PORT BIENVILLE RAILROAD

COMBINED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL 

IMPACT STATEMENT AND 

RECORD OF DECISION 

APPENDIX F:

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS MATRIX

Prepared for:

Federal Rail Administration

Mississippi Department of Transportation
This page intentionally left blank.
Appendix F: Comments and Responses Matrix

Comment

number Date received Format Agency/Organization Contact info Comment Summary Response

Agency/Organization

1 11/2/2018 letter US Department of the Interior Amy Carson; 601-321-1130; 

amy_commens-carson@fws.gov; 

Joyce Stanley, 404-331-4524, 

joyce_stanley@ios.doi.gov

1) On October 9, 2018, the Department of the Interior announced the proposed listing of the Eastern black rail ( Laterallus jamaicensis

jamaicensis ) as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. The draft EIS did not address the Eastern black rail since the document 

was completed prior to the Department announcing the proposed listing. We recommend the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) or its

designated non-federal representative include in the EIS an assessment of the impacts of the proposed project on the Eastern black rail. 2)

The applicant made a determination that the proposed project “may affect but is not likely to adversely affect” the federally endangered 

Louisiana quillwort ( Isoetes louisianensis ). According to the information in the draft EIS, impacts to stream habitat that could potentially

contain Louisiana quillwort are not anticipated because several of the crossings will be modifications of existing stream crossings. However, 

Louisiana quillwort can occur adjacent to existing road crossings; therefore, we recommend the EIS include details of the survey 

methodology used including habitat conditions during the surveys and timing of the surveys. If conditions or timing of the surveys previously

conducted are found not to be appropriate for detecting Louisiana quillwort, we recommend surveying suitable habitat in the proposed 

project impact area prior to the start of construction, and early enough for formal consultation to occur if Louisiana quillwort are discovered.

1) See response letter and revised DEIS sections 4.15.4, 4.15.4.1, and 5.14.2 in FEIS/ROD. As 

detailed in 4.15.4. preferred habitat for the Eastern black rail is typically salt and brackish marshes with 

dense cover. These preferred habitats do not occur within the survey corridor. An assessment of

potential impacts to the Eastern black rail from the proposed project will be included in the FEIS. The 

species will be included as “proposed threatened” on the Evaluation of T&E Species in the Survey 

Corridor table (Table 4.25) in the revised DEIS section. An assessment of the Eastern black rail will be 

added to 5.14.2, detailing habitat requirements and potential impacts from the proposed Project. It is

recommended that the proposed Project would have no effect on the Eastern black rail due to lack of 

potential suitable habitat in the Survey Corridor. 2) See response letter and revsied DEIS section 5.14.2.

As detailed in 5.14.2, the T&E survey was conducted in March/April 2016, during the optimal field 

season for the species, and again in June 2016. Due to the site conditions—specifically the silvicultural 

activities—it is unlikely the Louisiana quillwort inhabits the on-site streams, and no quillwort was 

observed during field observations. A commitment will be included in the final EIS to complete 

additional surveys prior to construction during the optimal survey window and in normal site conditions

to verify no species are within the construction limits.

2 11/5/2018 letter Gulf Restoration Network AndrewWhitehurst; 504-525-1528

ext. 200; andrew@healthygulf.org

1) Three of the streams that must be crossed with railroad bridges or culverts are Turtle Skin Creek, Dead Tiger Creek and Catahoula Creek,

all of which are listed for biological impairments, and appear on the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality’s 2016 303(d) list of 

impaired waters. We suggest that special care be used in crossing Turtle Skin Creek with bridges and in managing the sheet flow in its

drainage area. Water quantity upstream is a problem for this reach of the river; track bed design should avoid, to the greatest extent 

possible, alterations in the pattern of movement in surface water flows or shallow groundwater that can cause water deficits during dry 

periods in both bogs bisected by the project and the small drains and streams in this section of the Pearl River basin. Railroad track beds 

on fill will change sheet flow. Some form of piping system may help keep water moving under the track beds, and longer elevated 

approaches on creeks – building elevated track bridges slightly longer than required by cost conscious engineers – would also facilitate 

better stream flow. Making the bridge over Turtle Skin Creek longer in Wetland sections K, L, and M would give Turtle Skin Creek and the

Pearl River better protection. 2) Surveys for the protected quillwort and iron- color shiners in all three of these low gradient streams should 

be performed if they haven’t yet been undertaken. 3) Special attention should be paid to the safety concerns of adding more train traffic

along US Hwy. 11 which is known as a treacherous and busy road. The two agencies, FRA and MDOT should pay special attention to the

ongoing train/traffic situation in the Nicholson to Picayune area. People living there now recognize that there are already traffic congestion

problems due to trains at the existing grade crossings along U.S. Hwy 11.

