North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

63 | Page

Appendix L – Agency Consultation/Correspondence 
North Rail Connector Project

Environmental Assessment

64 | Page

FRA Scoping Meeting Email – January 26, 2021

MDEQ – Water Quality Certification and Correspondence

February 1, 2021 – Letter to Mr. Cevion Span, MDEQ Stormwater Branch and Mr. Rudolph 

Villareal, USACE – Section 401 Water Quality Certification Request

March 12, 2021 – Letter from MDEQ to Sandy Feathers issuing Section 401 Water Quality 

Certification WQC No. 2021002

NMFS – EFH Assessment and Correspondence

MDMR – Coastal Zone Consistency and Correspondence

USFWS – Correspondence

SHPO and THPO Correspondence - (See Appendix K) 

USACE – Correspondence 

Correspondence with USACE as a Cooperating Agency - January 28, 2021 

Correspondence with USACE for Section 404 Permit

February 25, 2021 – Letter from USACE (Rudolph Villareal) request for additional information for 

Section 404 permit application and transmittal of letters in response to Public Notice (from MDAH, 

NOAA/NMFS and MDEQ). 

March 10, 2021 – Letter to Mr. Rudolph Villareal in response to February 25, 2021 request for 

additional information 
FRA

SCOPING MEETING EMAIL – JANUARY 26, 2021
Lisa D. Morrison 

From: Murphy, Amanda (FRA) <amanda.murphy2@dot.gov> 

Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2021 3:01 PM 

To: Rudolph.C.Villarreal@usace.army.mil; Greg.Christodoulou@dmr.ms.gov; 

willa.brantley@dmr.ms.gov; FBass@mdeq.ms.gov; cspan@mdeq.ms.gov; 

hbell@mdah.ms.gov; bwhite@mdah.ms.gov; david_felder@fws.gov; 

January.Murray@noaa.gov; KCarleton@choctaw.org; ithompson@choctawnation.com; 

mmiller@mserr.com; Rashard_Howard@csx.com; Will_Roseborough@csx.com; 

mwilliams@mdeq.ms.gov; anika.morgan@cityofmosspoint.org; 

msilverman@cityofpascagoula.com; nicole.hodges@mmns.ms.gov; 

sfeathers@portofpascagoula.com; cwalters@mdot.ms.gov; dseyfarth@mdot.ms.gov; 

agreer@portofpascagoula.com; msmith@portofpascagoula.com; Joey Duggan; Lisa D. 

Morrison; Brian_Fulton@co.jackson.ms.us; melton_harris@coJackson.ms.us 

Cc: Dixon, Marc (FRA) 

Subject: Save the date: North Rail Connector Project Meeting (2/1/21 @1:30 PM CST) 

Attachments: NRC project figures.pd/ 

Importance: High 

***Apologizes if you're receiving this email a 2nd time. The attachment was too large for many people, and I received 

undelivered messages. Attached are three project figures, others will be provided ahead of the meeting*** 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) awarded the Jackson County Port Authority (JCPA) a grant for the proposed 

North Rail Connector Project (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project would connect rail owned by Mississippi Export 

Railroad (MSE) that crosses over the Escatawpa River just east of Highway 63 in Moss Point, Mississippi to an existing 

JCPA-owned rail line that crosses through the Moss Point Industrial and Technology Complex (MPITC). FRA anticipates 

preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the 

Proposed Project, and invites you to be a participating agency. FRA would coordinate the NEPA process with 

requirements for other environmental laws including, but not limited to, the National Historic Preservation Act, 

Endangered Species Act, and Clean Water Act. 

JCPA and FRA invite you to an informational meeting on February 1, 2021 at 1:30 pm CST. Details on a conference call 

in number or Zoom meeting number will be provided separately. 

