural Resources (Sites) N/A 0

Farmland (Acres) N/A 222

Noise (No.) N/A 2 Severe/12 Moderate

Vibration (No.) N/A 3

Residential Relocations (No.) N/A 0

Hazardous Materials (Sites) N/A 1

Business Relocations (No.) N/A 0

Environmental Justice Impacted Census Blocks (No.) N/A 4

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Streams (LF)a N/A 2,482

Wetlands (Acres)a N/A 171.58

Other Waters (Acres)a N/A 2.01

Floodplains (Acres) N/A 96.74

Threatened and Endangered Species (affect/impact)b N/A 7b

ENGINEERING

Gas Pipelines (Crossings No.) N/A 8

Railroad Bridges Over Roadways (No.) N/A 4

Railroad Bridges Over Streams (No.) N/A 2

SAFETY AND MOBILITY

At-Grade Crossings (No.) N/A 22

Construction Costs (2019)c N/A $111,722,668.30

a) Based on detailed field work.

b) Two of the species are State Listed Species

c) Construction costs have been updated since the DEIS based on 3 percent annual inflation and a more refined preliminary design

for the FEIS that eliminates retaining walls and bridge approaches. The 2016 costs in the DEIS ($118,151,058) included extensive 

retaining walls at bridge approaches to keep the project footprint within a 100-foot-wide corridor.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

1–9 

1.4. Public Outreach since the Release of the DEIS 

ͳǤͶǤͳ 

A Notice of Availability (NOA) for the DEIS was published in the Federal Register on September 21, 

2018.

4

 The NOA informed interested parties that the DEIS for the Project was available for public review 

and initiated a 45-day public review and comment period. The review and comment period ended on 

November 5, 2018. MDOT and FRA held a public hearing on October 23, 2018, where verbal and written 

comments could be made regarding the DEIS. 

The NOA invited comments through multiple sources and encouraged public participation through their 

review and input on the DEIS. Comments on the DEIS could be provided via the following: 

• By email to environmentalcomments@mdot.ms.gov

• By fax to 601-359-7355

• By U.S. mail to: Kevin Wright, Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Railroad 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey Ave. SE, MS-20, Washington, D.C. 20590

• By telephone to Kevin Wright 202–493–0845

• By comment form at the public hearing: 

Tuesday, October 23, 2018; 4:00 to 7:00 p.m.

Stennis International Airport, Multipurpose Room No. 202, 7250 Stennis Airport Drive, 

Kiln, Mississippi 39556 

Following the publication of the NOA, the DEIS was made available on MDOT and FRA websites: 

• MDOT: http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Environmental/Pages/Projects.aspx

• FRA: https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0798

A hard copy of the DEIS was also made available at the following locations: 

• Pearlington Public Library, 6096 First Avenue, Pearlington, MS 39572 

• Pearl River County Library, 900 Goodyear Boulevard, Picayune, MS 39466

• MDOT Lyman Project Office, 16499 US Highway 49, Saucier, MS 39574 

• Hancock County, Office of County Administrator, 854 Highway 90, Bay St. Louis, MS 39520 

• Pearl River County, 200 South Main Street, Poplarville, MS 39470 

Digital copies of the DEIS were also distributed to select agencies and stakeholders for their review. Lists 

of agencies and stakeholders that received notification of the availability of the DEIS are included in 

Appendix A. 

ͳǤͶǤʹ ȋʹͲͳ ͅȌ

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines the public involvement requirements that must be 

met to satisfy the requirements of the NEPA process (40 CFR § 1506.6). CEQ regulations state that if a 

DEIS is to be considered at a public hearing, the agency should make the statement available to the 

4 83 FR 47922
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

1–10

public at least 15 days in advance (unless the purpose of the hearing is to provide information for the 

DEIS). The NOA for the DEIS was published on September 21, 2018, 33 days before the public hearing. 

MDOT announced the availability of the DEIS and public hearing in newspaper advertisements, through 

an email notice to public officials, Cooperating Agencies, and other state and local agencies and via 

letters to the landowners. 

FRA and MDOT hosted the public hearing on October 23, 2018. Prior to the public hearing, at 10:00 a.m. 

on October 23, MDOT hosted a special public officials/resource agencies meeting to provide an 

opportunity to review the information provided in the DEIS and speak with the study team members. 

This meeting was held in the same location as the public hearing. 

The public hearing and special public officials/agencies meeting were focused on providing the public 

with access to project staff knowledgeable about the Project and the DEIS process to help answer 

questions and offer guidance on how to review and comment on the DEIS. 

During the public hearing, materials–including the DEIS with appendices—and exhibits were made 

available for review. Upon arrival, attendees were given the opportunity to sign up to speak and provide 

verbal comments. No verbal comments were made at the public hearing. 

Approximately 46 individuals attended the public hearing and 27 people attended the public 

officials/resource agencies meeting, including Project Team representatives. All exhibits provided at the 

public hearing and public officials/resource agencies meeting can be found in Appendix C. The sign-in 

sheets for the public officials/resource agencies meeting and the public hearings are in Appendix D. No 

comments were made to the court reporter during the public hearing; therefore, there are no public 

hearing transcripts. 

ͳǤͶǤ͵ 

During the 45-day comment period, MDOT received a total of 29 comment letters or comment cards 

from various citizens, stakeholders, and agencies. Of the 29 comments received, 17 comments were

from private citizens. All comment letters/cards received during the comment period are included in 

Appendix E. 

Overall, the Project received support from the comments received on the DEIS. Many stakeholders and 

the public provided their support of the Preferred Alternative based on the comments received during 

the comment period. Comments range from general support to comments from the U.S. Department of 

the Interior (DOI), EPA, Gulf Restoration Network (GRN), and Southern Rail Commission requesting 

additional information or clarification be added to the EIS. Comment response letters were sent to 

agencies who requested additional information or clarification be added to the EIS and are included in 

Appendix F. All comments were documented, along with the responses, in a response to comments 

matrix (Appendix F). The updates to the DEIS in response to agency comments are included in Section 

1.5, DEIS Errata Sheets, and more detail regarding the resolution of these comments is provided in that 

section. 

Comments in support of the Project were also received from the City of Diamondhead, the City of 

Waveland, Mississippi Power, DAK Americas, and the Hancock Chamber of Commerce. A comment of 

concern was received from Tradewinds Energy, Inc. The comment from Tradewinds Energy, Inc. was 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

1–11

regarding the Preferred Alternative alignment running through the land for a proposed 80 megawatt 

(MW) solar energy facility (Hancock County Solar Project, LLC). A response to this comment is provided 

in the response to comments matrix (Appendix F). The response to comments matrix shows all 

comments received and responses to those comments, or “no response required.” For the agencies with 

more substantive comments (DOI, EPA, and GRN), the matrix refers to the comment response letters 

sent to the respective agencies, which can be found in Appendix F. None of the comments resulted in a 

change to the selection of the Preferred Alternative. 

1.5. DEIS Errata Sheets 

The DEIS errata sheets contained in Table FEIS-2 document the changes that have been made to the 

DEIS (signed September 21, 2018) based on comments received during the public comment period. The 

changes incorporated into the DEIS are minor and have not affected the selection of the Preferred 

Alternative. The table is organized into two sections based on the two types of errata prepared for this 

EIS: revised DEIS sections and minor text revisions. 