1) As detailed in the response letter, a detailed hydrology study has not been completed for the 

proposed Project. However, it will be completed during the next project phase. Bridge crossings and

culverts will be analyzed in detail to determine the best solution for maintaining stream flow. 2) See 

response letter and revised DEIS section 5.14.2 in FEIS/ROD for details about the survey window for

the Louisiana quillwort. Surveys for the Louisiana quillwort and ironcolored shiners were conducted in 

March, April, and June 2016 and neither of the species were observed during the field reconnaissance.

As noted in the DEIS (5.14.3), no ironcolor shiners were observed during the T&E survey and the 

preferred aquatic vegetation was not observed in streams during the surveys. Due to the site 

conditions—specifically the silvicultural activities—it is unlikely the Louisiana quillwort inhabits the onsite streams, and no quillwort was observed during field observations. Revised DEIS section 5.14.2 will 

be updated to note that additional surveys will be conducted prior to construction during the optimal 

survey window and in normal site conditions to verify no Louisiana quillwort species are within the 

construction limits.

4 10/29/2018 letter U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency

WilliamKenneth Dean, 404-562-

9378, dean.williamkenneth@epa.gov

1) Based on the available information, Alternative D appears to be a less environmentally damaging alternative than Alternative C. EPA

suggests that additional information be included in the DEIS to better support the decision to eliminate Alternative D. Specifically, we 

request the following be added to the DEIS: a) the exact distances of the two residences from the Segment D centerline; b) the distances

from the Segment D centerline where noise and vibration impacts would be moderate and severe; c) the magnitude or level of noise and 

vibration that the two residences would experience under Alternative D. 2) EPA recommends that bridges and/or culverts that span stream

crossings should be built as wide as possible to accommodate flood flows. This entails calculating the extent of the 25-, 50-, and 100-year 

floodplain at each crossing and designing the bridge/culvert to accomodate those flows. 3a) The appropriate BMPs must be used during and

after construction in accordance with State of Mississippi requirements for transportation projects and/or enhanced BMPs, as required, so as

not to cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards or cause further degradation to Turtle Skin Creek. 3b) Please clarify 

whether the 100-foot-wide right-of-way for the project includes areas likely to be used as borrow for the railroad bed. If no areas in the 

ROW will be used as borrow for the railroad bed, then provide an explanation whether these areas add to the total amount of wetland 

impacted by the project. 4) Any unavoidable wetland impacts should be able to be offset using the nearby mitigation banks. FRA and 

MDOT will need to work with USACE to appropriately evaluate the quality of the existing wetlands being affected and how much 

compensatory mitigation will be required. 5) The DEIS does not specifically address the effects of the project on migratory bird species of 

concern, with exception to the wood stork, a federally listed threatened and endangered species. EPA recommends that the FEIS include 

more specific information about migratory birds, with emphasis on species of concern for the study area and the potential effects of the 

project on the species of concern, and that the discussion address habitat reduction, fragmentation, and seasonality.

1) See response letter and revised DEIS section 3.2.3.2 in FEIS/ROD. (a) The two closest residences to

the Alternative D centerline are 205 and 632 feet away. (b) No vibration impacts are anticipated. (c) 

Severe noise impacts were determined and from Lower Bay Road severe impacts can be felt at 703 

feet away; therefore the two closest residences to Alternative D would experience severe noise impacts.

The requested information for 1(a) through (c) will be added to the FEIS in the revised DEIS section. 2) 

See response letter. As detailed in the the letter, bridge crossings and culverts will be analyzed in detail

to determine the best solution for maintaining stream flow and accommodating flood flows. The 25-, 

50- and 100-year floods will be evaluating. 3a) See response letter. Any water quality impacts would be

mitigated as part of the 404/401 permit process. A comprehenisive SWPPP would be prepared and the 

BMPs to protect water quality would likely mitigate impacts from the Project construction. 3b) See

response letter and individual revisions in DEIS Errata Sheet (Table FEIS-2) of FEIS/ROD. As noted in 

the response letter, 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. 