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

infrastructure to support the growing needs of the Port of Pascagoula, Bayou Casotte Harbor. Currently, freight trains 

that travel from the north on the MSE line must pass through downtown Moss Point and Pascagoula to the Pascagoula 

Interchange to join CSX rail. This operation regularly blocks vehicular traffic and creates delays at four major roadway 

intersections. Also, the curve between the existing MSE line that joins with the rail line that enters into the MPITC is too 

tight to allow unit trains to travel. The Proposed Project is needed remove operational conflicts between railroads, 

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

Enclosed are figures of the Proposed Project. The proposed rail would be a total length of approximately 3,659 linear 

feet with 2,852 feet of elevated rail and 807 feet of rail constructed on fill or existing uplands. The total wetland impact 

is approximately 0.90 acres. The rail line begins at approximate latitude/longitude 30.251207 /-88.310005 on the north 

and extends to approximate latitude/longitude 30.413308/-88.508269 where it joins existing rail. The approximate 

center point of the proposed rail line is located at 30.415001 degrees latitude and -88.513679 degrees longitude. 

We look forward to working cooperatively with you on this project. 

1 
Amanda Murphy, MAHP 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

Federal Railroad Administration 

202-339-7231 (cell) 

Amanda.murphy2@dot.gov 

2 
• 

Site: North Rail Project Area COMPTON ENGINEERING, INC. 

Engineering, Surveying, and Environmental Services Moss Point, Jackson County, MS 156 Nixon Street 

BIiox i, Mississippi 39530 

Phone: (228) 432-2133 Fax : (228) 432-8149 

E-mall: compton@comptonenglneerlng.com 

Figure Title: Topographic Map (Map Source: USGS, 2012) Appendix ID: 

A 
r,11 

Ml 

r,11 

(111\ 

r,n 

Cut/Fill Report 

'21120-l\.()jll:JO:Ot, 

"""" !'i:\l':l.e1;;ouLI\OoT'mj«1.~IICl.:!l~-(t'l:J JCM- Snnh R:dlConn«lol'.001 l'lallnlns 

A•~irl'mnillinsll>wp\.,Cn:r>S:\ht.r:l~IO-f'n>jcru\."'OlNl~I JCl'A• Nanh 

R1ilC~l l'lamttntA~itPC"rminins\(>,t;~\.'<m\Projcnll.OS-~dWJ; 

C• tl n l d Arn 

Fanor F'lldw t5.i.FU 

, ... 1.00 SISO.IS 

1.00 21k20Jl0 

1.00 130~ 

1.00 74:?2.70 

ldArn 

1Sq.F1.) 

J<T.?61J7 

c .. IC-. YJ.} 

'2.l4 

-'98.JI 

0,00 

FIii 1C11. YJ.) 

311;.)) 

11).o) 

Nd tCu..Yd.) 

)}Ul<Fill> 

100.~lt> 

IOR06<filt> 

lflS4.97<AII> 
PASCAGOULA• I ILO)(l • 114't'ST.LOUIS 

121·162-3970 lll-4l2-21ll 

-•.amp!CN'l",glowellnO.corn 
MDEQ 

WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE 
National Marine Fisheries Service

EFH Assessment and Correspondence 
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF MARINE RESOURCES

COASTAL ZONE CONSISTENCY 

CORRESPONDENCE 
SHPO AND THPO CORRESPONDENCE 
US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CORRESPONDENCE 
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS CORRESPONDENCE 
MDEQ 

WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION AND CORRESPONDENCE
COMPTON ENGINEERING, INC. 

ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 

February I, 2021 

Mr. Ccvion Span 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

Storm Water Branch 

P.O. Box 2261 

Jackson, MS 39225-226 I 

Mr. Rudolph Villareal 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Mobile District 

USACE-CESAM-RD-M 

P.O. Box 2288 

Mobile, AL 36628-000 I 

Re: Jackson County Port Authority 

North Rail Connector 

Moss Point, Mississippi 

Section 401 Water Quality Certification Request 

WQC - 2021002 

(C.E. Job No. 218-051) 

Dear Mr. Span and Mr. Villareal: 

The purpose of this letter is to submit the Water Quality Certification Request for the above 

referenced project. Per the requirements of 40 CFR 121.5 the following information is provided: 

I) The project proponent is the Jackson County Port Authority, P.O. Box 70, Pascagoula, MS 

39568. Mr. Mark McAndrews, Port Director is the point of contact at 228-762-4041. Ms. 

Sandy Feathers is a secondary point of contact. 