ͳǤͷǤͳ 

Revised DEIS sections or subsections, where responses to comments required inclusion of additional 

information, data, or analysis, and section formatting updates at multiple locations within the sections 

to retain readability of each section and/or incorporate new subsections or tables are discussed in this 

section. The changes have been summarized in Table FEIS-2 and the revised sections and tables have 

been noted in the errata sheets, so the reader can easily follow those revisions. Table FEIS-2 lists the 

sections, subsections, and pages of the DEIS that were revised in response to comments and refers to 

Appendix G where the full revised DEIS sections can be found. The following DEIS sections have been 

revised and can be found in Appendix G: 

• Chapter 3.0 Alternatives Analysis: 

− 3.2.3.2 Evaluation of the Southern Alternatives 

• Chapter 4.0 Affected Environment: 

− 4.15.1 Threatened and Endangered Species 

− 4.15.4.1 Potential of Listed T&E Species to Occur in the Survey Corridor 

− 4.18.3.4 Passenger Rail

• Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences: 

− 5.14.2 Effects on Federally Listed Species 

− 5.14.4 Threatened and Endangered Species Effects/Impacts Summary 

ͳǤͷǤʹ 

Minor text revisions are minor corrections or additional information provided outside of the revised 

sections noted above. The changes are minor and easily described with the DEIS errata table entry; 

therefore, these minor changes are not included in a revised DEIS section and are therefore, not 

included in Appendix G. Sections, subsections, and page numbers are provided in Table FEIS-2 for each 

minor text revision with details of the change. Minor text revisions have been made to the following 

sections, as noted in Table FEIS-2: 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

1–12

• DEIS Executive Summary 

− Summary of Environmental Consequences; Summary of Impacts; Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

• Chapter 5.0 Environmental Consequences: 

− 5.11.1 Impacts to Wetlands, Streams, and Other Water Bodies 

− 5.13.1.2 Water Quality 

− 5.14.3 State-Listed Species; Table 5.12 

The errata captured in Table FEIS-2 and the revised DEIS sections in Appendix G are provided in lieu of 

preparing a FEIS that repeats a large amount of information already published in the DEIS. The updates 

and revisions noted in the errata table do not change the selection of the Preferred Alternative. Some 

comments from EPA resulted in analysis of additional species, and a new table and subsection, but no 

comments introduced new discipline-based analyses that were not previously conducted. The combined 

FEIS and ROD document is being used in conjunction with the DEIS to present the most current data. 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

1-13

Table FEIS-2: DEIS Errata Sheet 

Chapter Section Subsection Page Action taken

Revised DEIS Sections (see Appendix G)

3.0 Alternatives 

Screening 

3.2. Phase 2 –

Segment 

Screening 

3.2.3.2 Evaluation of 

the Southern 

Alternatives 

3-33 to 

3-34

In response to comments received from EPA, multiple revisions have been made to 

the Alternative D discussion paragraph in 3.2.3.2. These changes do not affect the 

environmental determinations or the selection of the Preferred Alternative. 

• additional detail regarding noise and vibration impacts from Alternative D, 

specifically provided the exact distances of the two residences from the 

Alternative D centerline. 

• the distances from the Alternative D centerline where noise and vibration impacts 

would be moderate to severe. 

• the magnitude or level of noise and vibration that the two residences would 

experience under Alternative D. 

(See Appendix G) 

4.0 Affected 

Environment

4.15 Habitat 

and Wildlife

4.15.4 Threatened 

and Endangered 

Species; 4.15.4.1 

Potential of Listed 

T&E Species to Occur 

in the Survey 

Corridor 

4-67 to 

4-71

In response to comments received from DOI, multiple subsections of section 4.15 

were revised to include assessment of one additional proposed threatened species, 

the Eastern black rail, which was proposed for listing as federally threatened after 

the DEIS was published. These changes do not affect the environmental 

determinations or the selection of the Preferred Alternative. 

• 4.15.4 was revised to include mention of the Eastern black rail and date of the 

proposed listing. 

• 4.15.4.1 was revised to update the number of federal species listed within 

Hancock and Pearl River Counties and add the new federal candidate. 

• Table 4.24 provides a summary of the federal and state species; it was revised to 

include the Eastern black rail. 

(See Appendix G) 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

1-14

Chapter Section Subsection Page Action taken

4.0 Affected 

Environment

4.15 Habitat 

and Wildlife

4.15.4 Threatened 

and Endangered 

Species; 4.15.4.1 

Potential of Listed 

T&E Species to Occur 

in the Survey 

Corridor 

4-66 to 

4-72

In response to comments received from EPA, subsection 4.15.4 was revised to 

include more specific information about migratory birds with emphasis on Birds of 

Conservation Concern (BCC) and potential effects. These changes do not affect the 

environmental determinations or the selection of the Preferred Alternative. 

• 4.15.4 was revised to include discussion of BCC regulations and USFWS database 

results for BCC. 

• 4.15.4.1 was revised to add a statement about migratory BCC evaluations for the 

Project. 

(See Appendix G) 

4.0 Affected 

Environment 

4.18 

Transportation 

4.18.4.1 Multimodal 

Corridor Network –

Planned and Future 

Projects 

4-85

In response to comments received from the Southern Rail Commission, subsection 

4.18.4.1 was revised as follows: 

• In the I-10/CSX - Short-Range and Long-Range Recommended Improvements 

bulleted section, the ‘Double track CSX mainline to accommodate passenger rail’

recommendation was revised due to the findings in the Gulf Coast Working 

Group’s (GCWG) Report to Congress, dated July 2017. The recommendation was 

revised to read: “Complete necessary capital improvements on CSX’s mainline to 

accommodate passenger rail based on any agreements between CSX and Amtrak. 

NOTE: Double tracking the entire corridor is not anticipated as a requirement to 

support passenger rail operations as proposed in the GCWG Report.” 

• In the I-59/NS - Short-Range and Long-Range Recommended Improvements 

bulleted section, the ‘Double track NS mainline to accommodate passenger rail’ 

recommendation was revised after re-evaluating the Mississippi State Rail Plan 

Update (dated March 2016) and other related studies such as the Lake Charles to 

Meridian Corridor Transportation Plan (dated June 2007). Neither document 

included an overarching recommendation to double track the entire corridor. 

However, both documents acknowledged that double tracking and other capacity 

improvements would be needed in specific locations. As a result, the 

recommendation was revised to read: “Complete necessary capital 

improvements on NS’ mainline to accommodate passenger rail based on any 

agreements between NS and Amtrak.”
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

1-15

Chapter Section Subsection Page Action taken

5.0 

Environmental 

Consequences

5.14 Habitat 

and Wildlife

5.14.2 Effects on 

Federally Listed 

Species 

5-38

In response to comments received from DOI, multiple subsections of section 5.14 

were revised to include assessment of one additional proposed threatened species, 

the Eastern black rail, which was proposed for listing as federally threatened after 

the DEIS was published. These changes do not affect the environmental 

determinations or the selection of the Preferred Alternative.

• 5.14.2 was revised to update the number of federally listed or candidate species 

and include the Eastern black rail in the text list; the subsection was also revised 

to include new discussion/assessment paragraphs of the Eastern black rail 

habitats and characteristics (added to document after the Florida panther 

assessment). 

• Consultation with USFWS dated July 15, 2019, confirms that habitat for the 

eastern black rail does not occur in the project area; therefore, the proposed 

project will have “no effect” on the eastern black rail or its habitat.

(See Appendix G) 

5.0 

Environmental 

Consequences

5.14 Habitat 

and Wildlife

5.14.2 Effects on 

Federally Listed 

Species 

5-38 to 

5-43

In response to comments received from DOI and GNR, subsection 5.14.2 was revised 

to include additional discussion about the Louisiana quillwort, specifically regarding 

the survey and site conditions during the surveys. A mitigation commitment was 

also added that additional surveys would be conducted prior to construction during 

the optimal survey window and site conditions to verify no species are identified in 

the construction limits. 

(See Appendix G) 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

1-16

Chapter Section Subsection Page Action taken

5.0 

Environmental 

Consequences

5.14 Habitat 

and Wildlife

5.14.2 Effects on 

Federally Listed 

Species; 5.14.4 

Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

Effects/Impacts 

Summary

5-38 to 

5-43; 

5-46

In response to comments received from EPA, multiple subsections of section 5.14 

were revised to include more specific information about migratory birds with 

emphasis on Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and potential effects. These 

changes do not affect the environmental determinations or the selection of the 

Preferred Alternative (BCC subsection and table added after new Eastern black rail 

assessment paragraphs in 5.14.2). 

• 5.14.2 was revised to add a new subsection on Birds of Conservation Concern 

(5.14.2.1 Birds of Conservation Concern), including a new table (5.12 USFWS 

Migratory BCC at the Port Bienville Project Site Corridor) 

• Previous Table 5.12 from DEIS in 5.14.3 now becomes Table 5.13. 