Wetland impacts will be defined during the permitting phase when all impact types are calculated. 4) 

As noted in the response letter, wetland mitigation will be completed in the next project phase and

coordinated with USACE. 5) See response letter and revised DEIS sections 4.15.4 and 4.15.4.1 for 

discussion of Migratory Birds ofConservation Concern (BCC) regulations and database results; FRA

will revise DEIS section 5.14.2 and 5.14.4 to include specific information about BCC and potential 

effects. A new table and subsections will be added to the revised DEIS sections, specific to BCC 

(5.14.2.1 and 5.14.5).

5 10/15/2018 email NOAA-NMFS brandon.howard@noaa.gov No comments No response required.

6 11/5/2018 letter Tradewind Energy, Inc Drew Gibbons; Emily Truebner, 913-

953-5225,

etruebner@tradewindenergy.com

The proposed Port Bienville route runs directly through the project land for a proposed 80 MW solar energy facility (Hancock County Solar 

Project, LLC), which is not mentioned in the draft EIS. Therefore, Tradewinds Energy opposes the use of Segment 10b, which splits much of

the project property in half. Tradewinds Energy requests coordination for a minor deviation on proposed segment 10b to the south of the 

solar site. Tradewinds Energy asks MDOT and FRA reconsider Segment 10b due to failure of the draft EIS to consider the increased cost

and impact to the proposed solar facility; also request we be kept up to date of future developments on the Port Bienville Railroad project. In

addition, the draft EIS does not consider the lost revenue to the Picayune School District, which owns land that is subject to a Solar Site

Evaluation Easement and could generate meaningful revenues if the solar project moves forward. We ask that the added cost of land 

acquisition and the lost revenues to the school district be part of the evaluation of any proposed route.

MDOT and FRA appreciate your comments and have taken them into consideration. Land use was 

evaluated in the DEIS and the project was determined to be consistent with future land use 

designations identified in the Hancock County Comprehensive Plan. The Preferred Alternative

(Alternative C), has been accepted by FRA. MDOT and FRA will keep Tradewind Energy up to date on

future developments for the Project. Conversely, the Project is available for review online on MDOT 

and FRA's websites at http://sp.mdot.ms.gov/Environmental/Pages/Projects.aspx and

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

7 11/6/2018 letter Hancock Chamber of Tish H. Williams, 228-467-9048 In support of the Draft EIS; Hancock Chamber of Commerce acknowledges the value of the project for the benefit of the region and for No response required.

F-1
Comment

number Date received Format Agency/Organization Contact info Comment Summary Response

Commerce office, tish@hancockchamber.org Mississippi and offers its support for the project. The agencies are encouraged to expedite the approval of the final EIS and ROD so that this 

valuable project may begin in earnest.

8 12/14/2018 letter Southern Rail Commission John Spain, Chairman, 

jspain@braf.org

In short, the SRC requests FRA to update the EIS to incorporate the findings of the Congressionally established Gulf Coast Working Group, 

co- led by the FRA and the Southern Rail Commission and other recent developments around the restoration of passenger rail along the 

Gulf Coast. The SRC offered eight recommendations: 1) The EIS should be updated to add background about the GCWG, including

Congress’s mandate, the rigorous process the GCWG went through in studying how best to restore passenger rail across the Gulf Coast, 

and the GCWG final recommendations; 2) The draft EIS should be updated to remove the factually inaccurate statement and instead explain

the infrastructure analysis that FRA’s staff conducted as part of the GCWG final report and what that analysis found; 3) The draft EIS should 

be updated to remove the statement about operating at 110 mph and the need to double CSX’s mainline in order to operate at 110 mph to 

eliminate any potential misconceptions. Instead the EIS should mention the GCWG’s and FRA’s infrastructure analysis that FRA’s staff

conducted as part of the GCWG final report and what that analysis found. If there is a continued desire to add details about the operation of 

future passenger rail service, Amtrak and the SRC should be consulted for those details as they would be the co-operators of the service 

Amtrak has notified CSX it intends to run; 4) The draft EIS should be updated to add a discussion about the State of Mississippi’s 2016 rail 

plan update and the State’s rail goals, including its desire to implement a Gulf Coast passenger rail service. Furthermore, the draft EIS 

should mention the SRC’s federal application, especially the SRC’s application for funds to build a siding east of Ansley on the CSX main 

line, which is in close proximity to the Port of Bienville. Overall, section 4.18.3.5 does not represent the current State of Mississippi’s rail 

plan and needs to be updated to bring it in sync with the 2016 state rail plan; 5) The draft EIS should be updated to remove the reference to 

double tracking CSX’s main line since no party is planning to pursue double tracking CSX’s main line to accommodate passenger rail 

service (CSX’s freight capacity plans is outside the purview of the SRC). Instead, the EIS should explain the infrastructure analysis that 