2) The proposed project is the North Rail Connector Rail Line in Moss Point, MS. 

3) The proposed project has applied for a Section 404 permit from the Army Corps of 

Engineers and has been assigned a project number ofSAM-2021-00025-RCV. 

4) The project is located in Moss Point, MS south of the Escatawpa River. The project will 

include construction of rail line over approximately 2,852 feet of marsh wetlands and 807 

feet of uplands. By using elevated construction methods, the impact to the marsh wetland 

is greatly reduced with fill going in only at the abutments to the elevated sections and a 

short section of marsh (approximately 413 linear feet). The total impact for the footprint is 

approximately 39,261 square feet (0.90 acres) and will require approximately 2,649 net 

cubic yards of fill. 

5) Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized to prevent discharge to receiving 

waters during construction. Silt fence, turbidity curtains and a construction entrance will 

be utilized. The project will be inspected daily during construction by a constrnction 

supervisor and weekly by a stormwater inspector. A SWPPP has been prepared and will 

be provided to the construction contractor and will be referenced in the project constrnction 

specifications. 

i 
Mr. Span and Mr. Villareal 

February I, 2021 

Page 2 of2 

6) The project is expected to receive Coastal Zone Consistency approval from the Mississippi 

Department of Marine Resources, concurrence from the Mississippi Department of 

Archives and History, and from the US Fish and Wildlife Service as well as the National 

Marine Fisheries Service. 

7) A pre-filing meeting request was submitted to the MDEQ on November 24, 2020. A prefiling meeting was held on December 4, 2020 and additional information about the project 

was submitted to MDEQ on December 14, 2020. 

8) The project proponent hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, 

accurate, and complete to the best of my knowledge and belief. 

9) The project proponent hereby requests that the certifying authority (MDEQ) review and 

take action on this CWA 401 certification request within the applicable reasonable period 

of time. 

We appreciate your attention to this certification request. 

Sincerely, 

COMPTON ENGINEERING, INC. 

Lisa D. Morrison __ 

Lisa D. Morrison, R.P.G. 

LDM/kl
From: 

To: 

Subject: 

Date: 

Attachments: 

cevioo Span 

Lisa D. Morrison 

FW: North Rail Pre-File Meeting Request 

Monday, February 01, 202110:22:34 AM 

1maaeoo1 png 

Good Morning Lisa, 

I have attached the emails about the pre-file meeting request. It look like it was submitted Nov 24th, 

2020, and my supervisor pulled me in to set it up on the Nov 30th. If this is not what you were 

looking for, please let me know. 

Thank you, 

Cevion Span 

601-961-5267 

From: Florance Bass <FBass@mdeq.ms.gov> 

Sent: Monday, November 30, 2020 7:33 AM 

To: lmorrison@comptonengineering.com 

Cc: Cevion Span <cspan@mdeq.ms.gov> 

Subject: RE: North Rail modification 

Lisa, 

I asked Cevion Span of my staff to reach out to you set this meeting. I would suggest letting him 

know your availabi lity for the next two weeks. I have copied him on this email. Please work directly 

with him to get this set. Thanks. 

**In light of current events, please note that I may not be available by phone directly in my office. 

am frequently checking email and voicemail. I will be communicating by email or phone. If you call, 

please leave a voicemail. I will return your call as soon as possible.** 

Florance Bass, P.E., BCEE 

Manager, 401/Stormwater Branch 

Environmental Permits Division 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

601-961-5614 (desk) 

769-233-3276 (cell) 

From: Lisa D. Morrison [mailto:lmorrison@comptonengineering.com] 

Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 4:14 PM 

To: Florance Bass <FBass@mdeq.ms gov> 

Subject : North Rail modification
Florence, we submitted a pre-filing meeting request for this permit modification - SAM-2018-01204-

RCV, OM R190178. Just want to make sure you received it and find out what the next steps are. 