• A new subsection (5.14.5 Migratory Birds of Conservation Concern 

Effects/Impacts Summary) was added after 5.14.4 with an effects discussion for 

Migratory Birds of Conservation Concern for the No-Build and Build Alternatives. 

(See Appendix G) 

Minor text revisions to DEIS–revisions are noted in this table only, they are not included in Revised DEIS sections (Appendix G)

Executive 

Summary

Summary of 

Impacts 

Summary of 

Environmental 

Consequences -

Threatened and 

Endangered Species 

ES-7 to 

ES-8 

In response to comments received from DOI, text was updated to include one 

additional species, the Eastern black rail, which was proposed for listing as federally 

threatened after the DEIS was published. 

Minor text revision: 

The Project may affect/impact, but is not likely to adversely affect/impact, the 

following five federally-listed and one proposed threatened species: Louisiana 

quillwort, eastern indigo snake, red-cockaded woodpecker, wood stork, and the

Florida panther, and the Eastern black rail. 

Consultation with USFWS dated July 15, 2019, confirms that the proposed project 

“may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the following listed species: the 

endangered Louisiana quillwort (Isoetes louisianensis), threatened Eastern indigo 

snake (Drymarchon couperi), threatened black pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus 

lodingi), endangered red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), threatened 

wood stork (Mycteria americana), and endangered Florida panther (Puma concolor 

coryi). The eastern indigo snake and the Florida panther are considered extirpated 

from Mississippi. 

(Minor text change; revisions are not included in Appendix G). 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

1-17

Chapter Section Subsection Page Action taken

5.0 

Environmental 

Consequences

5.11 Wetlands 

5.11.1 Impacts to 

Wetlands, Streams, 

and Other Water 

Bodies 

5-27

In response to comments received from EPA to clarify whether the 100-

foot-wide right-of-way for the project includes areas likely to be used as 

borrow for the railroad bed and provide an explanation whether these areas 

add to the total amount of wetland affected by the project, subsection 

5.11.1 was revised with a new paragraph right before Table 5.9. 

Minor text revision: 

Borrow material is a contractor responsibility. It is the responsibility of the 

contractor to get permits for borrow material because they identify their own 

material and sites. Borrow areas will be determined later in the project 

development process. During the design phase, construction limits would be 

defined; construction limits are estimated to be approximately 75 feet wide. It is 

assumed that the wetland impacts will not exceed those that are assumed in the 

EIS. Wetland impacts will be further defined during the permitting phase when all 

impact types are calculated. 

(Minor text change; revisions are not included in Appendix G). 

Chapter 5.0 5.13 Water 

Resources 

5.13.1.2 Water 

Quality 5-35

In response to comments received from EPA to clarify that the Storm Water 

Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be designed to minimize (not 

mitigate) water quality impacts by minimizing the potential for erosion and 

sedimentation during construction. 

Minor text revision: 

Construction of the Build Alternative would result in short term impacts to 

hydrology within the limits of the right-of-way as a result of minor discharge 

of sediment from disturbance of ground cover, excavation, and grading of 

the railroad embankment. A comprehensive SWPPP with BMPs to protect 

water quality (e.g., silt fence, re-vegetation) would likely minimize these 

impacts. The contractor in the next phase of the project development will 

be responsible for the implementation of SWPPP with BMPs to protect 

water quality.

(Minor text change; revisions are not included in Appendix G). 
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

1-18

Chapter Section Subsection Page Action taken

Chapter 5.0 5.14 Habitat 

and Wildlife

5.14.3 State-Listed 

Species ES-44

Table 5.12 Effects on Listed State Species with Potential Suitable Habitat in the 

Survey Corridor was changed to Table 5.13 due to addition of a new table in the 

previous subsection (5.14.2) that is now Table 5.12. No changes were made to the 

table content. 

(Minor text change; revisions are not included in Appendix G). 

*Revised DEIS sections are included in Appendix G. Revisions have been incorporated throughout the sections as noted in the above table; text additions are indicated with blue text and 

deletions are indicated with strikethroughs. References/footnotes have been added in Appendix G to corresponding sections. Original footnotes (numbering) have not changed.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD

RECORD OF DECISION 

Prepared for:

Federal Railroad Administration

Mississippi Department of Transportation

December 2019
This page intentionally left blank.

This page intentionally left blank.
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

2–i 

	

PART 2: RECORD OF DECISION..................................................................................................... 2–1

2.1. Introduction ....................................................................................................................... 2–1 

2.1.1 FRA Monitoring and Enforcement ...................................................................... 2–1 

2.1.2 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................... 2–2 

2.2. Alternatives Considered in the DEIS .................................................................................. 2–3 

2.2.1 No-Build Alternative ........................................................................................... 2–3 

2.2.2 Alternatives Analysis ........................................................................................... 2–3 

2.2.3 Preferred Alternative from the DEIS ................................................................... 2–7 

2.3. Public Outreach and Opportunities to Comment .............................................................. 2–8 

2.4. Description of the Selected Alternative, Environmental Effects, and Mitigation .............. 2–8 

2.4.1 Basis for the Record of Decision ......................................................................... 2–8 

2.4.2 Selected Alternative Description ........................................................................ 2–9 

2.4.3 Effects of the Selected Alternative ..................................................................... 2–9 

2.5. Measures to Minimize Harm ........................................................................................... 2–10

2.6. Monitoring and Enforcement .......................................................................................... 2–14

2.7. Determinations and Findings Regarding Other Laws ...................................................... 2–15

2.7.1 Section 4(f) and Section 6(f) ............................................................................. 2–15

2.7.2 Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act ..................................... 2–16

2.7.3 Environmental Justice ....................................................................................... 2–17

2.7.4 Wetlands ........................................................................................................... 2–18

2.8. FRA Decision..................................................................................................................... 2–18
PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD COMBINED FEIS AND ROD

2–ii

This page intentionally left blank.
2–1 

PART 2: RECORD OF DECISION

2.1. Introduction 

This is the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) Record of Decision (ROD) for the proposed 

construction of the Port Bienville Railroad (PBRR), a new freight railroad line proposed by the Mississippi 

Department of Transportation (MDOT) in coordination with FRA, and the Hancock County Ports and 

Harbor Commission (HCPHC). FRA is an operating administration of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation (USDOT) and the federal Lead Agency for the environmental impact statement (EIS) 

conducted under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The federal cooperating agencies are 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), and the Surface Transportation Board. 

Based on the analysis presented in the Draft EIS (DEIS) and Final EIS (FEIS), FRA selects the Build 

Alternative (Alternative C). This alternative includes the construction of a new single-track freight rail 

line, approximately 24 miles in length. The proposed rail line would provide a direct connection between 

the PBRR and the NS rail line near I-59, north of SSC. The Build Alternative would begin in the northern 

section of the Study Area in Nicholson, Mississippi and would continue southwest along the existing NS 

rail line. It would leave the existing rail south of Texas Flat Road and continue in an easterly direction. It 

would turn to the southeast and would turn and travel south. The alignment continues in a southerly 

direction along the southern Alternative C and ties into the existing Port Bienville Rail Road. Figure 

FEIS-1 shows the proposed alignment of the Build Alternative. This ROD describes the Selected 

Alternative and documents FRA’s decision-making process. 

ʹǤͳǤͳ 	

FRA will only monitor and enforce the mitigation commitments in this ROD if the Project requires an FRA 

approval or funding. Planning Development Process

CSX Transportation (CSX) and Norfolk Southern Railroad (NS) both provide Class I rail service to markets 

east of the Mississippi River. PBRR provides shippers at the Port Bienville Industrial Park with an existing 

connection to CSX on the shortline railroad east of the Port Bienville Industrial Park; however, there is 

no existing connection to the NS line, which is in the northwest section of the Study Area. In 2005, the 

Project received an earmark in the amount of $2.16 million in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and 

Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU).