FRA’s staff conducted as part of the GCWG final report and what that analysis found. This section may also want to add the projects SRC

has applied for federal CRISI funding. However, none of those projects would double track CSX’s main line; 6) The draft EIS should be 

updated to remove the reference to double tracking NS’s main line since the SRC is not aware of any party planning to pursue double 

tracking NS’s main line to accommodate passenger rail service. In addition, the SRC strongly believes it’s a huge assumption to assume

that NS’s main line would have to be double tracked to accommodate passenger rail service. Because the GCWG found that passenger trains

could run on CSX’s line without having to double track the line, the mention of double tracking NS’s main line to accommodate passenger rail 

service should be removed out of prudence; 7) [There is no discussion of 1) Amtrak’s notification to CSX in the Spring 2018 notifying CSX 

of Amtrak’s intent to restore passenger rail service in 12-18 months between New Orleans and Mobile on CSX’s tracks or 2) the SRC’s

applications for FY17 R&E funding and FY18 CRISI funding to help implement two round trips a day passenger rail service between New 

Orleans and Mobile.] Both of these developments are directly relevant to the Port of Bienville project as the passenger rail service would 

use the same CSX tracks the Port of Bienville currently connects to. Therefore, the SRC believes these developments need to be included 

in this EIS as part of any no-build or alternative analysis. Otherwise, the study would be incomplete and therefore inaccurate; and, 8) [One

thing the SRC urges FRA to keep in mind when it comes to include a discussion about necessary capital improvements along the CSX’s 

main line for restoring passenger service and the costs associated with these capital improvements is that Congress rejected the CSX

infrastructure estimate as overstated in the report language accompanying the FY18 Omnibus Appropriations bill (Public Law 115-141) and

directed the Gulf Coast Working Group to continue with FRA/Amtrak’s capital estimates...] The draft EIS, when it comes to identifying 

necessary capital improvements along the CSX’s main line for restoring passenger service and the costs associated with these capital 

improvements, should follow the GCWG’s and FRA’s own estimates, as mandated by Congress in the FY2018 appropriations bill.

See response letter and revised DEIS section 4.18.3.4 - Passenger Rail. 1) FRA will include a general 

statement about the GCWG in the GCWG Report to Congress. 2) FRA will revise the statement in

question to provide context and summarize improvements discussed in the GCWG Report. 3) FRA will 

revise the reference to 110 mph speed in Section 4.18.3.4 of the DEIS and revise the text to 

acknowledge that the service proposed in the GCWG Report is not high-speed rail. 4) FRA does not 

think including additional references to the state rail plan concerning passenger rail service is 

necessary at this time and will not mention the grant application. 5) FRA will revise the double track

language to remind the reader about the previous GCWG efforts, etc. 6) FRA will take another look at 

the MS Statewide Plan to verify the source of that language and consider revising as appropriate. 7). 

FRA will mention Amtraks's letter since it's part of the background and will revise the text accordinlgy. 

FRA will not mention SRC's grants since award announcements have not yet been made. 8) FRA 

acknowledges the comment but won't mention this in the FEIS.

9 10/24/2018 letter DAK Americas John Oladele; 3303 Port and Harbor 

Drive, Bay St. Louis, MS 39520; 228-

533-4000

DAK Americas Mississippi Inc. sees great economic value in increasing the region's freight-handling capacity by building a rail-line 

extension. The link to the Norflolk Southern Railroad would make Hancock County even more appealing to present and future industrial and

commercial, by complimenting the existing connection to the CSX Railroad along the coast. Growth in industry and certain capacity 

constraints on the existing system necessitate this additional infrastructure. We applaud the forward-looking nature of the rail-service 

extension proposal. DAK Americas strongly supports the rail-service extension which is clearly in the best interests of the economic success

of Hancock County, and urges an

expedited approval of the FEIS and ROD.

No response required.