Thank you. 

Lisa D. Morrison, RPG

Senior Geologist 

CE COMPTON ENGINEERING, INC. 

156 Nixon Street, Biloxi, MS 

P: 228.432-2133 F: 228.432-8149 C:760-0643 

The contents of this email transmission are confidential and may be protected by professional privilege. The conlenls are Intended only 

for /he named recipients of this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified /hat any use, reproduction, 

disclosure or distribution of the information contained in this facsimile is prohibited 

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail" 
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

TATE REEVES 

GOVERNOR 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

CHRIS WELLS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

Ms. Sandy Feathers 

Jackson County Port Authority 

P.O. Box 70 

Pascagoula, Mississippi 39568 

Dear Ms. Sandy Feathers: 

March 12, 2021 

Re: Jackson County Port Authority, 

MPITC Rail Line 

Jackson County 

COE No. SAM202100025RCV 

WQC No. WQC2021002 

Pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U. S. C. 

125 l, 134 l ), the Office of Pollution Control (OPC) issues this Certification, after 

public notice and opportunity for public hearing, Jackson County Port Authority, an 

applicant for a Federal License or permit to conduct the following activity: 

Jackson County Port Authority, MPITC Rail Line: The proposed work is a 

new rail connection that will connect the existing rail line just south of the 

Escatawpa River and the rail line that is located within the MPITC. The 

proposed construction length of new rail is over approximately 2,852 feet of 

estuarine wetlands and 807 feet of uplands. By using elevated construction 

methods, the impact to the marsh wetland is greatly reduced with fill going in 

only at the abutments to the elevated sections and short section of marsh 

(approximately 413 linear feet). The total impact for the revised footprint is 

approximately 39,261 square feet (0.9 acres) and will require 2,649 net cubic 

yards of fill. [SAM202100025RCV, WQC2021002]. 

The Office of Pollution Control cettifies that the above-described activity will be in 

compliance with the applicable provisions of Sections 30 l, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of 

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and Section 49-17-29 of the Mississippi 

Code of 1972, if the applicant complies with the following conditions: 

75594 WQC20210001 
Jackson County Port Authority 

Page 2 of 4 

March 12, 2021 

1. The development shall connect to an Office of Pollution Control 

approved wastewater collection and treatment system. (Statement C) (11 

Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 6, R. 1.1. l .B) 

2. Appropriate best management practices (BMPs) shall be properly 

installed and maintained to prevent the movement of sediment off-site 

and into adjacent drainage areas. Special care shall be taken prior to and 

during construction to prevent the movement of sediment into adjacent 

avoided wetland areas. In the event of any BMP failure, corrective 

actions shall be taken immediately. (Statement B) ( 11 Miss. Adm in. 

Code Pt. 6, R. 1.1.1.B.) 

3. All fill material and excavation areas shall have side slopes of 3: 1 

(horizontal:vertical) or flatter and shall be immediately seeded, 

stabilized and maintained. (Statement B) (11 Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 6, 

R. 1.1.1.B.) 

4. The Post Construction Water Quality Plan submitted on December 14, 

2020, shall be implemented concurrent with project construction and 

maintained as proposed. (Statement D) (11 Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 6, R 

1.3.4 A (9)) 

5. Mitigation for the impacts of0.90 acres of wetlands shall be provided by 

the purchase of mitigation credits from an approved mitigation bank. 