5

In 2013, the Port Bienville Rail Feasibility Study, completed during the first phase of the Project study, 

was prepared by MDOT in coordination with FRA and HCPCH to determine the potential economic 

benefits of the proposed railroad and to evaluate initial corridors for that railroad. The first phase

concluded that the construction of the rail line would bring economic benefits to Hancock County; in 

addition, initial alternatives were developed and feasible alignments were recommended for further 

consideration in the Port Bienville Rail Feasibility Study. The first phase study reports included the Port 

Bienville Rail Feasibility Study, Port Bienville Economic Development Benefits and Opportunities Analysis, 

and the Port Bienville Rail Alternatives Development Technical Methodology. These documents can be 

5 PL 109-59, Page 119 STAT. 1392 
2–2 

found in Appendix A of the DEIS or on MDOT’s website at: 

http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Environmental/Environmental%20Projects/Port%20of%20Bienville%20(Hancock

%20County)/Port%20Bienville%20Feasibility%20%20Report.pdf. 

At the initiation of the second phase, FRA issued a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS which was 

published in the Federal Register on June 2, 2015.6

 This marked the beginning of the NEPA 

environmental review process. The first agency scoping meeting was held in 2012, which was the first 

opportunity for agencies to review the methodology proposed to develop the alternatives. The Notice of 

Availability (NOA) for the DEIS was published on September 21, 2018, which opened the formal 45-day 

public review and comment period. Table ROD-1 lists the milestones of the NEPA environmental 

process. 

Table ROD-1: NEPA Environmental Process Milestones and Dates 

Milestones Date

Agency scoping meeting 01 August 23, 2012

Public information meeting October 16, 2012

Agency scoping meeting 02 December 18, 2012

Port Bienville Rail Alternatives Development Technical 

Methodology Report September 19, 2013

EIS kick-off meeting June 24, 2014 

NOI published June 2, 2015 

Agency scoping meeting August 19, 2015

Public scoping meeting August 20, 2015

Agency coordination meeting September 7, 2016

Public information meeting September 8, 2016

DEIS issued September 11, 2018

NOA for DEIS published September 21, 2018 

DEIS public comment period September 21, 2018 to November 5, 2018

Public hearing October 23, 2018

ʹǤͳǤʹ 

The purpose of the Project is to provide dual Class I access to the Port Bienville Industrial Park to support 

the needs of its tenants and other industries in the area. 

Providing dual Class I access to the Port Bienville Industrial Park would address the following needs: 

• Improve rail transport time, reliability, and cost 

• Foster greater economic opportunities and attract new industries to Hancock and Pearl 

River Counties

• Create flexibility and resilience in rail transportation options during storms and other 

emergencies 

6

 80 FR 31453 (June 2, 2015) 
2–3 

2.2. Alternatives Considered in the DEIS 

The following sections describe the alternatives considered in the DEIS and the basis for the decision 

that ultimately led to the selection of the Preferred Alternative (FEIS Section 1.3 - Selection of Preferred 

Alternative) for the Project. The DEIS evaluated the following alternatives: 

• No-Build Alternative 

• Alternative A, B, C, and D; and 

• Build Alternative (Alternative C), which was recommended as the Preferred Alternative 

ʹǤʹǤͳ Ǧ

The No-Build Alternative served as the baseline for comparison of the alternatives for the extent of 

environmental and community effects. 

The No-Build Alternative would allow existing conditions to be maintained. The proposed new rail line 

would not be constructed and there would be no impacts to wetlands, streams, floodplains, and water 

quality. Noise and vibration impacts, impacts to cultural resources, farmlands, and oil and gas pipelines 

would also not occur. However, the No-Build Alternative would not meet the Purpose and Need of the 

Project with the goals of providing improved rail transport time, reliability, and costs, fostering greater 

economic opportunities, and creating flexibility and resiliency in transportation options. 

ʹǤʹǤʹ 

For this Project, a two-phase process was used to achieve the identification and evaluation of 

preliminary alternatives, selection of reasonable alternatives, and the recommendation of a build 

alternative. The first phase of the Project was the development of a feasibility study, which was 

completed on September 19, 2013. This feasibility study included establishment of a Study Area (Figure 

ROD-1), development of engineering criteria, creation of an initial range of alternatives, and 

development of preliminary cost estimates to determine the feasibility of the Project. 

The alternatives screening and selection process during the first phase incorporated geographic 

information systems (GIS) using an automated corridor analysis tool (AART), limited field reconnaissance 

and data validation, and engineering design criteria. All reviews and evaluations were conducted by the 

Project team which consisted of scientists, planners, and engineers. The process also incorporated state 

and federal agency input, public and other stakeholder comments and concerns, with an initial agency 

coordination meeting on August 23, 2012 and a public information meeting on October 16, 2012, as well 

as consideration of previous studies. In developing the initial range of feasible alternatives, the AART 

was used to create approximately 90 computer generated alignments through the Study Area. Impacts 

were summarized based on 1,000‐foot wide corridors. The impacts within these 1,000‐foot wide 

corridors and the initial cost estimates were used for comparing one alternative to another at a high 

level for further refinement. Once the initial AART-developed alternative corridors were identified, the 

refinement process began. Early on, quite a few corridors were eliminated from further study for various 

reasons that are documented in the Port Bienville Rail Alternatives Development Technical Methodology 

Report, September 19, 2013 (see Appendix A of DEIS). After the initial elimination of infeasible 

alternatives, 12 alternatives remained for further refinement. The Project team made slight adjustments 
2–4 

Figure ROD-1: Preferred Alternative
2–5 

to the alignments to meet the engineering design criteria for the proposed rail line and identified 14 

alignments for consideration as “next best” corridors. These manually engineered alignments were 

developed with the intent to minimize impacts to the environment while meeting the design criteria.

They were then used to generate new 1,000-foot-wide corridors. A corridor matrix was completed for 

each corridor to summarize environmental impacts. 

Once the corridor matrix of potential environmental impacts was completed and alternatives were 

compared, one primary corridor centrally located within the Study Area emerged as the least costly and 

least impactful. However, two distinct corridors on the north end of the Project were identified and four 

corridors on the southern end were identified. These 7 total corridors had common segments that made 

up much of the alignments and four areas identified as having competing segments. A second agency 

coordination meeting was held on December 18, 2012, with resource and regulatory agencies. At the 

conclusion of this meeting, a recommendation was made to divide the alternatives into segments for 

future analysis and for the completion of the feasibility study. Then, the Project team divided the seven 

advanced corridors into seventeen segments for future analysis in the second phase of the alternatives 

analysis. These 17 segments represent a possible combination of 40 potential corridors. Following the 

development of the segments, the Project team re-quantified impacts and cost by segment. 

On August 19, 2015, a scoping meeting with resource and regulatory agencies was held at MDOT in 

Jackson, Mississippi. The meeting discussed the scope and schedule for the second phase of the Project 

which includes NEPA and preliminary design. An overview of the agency coordination and public 

involvement plan was also provided. Additionally, on August 20, 2015, a public scoping meeting was 

held at the Port Bienville Training Facility located in Pearlington, Mississippi. A handout was provided 

outlining the purpose of the Project, Project history, Project facts, feasibility study findings, and a map of 

the proposed rail alignment segments. 

At the end of the first phase, a range of reasonable alternative segments were defined and progressed 

into the second phase of Project development, which were further analyzed in the DEIS. The goal for 

Phase 2 was the completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Project. A Notice of 

Intent (NOI) for this Project was advertised on June 22, 2015. At the initiation of the second phase of the 

alternatives analysis, 40 potential corridors were carried forward from the first phase. To determine 

which alternatives would be further evaluated in the DEIS, the alignments from these alternatives were 

further refined. The second phase screenings began with field investigations and an update of all GIS 

databases for the Study Area. The segment corridor widths were refined to a 200-foot-wide buffer 

around the proposed rail segment centerline. Impacts for each segment were recalculated using refined 

GIS data. Engineering, operations, cost, and other associated factors were considered for each 

alternative. 