10 10/26/2018 letter Mississippi Power Brian Useforge; 2605 13th Street, 

Gulfport, MS 39501; 228-865-5824

Mississippi Power sees great economic value in a proposal to increase the region's freight-handling capacity by buidling a rail-line extension

from Port Bienville Industrial Park. The north-south rail connection would make Hancock County even more appealing to present and future

industrial and commercial, by complimenting the existing connection to the CSX Railroad along the coast. The growth in industry and certain 

capacity constraints on the existing system necessitate this additional investment in infrastructure. Mississippi Power strongly supports the 

rail-service extension, which is clearly in the best interests of the economic success of Hancock County, and urges an expedited approval of 

the FEIS and ROD.

No response required.

11 10/16/2018 letter City of Diamondhead Mayor Thomas Schafer, IV; 

Councilmember L'Ecuyer and Depreo

The railroad connector would create economic opportunity for growth of Hancock County and parts of Pearl River County; such a connector 

would further serve to provide additional rail service options to existing industry in South Mississippi where only one option currently exists,

and has the ability to provide evacuation and storage response outside of coastal flood zoned during an emergency. The City of 

Diamondhead acknowledges the value of the project for the benefit of the region and Mississippi and offers its support for the project. The 

parties are encouraged to expedite approval of the final EIS and ROD so that this valuable project may begin in earnest.

No response required.

12 11/6/2018 letter City of Waveland Mayor Mike Smith The railroad connector would create economic opportunity for growth of Hancock County and parts of Pearl River County by creating dual

Class 1 rail access to both the CSX and NS Railroads; such a connector would further serve to provide additional rail service options to 

existing industry in South Mississippi where only one option currently exists, and has the ability to provide evacuation and storage 

response outside of coastal flood zoned during an emergency. The City of Waveland acknowledges the value of the project for the benefit 

of the region and Mississippi and offers its support for the project. The parties are encouraged to expedite approval of the final EIS and ROD

so that this valuable project may begin in earnest.

No response required.

13 6/14/2019 email NOAA-NMFS HCD January.Murray@noaa.gov No comments No response required.

F-2
Comment

number Date received Format Agency/Organization Contact info Comment Summary Response

14 6/27/2019 email U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency

William Kenneth Dean, 404-562-

9378, dean.williamkenneth@epa.gov

Per EPA’s request, the Alternative D discussion paragraph in Subsection 3.2.3.2 was revised to include additional information regarding 

potential noise and vibration impacts in the southern portion of the study area. EPA acknowledged that this information better supports the 

decision to eliminate Alternative D from further study. Subsection 4.15.4 was revised to include more specific information about migratory 

birds, with emphasis on Birds of Conservation Concern and potential effects, pursuant to Executive Order 13186, Section 3(c)(6). EPA 

acknowledged that a new table (Table 5.12) and a new subsection (Subsection 5.14.5) have been added to summarize and/or discuss the 

effects of the No-Build and Build Alternatives on the Migratory Birds of Conservation Concern. Some of the EPA’s comments are 

addressed through minor text changes described in the errata sheets. Minor text revisions have been made to the wetlands discussion in 

Section 5.11.1, “Impacts to Wetlands, Streams, and Other Water Bodies,” in response to EPA’s request for clarification regarding whether 

the 100-foot-wide right-of-way for the project includes areas likely to be used as borrow for the railroad bed. Based on the FRA’s response, 

the EPA understands that construction limits are estimated to be approximately 75 feet wide, and while borrow areas will be determined 

later in the project development process, the FRA assumes the wetland impacts will not exceed those estimated in the DEIS. The EPA 

understands that actual construction limits will be defined during the design phase and wetland impacts will be further defined during the 

permitting process phase. While no revisions or changes were made to the DEIS in response to EPA’s comment regarding the width of 

bridges and culverts, EPA acknowledges that the FRA response letter provides an acceptable response to the EPA’s comment. Based on 

the FRA’s response to the EPA’s comment regarding construction impacts, the EPA has determined that clarification is needed in the 

FEIS/errata sheet. The FEIS and errata sheet should clarify that the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan 

(SWPPP) would be designed to minimize (not mitigate, as indicated in Section 5.13.1.2 of the DEIS and in the FRA response to 

comments) water quality impacts by minimizing the potential for erosion and sedimentation during construction. 