The number of credits must be in accordance with banking prospectus 

and should be based upon that required for impacting 0.90 acres of 

wetlands. Written verification of credit purchase must be provided to the 

Office of Pollution Control prior to the commencement of any work in 

the wetland or stream areas. (Statement D) (11 Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 6, 

R 1.3.4 A (2)) 

a. MDEQ acknowledges that JCPA has already purchased 3.48 

credits from Wetland Solutions mitigation bank for mitigation for 

impacts to the original footprint, which impacted 1.16 acres of 

wetlands. JCPA can use those purchased credits for this revised 

footprint.
Jackson County Port Authority 

Page 3 of 4 

March 12, 202 l 

6. The approved mitigation plan submitted by Compton Engineering, Inc. on 

behalf of Jackson County Port Authority for the unavoidable impacts to the 

waters of the State shall be implemented as proposed. The mitigation area 

shall be placed in a conservation easement or restrictive covenant. The 

ovenant shall be properly recorded in the Miscellaneous Document Book, 

with the Registrar of Deeds, or with another appropriate official charged with 

the responsibility of maintaining records oftitle to and interest in real 

property within six months of the effective date of the authorization. A 

cettified copy of the covenants must be furnished to the Office of Pollution 

control within 30 days of the recording. The covenant shall contain: 

(Statement D) (11 Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 6, R 1.3.4 A (2)) 

a. There should be no removal, destruction, cutting, mowing, 

application of biocides, or disturbance or other change in 

the vegetation in the conservation zone other than 

practices outlined in the management plans. 

b. There shall be no agricultural, commercial, or industrial 

activities allowed in the conservation zone. 

c. There shall be no construction or placement or buildings, 

or other structures in the mitigation area other than 

structures for wildlife enhancement, viewing, or scientific 

study. 

d. There shall be no construction of roads in the conservation 

zone. This does not include foot trails for educational use. 

No motorized vehicles (to include off-road and four-wheel 

drive vehicles) shall be allowed on said site. 

7. Turbidity outside the limits of a 750-foot mixing zone shall not exceed 

the ambient turbidity by more than 50 Nephelometric Turbidity Units. 

(Statement A) (11 Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 6, R. 2.2.A.) 

8. No sewage, oil, refuse, or other pollutants shall be discharged into the 

watercourse. (Statement A) ( l l Miss. Admin. Code Pt. 6, R. 2.2.A.(3)) 

As part of the Scope of Review for Application Decisions, 11 Mississippi 

Administrative Code Part 6, Rule l.3.4(B), the above conditions are necessary for 

the Department to ensure that appropriate measures will be taken to eliminate 

unreasonable degradation and irreparable harm to waters of the State, such that the 

activity will not meet the criteria for denial:
Jackson County Port Authority 

Page 4 of 4 

March 12, 2021 

(A) The proposed activity permanently alters the aquatic ecosystem such that 

water quality criteria are violated and/or it no longer supports its existing or 

classified uses. An example is the channelization of streams 

(B) Nonpoint source/storm water management practices necessary to protect 

water quality have not been proposed. 

(C) Denial of wastewater permits and/or approvals by the State with regard to the 

proposed activities. 

(D) The proposed activity in conjunction with other activities may result m 

adverse cumulative impacts. 

The Office of Pollution Control also certifies that there are no limitations under 

Section 302 nor standards under Sections 306 and 307 of the Federal Water Pollution 

Control Act, which are applicable to the applicant's above-described activity. 

This certification is valid for the project as proposed. Any deviations without proper 

modifications and/or approvals may result in a violation of the 401 Water Quality 

Certification. If you have any questions, please contact Cevion Span. 

Sincerely, 

Chief, Environmental Permits Division 

KR: cs 

cc: Rudolph C. Villarreal, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District 

Greg Christodoulou, Department of Marine Resources 

David Felder, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

Molly Martin, Environmental Protection Agency 

Lisa Morrison, Compton Engineering
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

TATE REEVES 

GOVERNOR 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

CHRIS WELLS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

January 27, 2021 

Sandy Feathers 

Jackson County Port Authority, MPITC Rail Line 

POBOX70 

Pascagoula, MS 39568 

Dear Mr. Feathers: 

Re:Jackson County Port Authority, MPITC Rail 

Line 

Jackson County 

COE No. SAM202100025RCV 

WQC No. WQC2021002 

This letter is to acknowledge receipt of the public notice relating to your 401 Water Quality 

Ce1tification Request on 01/20/2021. Within thirty days after the date of receipt of the public 

notice, you will be notified of the major components required to complete the processing of your 

certification request. 