Several corridors centrally located within the Study Area emerged as the least costly and least 

impacting. Every one of these corridors shared four common segments. These common segments 

included Segment 5, Segment 7, Segment 9, and Segment 11. The remaining segments were considered 

as competing segments. Evaluation measures were identified and used to compare similar (competing) 

segments. These measures were divided into four sections: Engineering Criteria, Natural Features, Manmade Features and Infrastructure. Upon completion of the segment comparisons and the elimination of 

segments from further study, 11 segments remained (1a, 1b, 3, 2b, 5, 6a, 7, 8a, 9, 10b, and 11), which 

were combined to create two continuous alternatives: Alternatives A and B. Alternative A consists of 
2–6 

segments 2b, 5, 6a, 7, 8a, 9, 10b, and 11. Alternative B incorporated segments 1a, 1b, 3, 5, 6a, 7, 8a, 9, 

10b, and 11. At the completion of the segment analysis, detailed analysis began on the two alternatives, 

including environmental, social, cultural, and physical investigations. Evaluation and refinement of 

Alternatives A and B resulted in the creation of Alternatives C and D, which had shared segments with 

Alternatives A and B, respectively, and then deviated from the main alignment in the southern portion 

of the Project area. (Table ROD-2) 

Table ROD-2: Southern Options Comparison Matrix

Description Unit of 

Measure

Alt A (Option) 

(2b+5+6a)

Alt B (Option) 

(1a+1b+3+5+6a)

Alt C (Option) 

(Preferred)

Alt D 

(Option)

ENGINEERING CRITERIA

Total Length Miles 3.50 3.56 3.45 3.66

Length to PBRR switch Miles 0.07 0.97 0.40 1.20

Length Utilizing Former Rail bed Miles 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.95

Length Paralleling Existing Utility 

Corridor Miles 0.61 0.61 3.04 1.23 

New At-Grade Rail Crossings

(Paved Roads) # of Crossings 0 1 0 1 

Total Estimated Implementation

Cost1 $ Millions $22.04 $21.61 $21.79 $21.64 

NATURAL FEATURES

Wetland Impacts2 Acreage 80.80 66.85 79.27 63.46

Cost of Impacts to Wetlands3 $ Millions $2.42 $2.01 $2.38 $1.90

Stream Crossings # of Crossings 1 0 1 0

Total Stream Impacts Feet 250 0 40 0

Cost of Impacts to Streams3 $200 per linear 

feet @ 50% $25,000 $0 $4,000 $0 

MAN-MADE FEATURES

MDEQ CERCLA/Haz Mat sites Acreage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

High Probability Acreage 13.85 28.11 14.09 20.07

Medium Probability Acreage 20.45 17.89 28.08 28.77

Residential Homes within 

200-400 ft of centerline # of homes 0.00 4.00 0.00 1.00 

Residential Homes within 1,000 ft 

of centerline4 # of homes 0.00 6.00 0.00 2.00 

16th Sections Land Acreage 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.00

Farmland (Prime) Acreage 0.00 1.32 2.46 1.98

Farmland (Prime if Drained) Acreage 31.47 30.90 32.51 31.08

Mines Acreage 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1) Cost Estimates updated in May 2016

2) Wetland Impacts are based on NWI Mapping and field observation performed in the Spring 2016

3) Cost assumes a 100-foot right-of-way (50 percent of the 200-foot corridor) 

4) The number of homes includes homes within 200–400ft of center line.

The four alternatives were further evaluated, and Alternative C was identified as the Preferred 

Alternative and carried forward for further study in the DEIS. Compared to the other three options, this 

alignment would be the most direct route, with the shortest distance between Segment 7 and the PBRR. 

This alignment would be located west of the residential development and the existing paved roadway of 

Old Lower Bay Road and would not impact any residential areas. This option fell in the median range for 

wetland impacts and cost and would have lower stream impacts. From a rail operational standpoint, this 
2–7 

alignment would tie into the PBRR at an optimal distance from the switch point of 0.4 mile. This 

alignment would also parallel the Colonial Pipeline corridor for the entire length of the segment. Existing 

school bus routes for South Hancock Elementary School do not appear to extend out to the new atgrade crossing for the proposed Project, meaning school bus delays and safety issues associated with rail 

operations would be minimal. Noise and vibration impacts on existing residences in the area would be 

avoided. The following is a summary of the advantages and disadvantages of Alternative C as compared 

to A, B, and D. 

• ▪ The advantages of Alternative C are as follows: 

− Utilizes shortest Route

− Follows an existing utility corridor (3.04 miles)

− Lower cost for implementation then Alternative A ($0.25 m less) 

− Optimal distance to the PBRR switch. 

− No impacts to residences (both alternative B and D impact residences) 

• ▪ The disadvantages of Alternative C are as follows:

− Higher wetland impacts (Alternative A has the highest) 

− Higher probability of “High Probability” cultural resources impacts (Alternative B has the 

highest)

− Higher “Farmland” impacts, (Prime – 2.46 acres more, Prime if Drained – 32.51 acres 

more)

Based on the above analysis, Alternatives A, B, and D are eliminated from further study. 

Based on these alternative comparisons and the elimination of competing segments from further study, 

there are six segments that were combined to create the Build Alternative that was further studied in 

the DEIS. This alternative was compared to a No-Build Alternative.

ʹǤʹǤ͵ 

Based on the alternatives analysis, Alternative C was carried forward as the Build Alternative for further 

study in the DEIS and was ultimately recommended as the Preferred Alternative within the DEIS when 

compared to the No Build Alternative. Figure ROD-1 shows the proposed alignment of the Preferred 

(Build) Alternative. 

The Preferred (Build) Alternative would begin in the northern section of the Study Area in Nicholson,

Mississippi and would continue southwest along the existing NS rail line. It would leave the existing rail 

south of Texas Flat Road and continue in easterly direction. It would turn to the southeast and would 

turn and travel south. 

The alignment continues in a southerly direction along the southern option “C” and ties into the existing 

PBRR. Refer to Figure 3.3 of the DEIS for a map of the corridor segments. 

The Preferred Alternative was reviewed and approved by FRA and MDOT during distribution of the DEIS 

and during the public comment period. 
2–8 

2.3. Public Outreach and Opportunities to Comment 

Federal and state law requires agencies, nongovernmental groups, and the public be engaged 

throughout preparation of the EIS for the Project. NEPA mandates agency and public participation in 

defining and evaluating the effects of the Project alternatives. The Project has also followed USDOT 

guidelines for public participation, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000 (d)) 

and Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations 

and Low-Income Populations, 59 Federal Register 7629 (February 16, 1994). 

NEPA requires that a DEIS provide full disclosure of the environmental impacts associated with a 

proposed action. The agencies and the public must be given a reasonable opportunity to comment on 

that action. 

The public has been engaged through public meetings, public hearings, the Project websites provided by 

FRA and MDOT, and email distribution lists. Informational materials at all public meetings, including 

handouts, and displays of the Project Study Area and project alternatives have been available at the 

public meetings and hearing. All DEIS public outreach materials are included in Appendix C. 

The public review and comment period for the DEIS began when the NOA was published in the Federal 

Register on September 21, 2018 and ended on November 5, 2018. One public hearing on the DEIS was 

held on October 23, 2018 at the Stennis International Airport. Forty-six individuals attended the public 

hearing. During the 45-day comment period, MDOT received 29 comment letters or comment cards 

from various citizens, stakeholders, and agencies. No comments warranted analysis of additional 

alternatives or a change in the selection of the Preferred Alternative. 

Comments on the DEIS and exhibits and sign-in forms provided at the public hearing can be found in 

Appendix E and Appendix C, respectively. 

2.4. Description of the Selected Alternative, 

Environmental Effects, and Mitigation

In this ROD, FRA selects the Preferred Alternative. This section presents the basis for the decision, a 

description of the alternative, and a summary of the environmental effects and mitigation. 

ʹǤͶǤͳ 

The documents considered in making the decision include: 

• Port Bienville Rail Feasibility Study (2013)

• Port Bienville Rail Alternatives Development Technical Methodology Report (2013) 

• Responses to comments received on the DEIS 

• This combined FEIS and ROD (Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act [FAST Act] Section 

1311 (a)(b)) 

• Technical studies and memorandum (Appendices to DEIS) 
2–9 

ʹǤͶǤʹ 

FRA has selected the Build Alternative (Alternative C). The Selected Alternative would begin in the 

northern section of the Study Area in Nicholson, Mississippi and would continue southwest along the 

existing NS rail line. It would leave the existing rail south of Texas Flat Road and continue in easterly 

direction. It would turn to the southeast and would turn and travel south. The alignment continues in a 

southerly direction along the southern option “C” and ties into the existing PBRR. Figure ROD-1 shows 

the proposed alignment of the Selected Alternative. 