Furthermore, we recommend that the FEIS/ROD identify the agency or organization that would be responsible for completing the SWPPP 

and the phase in which the SWPPP would be completed. In response to the comment regarding wetlands mitigation, the FRA stated that 

wetland mitigation will be completed in the next project phase and that required mitigation, mitigation bank availability, and pricing will be 

evaluated and coordinated with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The EPA notes that there are seven commercial mitigation banks, 

comprised of similar wetland types as those in the project area, in relatively close proximity to the proposed project. The EPA is signatory 

to the mitigation banking instruments and understands those mitigation banks continue to provide credits to offset wetland impacts in 

southern Mississippi. Any unavoidable impacts resulting from the construction of the proposed project should be able to be offset using 

mitigation bank credits within the impacted watershed(s).

Section 5.13.1.2 of the DEIS and this FRA response to EPA’s comments have been clarified to state 

that SWPPP would be designed to minimize water quality impacts by minimizing the potential for 

erosion and sedimentation during construction. 

A SWPPP will be completed during the next project phase. FRA will select the contractor that will be 

responsible for the design and completion of the SWPPP. FRA acknowledges that there are seven 

commercial mitigation banks, comprised of similar wetland types as those in the project area, in 

relatively close proximity to the proposed project. Any unavoidable impacts resulting from the 

construction of the proposed project should be able to be offset using mitigation bank credits within the 

impacted watershed(s).

15 7/15/2019 letter U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Amy Carson for Stephen M. Ricks, 

601-321-1130

Habitat for the eastern black rail does not occur in the proposed project area, therefore, the project will have no effect on the eastern black 

rail or its habitat. This information needs to be added to the FEIS. USFWS 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. If the Louisiana qillwort plants are discovered during 

surveys, USFWS should be contacted to reinititate informal consultation. No further Consultation under section 7 of the ESA is required 

unless changes in the scope or location of the proposed project of if federally listed species are discovered prior to costruction.

No response required.

Public

13 10/23/2018 comment 

sheet

Public Beau Gex; 219 Nicholson Ave.; 

Waveland, MS 39576; 228-216-8321

Support the Preferred Alternative C due to the few areas it impacts; no issues/concerns; this is an excellent project. It is much needed for the 

economic development of the county and surrounding areas.

No response required.

14 10/23/2018 comment 

sheet

Public Bruce L. Prestien; 7936 Hapuna

Place, Diamondhead, MS 39525; 

228-586-

1298

Prefer Blue (line); stay away from Infinity; No response required.

15 10/23/2018 comment

sheet

Public Ronald Robertson; 406 Caribe Place

N; Gulfport, MS 37507

Prefer Alternative C, minimizes environment and community impacts. No response required.

16 10/23/2018 comment 

sheet

Public John Hall; 6815 Hilo Street, 

Diamondhead, MS 39525; 228-669-

6111

No concerns; Build it. No response required.

17 10/23/2018 comment 

sheet

Public Robert R. Kane; 202 South Touhme

Street, Bay St. Louis, MS 39520; 

228- 342-3272

I highly recommend this project for my potential economic benefit for Hancock County. I don't find any adverse problems in this study. No response required.

18 10/23/2018 comment 

sheet

Public Janet Sacks; 6473 Kalipekona Way, 

Diamondhead, MS 39525; 228-671-

9337

No concerns No response required.

19 10/23/2018 comment 

sheet

Public Shane LaFontaine; 812 Edna Street, 

Waveland, MS 39576; 228-263-2394

No concerns; continue to move forward. No response required.

20 10/23/2018 comment 

sheet

Public William P. Cotter, 1320 Dubac Lane, 

Waveland, MS 39576 228-323-2889

Good project need for transporation health of southwest Mississippi; continue on. No response required.

21 10/23/2018 comment 

sheet

Public Lisa Ramos, 11 Bayour View Drive, 

Gulfport, MS 39507; 614-316-2352

No concerns; recommend project moves ahead. No response required.

22 10/23/2018 comment 

sheet

Public Tiffany Goodwin, 807 Red Fox Road, 

Pass Christian, MS 39571; 601-382-

88058

No issues; this would bring industry and jobs to the region! Get the project as developed as quickly as possible. No response required.

23 10/23/2018 comment 

sheet

Public Paul W. Foley; 2505 Shelby Lane, 

Ocean Springs, MS 39564; 228-217-

Concerns about hydraulic bridge crossings, wetland impacts, alignment (horizontal); let's get this funded No response required.

F-3
Comment

number Date received Format Agency/Organization Contact info Comment Summary Response

7554

24 10/23/2018 comment 

sheet

Public Scott LaFontaine; 730 Gladstone 

Street, Waveland, MS 39376; 228-

671-

9303

No concerns; move forward with the project No response required.