If any of these actions involve construction activities, please notify us of your projected schedule 

for commencement of construction and completion of construction. 

If you have any questions regarding the application or the permitting process, please contact 

Florance Bass at (601) 961-5171. 

Sincerely, 

Renee Smith 

Environmental Permits Division 

cc: Rudolph Villarreal 

75594 WQC20210001 

OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL 

Post Officce Box 2261 Ja1:kson, Mississippi 39225-2261 ·Tcl: (601) 961-51 71 · Fax: (601) 351l-6612·www.mdeq.ms.gov 

AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
National Marine Fisheries Service 

EFH Assessment and Correspondence
UNITEDSTATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

Southeast Regional Office 

263 13th Avenue South 

St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5505 

https:/lwww.fisheries.noaa.gov/region/southeast 

Colonel Sebastien P. Jolly, Commander 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District 

Post Office Box 2288 

Mobile, Alabama 36628-0001 

Dear Colonel Jolly: 

February 11 , 2021 F/SER46/JM:rs 

225-380-0089 

NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has reviewed Joint Public Notice (JPN) 

SAM-2021-00025-RCV dated January 20, 2021. The JPN indicated the Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) is the lead federal agency for this project and responsible for ensuring 

compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MagnusonStevens Act). The NMFS previously reviewed JPN SAM-2018-01204-RCV dated May 29, 2019 

and provided two conservation recommendations on the project under provisions of the 

Magnuson-Stevens Act in a letter to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) dated June 25, 

2019. The USACE permitted the applicant, Jackson County Port Authority (JCPA), to construct 

the No11h Rail Connector on October 14, 2020 (SAM-2018-01204-RCV). The initial cost 

estimated for a railroad on fill versus an elevated rail line indicated the fill construction method 

would be the most cost effective. 

In an effort to reduce construction costs, the JCPA evaluated other construction methods and rail 

line footprints. Upon JPCA's review of a recent geotechnical evaluation, the cost estimated for 

elevated rai 1 construction yielded rail crossings over a shorter section of marsh, crossing over 

longer sections of forested uplands, a connection to the existing rail at a different location, and 

reduced construction costs and impacts to essential fish habitat (EFH). Based on the information 

provided in the JPN (SAM-2021-00025-RCV), the JCPA proposes: (1) to discontinue use of a 

section of rail line, (2) construct a new rail connection to the existing rail line using elevated 

pilings, and (3) fill 0.90 acre of estuarine wetlands east of Highway 63 in Jackson County, 

Mississippi. 

The wetlands in the vicinity of the project consist of tidally influenced brackish marsh. Water 

bottoms in the project area are composed of a mixture of sand and mud substrates. The proposed 

project is in an area potentially designated as EFH for various life stages of federally managed 

species, including red drum, brown shrimp, and white shrimp. The primary categories ofEFH 

affected by project implementation, are estuarine emergent wetlands, estuarine water columns, 

and estuarine water bottoms. Detailed information on federally managed fisheries and their EFH 

is provided in the 2005 generic amendment of the Fishery Management Plans for the Gulf of 

Mexico prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. The generic amendment 

was prepared as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

(Magnuson-Stevens Act; P .L. I 04-297).
In addition to being designated as EFH for various federally managed fishery species, wetlands, 

and water bottoms in the project area provide nursery and foraging habitats for a variety of 

economically imp01tant marine fishery species such as blue crab, gulf menhaden, spotted sea 

trout, sand trout, southern flounder, and striped mullet. Some of these species serve as prey for 

other fish species managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (e.g., mackerels, 

snappers, and groupers) and highly migratory species managed by NMFS (e.g., billfishes and 

sharks). Wetlands in the project area also produce nutrients and detritus, important components 

of the aquatic food web, which contributes to the overall productivity of the Pascagoula Bay 

estuary. 