The Selected Alternative includes the construction of a new proposed rail line, approximately 24 miles 

long. The proposed rail line would provide a direct connection between the PBRR and the NS rail line 

near I-59, north of SSC. 

ʹǤͶǤ͵ 

The Selected Alternative would impact both the natural and human environment. As summarized in 

Table ROD-3 below, the primary impacts would include impacts to streams, wetlands, farmlands, 

floodplains, noise, vibration, and safety of at-grade crossings. The Selected Alternative would be located 

west of existing residential development and the existing paved roadway of Old Lower Bay Road and 

would not impact any residential areas. This alternative fell in the median range for wetland impacts and 

cost; and it has lower stream impacts. From a rail operational standpoint, this alignment would tie into 

the PBRR at an optimal distance from the switch point of 0.4 mile. This alignment would also parallel the 

Colonial Pipeline corridor for the entire length of the segment. Existing school bus routes for South 

Hancock Elementary School do not extend out to the new at-grade crossing for the proposed Project, 

meaning school bus delays and safety issues associated with rail operations would be minimal. Noise 

and vibration impacts on existing residences in the area would be minimal. 

Impacts to natural resources, including wetlands and streams, within this area is a major concern. 

Resource agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ), and EPA have expressed that maintaining the hydrology and sheet flow 

within this area is of high importance. Although the design elements of the Project are conceptual at this 

point, efforts to minimize impacts to both the human and natural environments will continue during 

Project development. 

The Selected Alternative would provide beneficial effects, including additional freight transportation 

options and potential economic development and opportunities resulting from the new railroad 

connector. Access to two Class 1 railroads would position Hancock County and the 

Port Bienville Industrial Park in this group of “crown jewel” industrial parks. According to the Port 

Bienville Economic Development and Opportunities Analysis, completed in September 2013 by the 

Project Team, it would increase competitiveness for recruitment of industrial tenants. Also, the rail car 

usage on the Port Bienville Short Line Railroad could increase significantly with access to two Class 1 

railroads. The economic benefits of non‐captive industrial facilities (those facilities with access to more 

than one railroad provider) have been known to realize between 30 to 45 percent lower rail rates than 

those paid by captive production facilities. The most significant long-term economic development 

benefits and opportunities from this rail connector will be generated from new employment and 
2–10

additional investment in plant and equipment by existing businesses and the location of new companies 

that require or would benefit from access to dual Class 1 rail services. 

Table ROD-3: Summary of Impacts and Costs for the Build and No-Build Alternatives 

Impact Category (Units) No-Build

Alternative Build Alternative

HUMAN ENVIRONMENT

Cultural Resources (Sites) N/A 0

Farmland (Acres) N/A 222

Noise (No.) N/A 2 Severe/12 Moderate

Vibration (No.) N/A 3

Residential Relocations (No.) N/A 0

Hazardous Materials (Sites) N/A 1

Business Relocations (No.) N/A 0

Environmental Justice Impacted Census Blocks (No.) N/A 4

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT

Streams (LF)a N/A 2,482

Wetlands (Acres)a N/A 171.58

Other Waters (Acres)a N/A 2.01

Floodplains (Acres) N/A 96.74

Threatened and Endangered Species (affect/impact) N/A 7b

ENGINEERING

Gas Pipelines (Crossings No.) N/A 8

Railroad Bridges Over Roadways (No.) N/A 4

Railroad Bridges Over Streams (No.) N/A 2

SAFETY AND MOBILITY

At-Grade Crossings (No.) N/A 22

Construction Costs (2019)c N/A $111,722,668.30

a) Based on detailed field work.

b) Two of the species are State Listed Species

c) Construction costs have been updated since the DEIS based on 3 percent annual inflation and a more refined preliminary design 

for the FEIS that eliminates retaining walls and bridge approaches. The 2016 costs in the DEIS ($118,151,058) included extensive 

retaining walls at bridge approaches to keep the project footprint within a 100-foot-wide corridor. 

2.5. Measures to Minimize Harm 

The DEIS included best management practices (BMPs), design features, and mitigation strategies that 

address effects to the Project. Each resource evaluation in Chapter 5 of the DEIS included mitigation 

measures or strategies for further development and consideration during project design. Strategies 

included avoidance and minimization measures for the next phase of design. Table ROD-4 includes a list 

of commitments and mitigation measures that would be implemented if MDOT advances the Project for 

construction. 

Currently, there is no funding or Project Sponsor identified for construction of the Project. If FRA funding 

or approval is required to construct the Project, FRA would require the future Project Sponsor to comply 

with the commitments and mitigation measures outlined in this document. 
2–11

Table ROD-4: Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures

Discipline and DEIS Page Potential Effects Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for 

consideration

Cultural Resources (4.7 and 5.6) 

The Project would 

have no adverse effect 

on archaeological 

sites. 

If unanticipated cultural materials (e.g., large, intact artifacts 

or animal bones; large soils stains or patterns of soil stains; 

buried brick or stone structures; clusters of brick or stone) or 

human skeletal remains are discovered during construction 

activities, then the appropriate construction engineer shall be 

immediately notified and all work in the vicinity of the 

discovered materials shall cease until an evaluation can be 

made by the MDOT archaeologist in consultation with 

MDAH/SHPO. 

Air Quality (4.9 and 5.8) 

Temporary, shortterm impacts are 

possible during 

construction

Emissions from construction vehicles and equipment can be 

minimized by employment of several BMPs: 

(1) properly maintaining and tuning equipment 

(2) reducing equipment idling time

(3) planning efficient routes from construction material 

loading sites to the construction site

(4) using alternative fuels for construction equipment, when 

feasible. 

Emissions from local vehicles resulting from detours and 

other traffic delays during construction can also be minimized 

by implementing BMPs during construction, including 

properly planning traffic control in work zones and signage. 

Dust generated by construction activities can be minimized by 

providing water suppression controls and soil stabilizers. The 

future Project Sponsor identified for construction of the 

Project will be responsible for implementing BMPs for air 

quality.

Noise and Vibration (4.10 and 

5.9) 

Noise and vibration 

associated with the 

proposed Project has 

the potential to affect 

residential and 

commercial properties 

adjacent to the rail 

line near Nicholson

Noise mitigation for severe impacts may include: eliminating 

locomotive horn use at the U.S. 11 at-grade crossing, 

retrofitting buildings with air conditioning and improved 

storm doors and windows, or settlements. These would only 

be considered near receptors 1 and 2 in the northern end of 

the Study Area where severe noise impacts are projected to 

occur. The future Project Sponsor would be responsible for 

implementation of noise mitigation measures prior to 

construction to reduce severe noise and vibration impacts as 

per requirements. 
2–12

Discipline and DEIS Page Potential Effects Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for 

consideration

Waters of the U.S. (4.12 and 

5.11) 

Short-term and longterm impacts to 

waters of the U.S. 

would be localized and 

minor. 

The future Project Sponsor would be responsible for 

implementation of mitigation measures for wetlands/waters 

of the U.S. BMPs would be implemented by the contractor to 

avoid and minimize impacts to wetlands and streams, where 

practicable: 

• Surface matting is an option that would reduce soil 

disturbance, and silt fencing where activities are occurring 

adjacent to streams would be implemented. 

• Post-construction, temporary impact areas would be 

restored to preconstruction elevation, and native 

vegetation would be planted to re-establish native 

vegetation quickly. 

Construction of the proposed Project would require a permit 

under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) to authorize 

impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The 

compensatory mitigation requirements under Section 404 

would provide for the replacement of the functions of 

wetlands and water affected by the proposed Project. Further 

mitigation may be required as a condition of the Section 404 

permit. 