25 10/23/2018 comment 

sheet

Public Rhoda E. Swanson; 400 Sears Ave., 

Waveland, MS 39576; 985-290-2039

No real issues; get it up and running No response required.

26 10/23/2018 comment 

sheet

Public Bob Swanson; 400 Sears Ave., 

Waveland, MS 39576; 985-290-2039

No real issues; getting the project as fast as possible No response required.

27 10/23/2018 comment 

sheet

Public Kevin Carlisle; 8314 Amoka Drive, 

Diamondhead, MS 39525

No concerns; I feel this will benefit Hancock County industry by opening up dual Class I access to rail. No response required.

28 10/23/2018 comment 

sheet

Public Ellen Ceaser; 1204 Fern Drive, 

Picayune, MS 39466; 601-799-0282

None No response required.

29 10/23/2018 comment 

sheet

Public Janel Carothers; 6 Beau Braun Drive, 

Long Beach, MS 39560; 228-596-

8002

None No response required.

F-4
U.S. Department of Transportation

Federal Railroad Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590

February 28, 2019

Mr. John Spain

Chairman, Southern Rail Commission Baton Rouge Area 

Foundation

100 North Street, Suite 900 Baton Rouge, LA 

70802

Re: Port Bienville Rail Study and Environmental Imp act Statement Public Comment Response

Dear Mr. Spain:

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has received the Southern Rail Commission’s (SRC) letter,

dated December 14. 2018, with its comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (E IS ) for the 

Port Bienville Railroad Project. FRA has carefully considered each recommendation and has decided how 

to handle each one as described below. FRA will include a copy of the SRC’s letter in the Final EIS’

Appendix with other public comments.

1. SRC Recommendation: The EIS should be updated lo add background about the [Gulf Coast

Working Group] GCWG, including Congress’s mandate, the rigorous process the GCWG went

through in studying how best to restore passenger rail across the Gulf Coast, and the GCWG final

recommendations. FRA response: FRA will include a general statement about the GCWG,

including the goal of theGCWG asstated in Section 2.1.2 - Goals oftheReport toCongress, and a

high-levelsummary ofthe findingsin theGCWG Report to Congress (GCWG Report).

2. SRC Recommendation : The draft EIS should be updated to remove the factually inaccurate statement

and instead explain the infrastructure analysis that FRA's staff conducted as part of the GCWG final

report and·what that analysis found. FRA response: In line with FRA's response to the SRC

recommendation no. 1 above, FRA will revise the statement in question to provide context and

summarize the range of capital improvements discussed in the GCWG Report.

F-5
3. SRC Recommendation: The draft EIS should be updated to remove the statement about operating

at 110 mph and the need to double CSX's mainline in order to operate at 110 mph to eliminate any

potential misconceptions. Instead

the EIS should mention the GCWG's and FRA's infrastructure analysis that

FRA's staff conducted as part of the GCWG final report and what that analysis found. If there is a

continued desire to add details about the operation of future passenger rail service, Amtrak and the

SRC should be consulted for those details as they would be the co-operators of the service Amtrak has

notified CSX ii intends to run.

FRA response: FRA will revise the reference to 110 mph speed in Section

4.18.3.4 of the DEIS to reference information in FRA's Vision For High-Speed

Rail in America, High -Speed Rail Strategic Plan, dated April 2009, which states that “emerging and

regional high-speed corridor services (operating speeds up to

90-110 mph and 110-150 mph respectively, on shared and dedicated track in corridors of 100-500

miles." Here's a link to the report via FRA's eLibrary:

https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L I 8 2 34#pI zS gD kVision%20 For%20Hig h-Spced%20Rail%2 

0in %20America

FRA will also revise the text to acknowledge that, notably, the service proposed in the GCWG 

Report is not high-speed rail, despite opera ting on a designated High-Speed Rail Corridor , and 

would therefore not be held to the above noted requirements regarding emerging and regional 

high-speed corridor services.

4. SRC Recommendation: The draft EIS should be updated to add a discussion about the Stale of

Mississippi 's 2016 rail plan update and the State’s rail goals, including its desire to implement a

Gulf Coast passenger rail service. Furthermore, the draft EIS should mention the SRC's federal

application. especially the SRC's application for funds to build a siding east of Ansley on the CSX

main line, which is in close proximity to the Port of Bienville. Overall, section 4.18.3.5 does not

represent the current State of Mississippi's rail plan and needsto be updated to bring it in sync

with the 2016 state rail plan.