Under the EFH provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, federal action agencies, such as the 

USACE and the FRA, are required to conduct an EFH consultation with NMFS. However, the 

FRA has not initiated an EFH consultation or provided the required EFH assessment at this stage 

of the federal permitting and authorization process. A complete EFH assessment should include 

all activities associated with this project and a description of measures taken to avoid, minimize, 

mitigate, or offset the adverse impacts of the proposed activities on EFH. Avoidance and 

minimization of direct wetland impacts should be pursed to the greatest extent practicable. The 

NMFS recommends an alternatives analysis including details on the selection of the footprint 

alignment, evaluation of other construction methods, and details on the utilization of existing rail 

lines, bridges, or other alignments be provided. Additionally, unavoidable EFH impacts will 

require in-kind mitigation. The NMFS is not aware of existing mitigation banks servicing the 

area providing this credit type. Therefore, a permittee responsible mitigation plan will be 

required. 

Section 305(b)(4)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to provide EFH conservation 

recommendations for any federal action or permit which may result in adverse impacts to EFH. 

Therefore, NMFS recommends the following to ensure the conservation of EFH and associated 

marine fishery resources: 

EFH Conservation Recommendations 

1. An alternatives analysis should be developed which accomplishes the project 

purpose and avoids or minimizes impacts to EFH. 

2. A complete EFH assessment should be provided to NMFS including all 

activities associated with this project and a description of measures taken to 

avoid, minimize, mitigate, or offset the adverse impacts of the proposed 

activities on EFH. 

3. A mitigation and monitoring plan should be developed which fully compensates 

for unavoidable impacts to EFH. The mitigation plan should be presented to 

NMFS for review. Should a permit be issued for this project, it should require 

the implementation of the mitigation plan concurrent with the construction of 

the development. 

2 
Consistent with Section 305(b)(4)(B) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act and NMFS' implementing 

regulation at 50 CFR 600.920(k), your office is required to provide a written response to our 

EFH conservation recommendations within 30 days of receipt. Your response must include a 

description of measures to be required to avoid, mitigate, or offset the adverse impacts of the 

proposed activity. If your response is inconsistent with our EFH conservation recommendations, 

you must provide a substantive discussion justifying the reasons for not implementing the 

recommendations. If it is not possible to provide a substantive response within 30 days, the 

Mobile District should provide an interim response to NMFS, to be followed by the detailed 

response. The detailed response should be provided in a manner to ensure that it is received by 

NMFS at least 10 days prior to the final approval of the action. 

Thank you for your consideration of these comments. If you wish to discuss this project, further 

or have questions concerning our recommendations, please contact January Murray at (225) 380-

0089, or by email at January.Murray@noaa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Viginia M. Fay

Virginia M. Fay 

Assistant Regional Administrator 

Habitat Conservation Division 

c: 

USACE, Mobile, Villarreal 

FRA, Murphy 

FWS, Jackson, Necaise 

F/SER46, Swafford 

F/SER4, Dale 

Files 

3 
UNITEDSTATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE 

Southeast Regional Office 

263 13thAvenue South 

St. Petersburg, Florida 33701-5505 

https:/fwww.fisheries.noaa.gov/reqion/southeast 

March 23, 2021 F/SER46/JM:rs 

225-380-0089 

Mr. Michael Johnsen, Supervisory Environmental Protection Specialist 

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Railroad Administration 

Environmental and Project Engineering Division 

Office of Raiload Policy and Development 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, Southeast 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. Johnsen: 

NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) has received your letter dated March 10, 

2021, including an essential fish habitat (EFH) assessment, an alternatives analysis, and a draft 

permittee responsible mitigation and monitoring plan (PRMMP) for the North Rail Connector 

project under the Department of the Army permit SAM-2021-00025-RCV. The Federal Railroad 