Floodplains (4.13 and 5.12) No permanent 

impacts to floodplains 

Coordination regarding floodplain impacts will be conducted 

with FEMA and Hancock and Pearl River Counties during the 

final design phase. During the permitting process, FEMA and 

Hancock and Pearl River Counties would be contacted for 

permit and review requirements for the Project. 

Water Resources (4.14 and 5.13) 

No permanent 

impacts to water 

quality; localized 

water quality could be 

temporarily affected 

during construction

BMPs will be installed to minimize potential water quality 

impacts during construction. 

Section 401 permit (water quality certification) would be 

required from MDEQ prior to construction. 

Vegetation and Wildlife (4.15 and 

5.14) 

Vegetation clearing 

for construction 

The future Project Sponsor would be responsible for 

implementation of minimization and mitigation measures for 

vegetation and wildlife. BMPs would be used to the extent 

practicable to further reduce the impact to wildlife and 

habitat: 

• Vegetation clearing for construction activities would be 

planned outside of migratory bird breeding season for the 

area. 

• Areas disturbed for stockpiling materials or equipment 

staging yards would be placed in uplands where possible 

and restored to preconstruction elevations and reseeded 

with native species to re-establish the vegetation 

community. 

• During construction, sediment run-off would be controlled 

near streams using silt fencing and other methods to 

reduce turbidity and any potential effects on aquatic 

species.
2–13

Discipline and DEIS Page Potential Effects Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for 

consideration

Threatened and Endangered 

Species (4.15.4 and 5.14.2) 

For all species, 

construction could 

cause temporary 

displacement or stress 

Additional surveys will be conducted prior to construction 

during the optimal survey window and site conditions to 

verify no Louisiana Quillwort are identified in the construction 

limits. 

Mitigation measures and restoration of disturbed areas would 

reduce effects to wildlife, including BCC species. BMPs would 

be used to the extent practicable to further reduce the 

impact to wildlife and habitat.: 

• Vegetation clearing for construction activities would be 

planned outside of the migratory bird breeding season. 

• Areas disturbed for stockpiling materials or equipment 

staging yards would be placed in uplands, where possible, 

and restored to preconstruction elevations and reseeded 

with native species to re-establish the vegetation 

community. 

• During construction, sediment run-off would be controlled 

near streams using silt fencing and other methods to 

reduce turbidity and any potential effects to aquatic 

species. All these measures would help limit potential 

impacts to BCC species. 

Hazardous Waste (4.16 and 5.15) 

Unexploded ordinance 

(UXO) may pose risk of 

detonation during 

construction. 

To reduce the risk of encountering UXO, a thorough search 

using metal detectors of all areas within the proposed rightof-way that fall within the Hancock County Bombing and 

Gunnery Range, and where the soil would be disturbed or 

heavy equipment utilized, will be conducted prior to 

construction. If a UXO is discovered, all activity will 

immediately cease; the area will be evacuated, and local 

authorities will be contacted to dispatch a bomb disposal unit 

to the UXO location. 

Transportation and Safety (4.18 

and 5.17) 

Temporary, minor 

delays during 

construction and at 

new railroad crossings 

Before any new highway-rail grade crossing traffic control 

system is installed, or before modifications are made to an 

existing system, approval will be obtained from the highway 

agency with the jurisdictional and/or statutory authority, and 

from the railroad company with ownership of the rail line. 

Highway-rail grade crossing traffic control measures would be 

implemented in accordance with the MUTCD standards as 

part of the Project. Recommended traffic control for highwayrail at-grade crossings would include, at a minimum, one 

grade crossing (crossbuck) sign on each highway approach to 

every highway-rail grade crossing, alone or in combination 

with other traffic control devices. Also, a Grade Crossing 

Advance Warning sign will be used on each highway in 

advance of every public highway-rail grade crossing.
2–14

2.6. Monitoring and Enforcement 

Transportation projects must comply with federal, state, and local environmental laws and regulations, 

permits, reviews, notifications, consultation, and other approvals. The future Project Sponsor will be 

responsible for obtaining all necessary permits. A USACE Section 404 permit will be required for 

construction of the Build Alternative. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, requires that the proposed 

Project be permitted before any construction activities, including dredging or fill, occur within waters of 

MDEQ. Permitting would be coordinated with requirements of the Clean Water Act to ensure that water 

quality is maintained. Coordination with USFWS was conducted for potential impacts to threatened 

and/or endangered species. Also, coordination will be required with the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) during Project design to ensure that there are no encroachments to the 

floodplain. Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Mississippi 

Department of Archives and History (MDAH) for any impacts to cultural resources is complete. A 

concurrence letter was provided by MDAH on December 21, 2017. MDAH/SHPO does agree that the 

construction of the Project would not have an adverse impact on any of the identified cultural resource 

sites. Coordination with utility companies, pipelines, and other infrastructure facilities will be ongoing 

through Project development. 

Table ROD-5 lists the permits, notifications, or concurrences that may be required for construction of 

the Project. 

Table ROD-5: Anticipated Permits and Approvals 

Impact or Action Applicable Laws/

Regulations Agency Sites or Actions Requiring Permits and/or Approvals 

Wetlands/ Waters 

of the U.S.

Section 404 of the Clean 

Water Act (CWA), 33 USC § 

1251 et seq.

USACE Section 404 regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material 

into waters of the U.S. Impacts that require a Section 404 

permit include, but are not limited to, placement of fill into 

wetlands for rail beds, placement of culverts and pipes within 

the ordinary high water mark of a stream and alteration of 

channel morphology. Bridge construction over creeks that 

does not involve dredging or filling does not require a permit 

as no improvements take place in waters of the U.S. Some rail 

bridge piers may need to be placed in stream beds. Potential 

wetland impacts have been identified within the Project rightof-way. 

Water Quality Section 401 of the CWA, 33 

USC § 1251 et seq. 

MDEQ Section 401 requires a state certification that a discharge to 

waters of the U.S. complies with other provisions of the CWA. 

The USACE 404 permit application prepared also serves as an 

application for water quality certification. MDEQ will receive 

notice from USACE that an application has been made. The 

proposed track alignment crosses one Section 303(d) impaired 

stream.
2–15

Impact or Action Applicable Laws/

Regulations Agency Sites or Actions Requiring Permits and/or Approvals 

Stormwater Section 402 of the CWA, 33 

USC § 1251 et seq. 

MDEQ Section 402 requires a National Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System (NPDES) permit for discharges into waters 

of the U.S. Prior to construction, an application for a general 

permit for construction activities under the NPDES would be 

prepared. As part of the permit application, a detailed 

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be 

prepared to control stormwater runoff and erosion at

construction sites. The State is in the process of reissuing 

Mississippi’s Large Construction Storm Water General Permit 

(MSR10), which pertains to land-disturbing activities of 5 acres 

or more.

Farmland Farmland Protection Policy 

Act (FPPA) – Subtitle I of Title 

XV, Section 1539-1549 

USDA/NRCS Impacts to farmland (prime), farmland (prime if drained), and 

farmland (statewide importance) have been identified. NRCS 

completes a Farmland Conversion Form (CPA-106) for all 

federal funding projects to assess potential irreversible 

impacts to farmland.

Threatened/ 

Endangered 

Species

Endangered Species Act (ESA) 

of 1973, 16 USC §1531 et 

seq., 50 CFR § 17 

USFWS The Project is not expected to impact any critical habitat. If 

any impacts were to be identified, mitigation measures would 

be determined in consultation with USFWS prior to 

construction.

Coastal Zone Coastal Zone Management 

Act of 1972, 16 USC §1451

MDMR Office of 

Coastal 

Resources

The MDMR will review the proposed rail Project based upon 

the provisions of the MCP and Section 307 of the CZMA of 

1972, as amended, to determine if the activities are consistent 

to the maximum extent practicable with the MCP. If so, 

MDMR will grant consistency certification.

Cultural 

Resources

Section 106 of the National 

Historic Preservation Act of 

1966, as amended, 16 USC § 

470 et seq.

MDAH SHPO Involvement with historic sites and districts is being 

coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) 

and the Mississippi Department of Archives and History 

(MDAH). Three historic structures were identified within the 

architectural APE. None of these resources were determined 

to be eligible for the NRHP via MDAH concurrence letter 

issued December 21, 2017. 