FRA response: FRA does not think including additional references to the state rail plan

concerning passenger rail service is necessary at this time. FRA will

not mention SRC's CRISI grant application, as the application review process is still underway. If

the application is selected for an award before the Final EIS is published, then FRA and the

Mississippi DOT (MOOT) project team will consider mentioning it in the Final EIS.

2

F-6
5. SRC Recommendation: The draft EIS should be updated to remove the reference

to double tracking CSX's main line since no party is planning to pursue double tracking CSX's main line

to accommodate passenger rail service (CSX's freight capacity plans is outside the purview of the SRC).

Instead, the EIS should explain

the infrastructure analysis that FRA’s·staff conducted as part of the GCWG final report and what that

analysis found. This section may also want to add the

projects SRC has applied for federal CRISI funding. However, none of those

projects would double track CSX's main line.

FRA response: FRA will revise the double track language to remind the reader about the previous

GCWG efforts, etc. and that CSX and the passenger rail

service operator (assumed to be Amtrak at this time) need to reach an agreement

on the final list of capital improvements. It will also be noted that double tracking the entire corridor

is not anticipated as a requirement to support passenger rail operations as proposed in the GCWG Report

to Congress.

6. SRC Recommendation: The draft EIS should be updated to remove the reference to

double tracking NS's main line since the SRC is not aware of any party

planning to pursue double tracking NS’s main line to accommodate passenger rail service . In addition.

the SRC strongly believes it is a huge assumption to

assume that NS’s main line would have to be double tracked to accommodate passenger rail service.

Because the GCWG found that passenger trains could run

on CSX's line without having to double truck the line, the mention of double

tracking NS’s main line to accommodate passenger rail service should be

removed out of prudence.

FRA response: FRA will discuss this with MOOT and will take another look at the Mississippi

Statewide Freight Plan, amended October 2017, to verify the source of that language. FRA will

consider revising the text as appropriate.

7. RC Recommendation: [There is no discussion of 1) Amtrak's notification to

CSX in the Spring 2018 notifying CSX of Amtrak's intent to restore passenger rail

service in 12-18 months between New Orleans and Mobile on CSX’stracks or 2)

the SRC's applications for FY17 R&E funding and FY18 CRISI funding to help implement two round

trips a day passenger railservice between New Orleans and Mobile.] Both of these developments are

directly relevant to the Port of Bienville project as the passenger rail service would use the same

CSX tracks the Port of Bienville currently connects to. Therefore, the SRC believes these

developments need to be included in this EIS as part of any no-build or alternative analysis.

Otherwise. the study would be incomplete and therefore inaccurate.

FRA response: FRA will mention Amtrak' s letter since its part of the background. and will

revise the text to state that the actual restoration of

3

F-7
(FRA response lo recommendation continued)

passenger rail service is not imminent because various agreements. including an operating agreement, 

need to be executed and capital improvements nee d to be made. Also, similar to FRA· s response to

recommendation no. 4, FRA will not mentionSRC's CRISTand R&E grant applicationssince award

announcements haven' t been made yet.

8. SRC Recommendation : [One thing the SRC urges FRA lo keep in mind when it comes to include a

discussion about necessary capital improvements along the

CSX's main line for restoring passenger service and the costs associated with

these capital improvements is that Congress rejected the CSX Infrastructure

estimate as overstated in the report language accompanying the FY18 Omnibus Appropriations bill

(Public Law 1I5 -1-11) and directed the GulfCoast Working Group to continue with FRA/Amtrak's

capital estimates...] The draft EIS, when it comes to identifying necessary capital improvements along the

CSX's main line

for restoring passenger service and the costs associated with these capital

Improvements, should follow the GCWG's and FRA's own estimates, as mandated

by Congress in the FY2018 appropriations bill.

FRA response: FRA acknowledges the comment but won't mention this in the Final EIS.

Thank you for your interest in the Port Bienville EIS, and FRA encourages the SRC to stay informed about 

its progress by visiting FRA's website:

https://www.fra.dot.gov/ Page/P0798. If you have any questions. please contact me via email at 

marc.dixon@dot.gov or telephone (202) 493-0614.

Sincerely,

So uth Cen tral Regional Manage r

Marc Dixon

4

F-8