Floodplain NFIP; Executive Orders 11988 

and 11990 (response dated 

May 12, 2015).

FEMA/Local 

floodplain 

administrators 

Encroachment into floodways would be coordinated with the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Bridges, 

pipes, and box culverts must be designed in accordance with 

appropriate floodplain impact requirements per FRA, MDOT, 

FHWA, and local agencies. Prior to construction, community 

floodplain administrators will be contacted for the review and 

possible permit requirements.

MDMR = Mississippi Department of Marine Resources; USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture; NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation Service; 

NFIP = National Flood Insurance Program

2.7. Determinations and Findings Regarding Other Laws 

ʹǤ͹Ǥͳ ͶȋȌ͸ȋȌ

Certain classes of properties have special federal protection and must be considered when assessing the 

potential effects of a proposed USDOT project. Properties that are designated as being historic sites, 

public parks/recreation areas, as well as wildlife/waterfowl refuges are protected under Section 4(f) of 

the Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. § 303(c)). FRA cannot approve the use of these properties for 

transportation projects. There are three standard categories under which changes to land use occur. 
2–16

• Permanent Incorporation–land acquisition 

• Temporary Occupancy–such as construction staging or closing of a portion of the property 

• Constructive Use–usually access or noise related 

Transportation projects may not encroach or in any way infringe upon Section 4(f) properties unless 

there is: 

• No feasible and prudent alternative to avoid the protected property 

• The proposed Project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the protected 

property. 

No NRHP eligible sites were found within the area of potential effects for the Project and no 

wildlife/waterfowl refuges are within the Study Area. Four parks were identified as Section 4(f) 

properties that area located within the Study Area, including McLeod Park, Whites Road Park, 

Pearlington Boat Launch and Curtis Johnson Boat Launch; all are in Hancock County. 

Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA)7 provides another class of federally 

protected properties. The properties within this group received LWCFA funding to purchase or develop 

lands for recreation use. The purpose of Section 6(f) is to preserve lands having received these funds for 

continual public recreational use. 

In addition to being protected as Section 4(f) properties, two of the parks (McLeod Park and Whites 

Road Park) received Section 6(f) funds. 

As described in Chapter 5 of the DEIS, the Selected Alternative would have no impacts on Section 4(f) or 

Section 6(f) properties. McLeod Park would be located approximately 3.3 miles from the Selected 

Alternative. The second property is Whites Road Park which is located approximately 5.3 miles from the 

Selected Alternative. The third property is the Pearlington Boat Launch, located approximately 5.7 miles 

from the Selected Alternative. The fourth property is Curtis Johnson Boat Launch located approximately 

7.4 miles from the Selected Alternative. Because of the distance of the Project from the Section 

4(f)/Section 6(f) resources, the Project would have no impact on these parks. 

The Selected Alternative would not affect the any Section 4(f)/6(f) protected properties. 

ʹǤ͹Ǥʹ ͳͲ͸

The Project is subject to compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as 

amended (16 U.S.C. § 470, et seq.) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR § 800). Specifically, Section 

106 of the NHPA requires that the responsible federal agency consider the effects of its actions on 

historic properties, which are properties listed in or determined eligible for listing in the National 

Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and provide the federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation 

(ACHP) an opportunity to comment on the undertaking. 

As mentioned in Chapter 4 of the DEIS, each cultural resource encountered as part of the Project 

investigation is documented in the Draft Cultural Resource Report (Appendix B of DEIS) and was 

7

 Pub. L. 88–578. Land and Water Conservation Fund is codified at 54 U.S.C. Chapter 2003.
2–17

assessed for potential eligibility for listing on the NRHP based on the significance criteria set forth in 36 

CFR Part 60.4.8

 

ʹǤ͹ǤʹǤͳ 

A total of 24 linear archaeological sites were identified within the archaeological area of potential 

effects (APE). Thirteen of the linear sites have been determined as not eligible for listing on the NRHP. 

Eleven sites are considered as “unknown” for their eligibility determination; however, MDAH 

determined that the Project would not have an adverse impact on these sites. A concurrence letter from 

MDAH Historic Preservation Division was issued on December 21, 2017 and can be found in the 

appendices of this document. 

ʹǤ͹ǤʹǤʹ 

Three newly recorded historic resources were identified during the architectural survey and are 

associated with NASA Turn (Site 22Ha767, see Section 5.6 of DEIS). All three resources are railroad 

bridges constructed for transporting construction materials. The structures are not historically or 

architecturally significant and are recommended not eligible for the NRHP by MDAH. Therefore, the 

Project would not affect any NRHP eligible architectural sites. 

ʹǤ͹Ǥ͵ 


Executive Order (EO) 12898, issued in 1994, requires federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable 

and permitted by law, to identify and address the potential disproportionately high and adverse human 

health and environmental impacts of their programs, policies and activities on minority and low-income 

populations. Federal agency responsibilities under this EO also apply to Native American programs. 

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Order 5610.2 was issued in 1997 to comply with EO 

12898. The policy of the DOT Order is to promote the principles of environmental justice in all DOT 

programs, which includes FRA. 

Chapter 5 of the DEIS describes the evaluation areas, counties, and percentages of minority and lowincome populations in the Study Area. The U.S. Census Bureau block group was used to determine 

minority and low-income populations. Of the 11 block groups within the Study Area, seven have higher 

percentages of low-income populations than the respective counties and five block groups have higher 

percentages of minority populations than their respective counties. Details of the block group data are 

in Table 4.7 of the DEIS. 

Although the Selected Alternative would cross through block groups where low-income and minority 

populations were identified, the Selected Alternative would not cause any relocations and would not 

result in disproportionately high and adverse impacts within minority and/or low-income areas. In these 

areas, the Selected Alternative will utilize existing rail lines; therefore, no impacts are anticipated. The 

Selected Alternative is expected to bring development and employment opportunities to the area, 

which would be felt by all communities with the Study Area. Since the impacts (both adverse and 

8

 The Draft Cultural Resources Report published with the DEIS reflects input from MDAH. FRA has finalized the Cultural Resources Report, 

unchanged from the DEIS. 
2–18

beneficial) to minority and low-income households would not be disproportionate, there are no 

environmental justice concerns associated with the Selected Alternative. 

ʹǤ͹ǤͶ 

The construction of the Build Alternative would impact wetlands, streams, and other waters types 

located within the construction limits of the proposed project. The proposed right-of-way for the project 

has been determined to be 100 feet wide. During the design phase, construction limits would be 

defined; construction limits are estimated to be approximately 75 feet wide, which would further reduce 

wetland impacts. Impacts discussed in this section are based off a 100 feet wide corridor. Both 

temporary and permanent impacts would occur in order to construct the proposed Project. 

Chapter 5.11 of the DEIS describes potential wetlands impacts, both temporary and permanent, within 

the Selected Alternative’s corridor. Approximately 173.59 acres of wetlands and other waters, and 

approximately 2,482 linear feet of streams would be impacted by the new railroad and associated 

infrastructure. 

Construction of the proposed Project would require a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act 

(CWA) to authorize impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands. The compensatory mitigation 

requirements under Section 404 would provide for the replacement of the functions of wetlands and 

water impacted by the proposed Project and would be provided by the future Project sponsor. Because 

the proposed Project would not appreciably diminish the availability of functional wetlands and other 

waters within the proposed right-of-way, there would be no fragmentation of wetland vegetative 

communities and; therefore, short-term and long-term impacts would be localized and minor. 

2.8. FRA Decision 

Based on the consideration of the data presented in the DEIS, this combined FEIS and ROD, FRA selects 

the Preferred Alternative as presented in the DEIS and FEIS, and as described in the above sections of 

this ROD. Currently, there is no FRA funding or approval associated with final design and construction of 

the Project. 

Having carefully considered the environmental record noted above, the mitigation measure strategies 

described here, the written and oral comments offered by agencies and the public on this record and 

the written responses to the comments, FRA has determined that the Selected Alternative represents 

the best option for the Project and includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to the 

environment.