Administration (FRA) is the lead federal agency for this project and responsible for ensuring 

compliance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MagnusonStevens Act; P.L. 104-297). The FRA, in cooperation with the United States Army Corps of 

Engineers (USACE), is preparing an Environmental Assessment for the project in accordance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act. The applicant, the Jackson County Pott Authority 

(JCPA), proposes to discontinue use of a section of rail line, construct a new rail connection to 

the existing rail line using elevated pilings, and fill 0.90 acre of estuarine wetlands east of 

Highway 63 in Jackson County, Mississippi. 

The wetlands in the vicinity of the project consist of tidally influenced brackish marsh. Water 

bottoms in the project area are composed of a mixture of sand and mud substrates. The proposed 

project is in an area potentially designated as EFH for various life stages of federally managed 

species, including red drum, brown shrimp, and white shrimp. The primary categories ofEFH 

affected by project implementation, are estuarine emergent wetlands, estuarine water column, 

and estuarine water bottoms. Detailed information on federally managed fisheries and their EFH 

is provided in the 2005 generic amendment of the Fishery Management Plans for the Gulf of 

Mexico prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council. The generic amendment 

was prepared as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. 

In addition to being designated as EFH for various federally managed fishery species, wetlands, 

and water bottoms in the project area provide nursery and foraging habitats for a variety of 

economically impo1tant marine fishery species such as blue crab, gulf menhaden, spotted sea 

trout, sand trout, southern flounder, and striped mullet. Some of these species serve as prey for 

other fish species managed by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (e.g., mackerels, 

snappers, and groupers) and highly migratory species managed by NMFS (e.g., billfishes and 

sharks). Wetlands in the project area also produce nutrients and detritus, impo1tant components 
of the aquatic food web, which contributes to the overall productivity of the Pascagoula Bay 

estuary. 

Section 305(b)(4)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS to provide EFH conservation 

recommendations for any federal action or permit which may result in adverse impacts to EFH. 

In a letter dated February 11, 2021, to the USACE, the NMFS provided three EFH conservation 

recommendations on the North Rail Connector project to ensure the conservation ofEFH and 

associated marine fishery resources. The NMFS finds the EFH assessment, alternatives analysis, 

and draft PRMMP dated March 2021, provided by FRA includes sufficient information to ensure 

adverse impacts to EFH would be adequately offset through a PRMMP to create approximately 

1.0 acre of tidal marsh habitat. With implementation of the PRMMP, NMFS concurs the 

proposed project would not have an adverse effect on EFH in the area. At this time, the NMFS 

is prepared to remove our conservation recommendations for the North Rail Connector project, 

unless future modifications are proposed which may result in adverse impacts to EFH. 

Thank you for consulting with our staff on this project. If you wish to discuss this project further 

or have questions concerning our recommendations, please contact January Murray at (225) 380-

0089, or by email at January.Murray@noaa.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Virginia M. Fay 

Assistant Regional Administrator 

Habitat Conservation Division 

c: 

FRA, Murphy 

USACE, Mobile, Villarreal 

FWS, Jackson, Necaise 

F/SER46, Swafford 

F/SER4, Dale 

Files 

2 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

March 10, 202 1 

Ms. January Murray, Fishery Biologist 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

Habitat Conservation Division 

NOAA Fisheries Service 

5757 Corporate Blvd., Suite 375 

Baton Rouge, LA 70808 

Re: Jackson County Port Authority (JCPA) North Rail Connector Planning Project 

Dear Ms. Murray: 

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has chosen Jackson County Port Authority (JCPA) to receive 

grant funding for the North Rail Connector rail line in Jackson County, Mississippi. The FRA, in 

cooperation with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), is preparing an Environmental Assessment 

(EA) for the Project in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In support of this 

eff01t and on behalf of JCPA, we are requesting consultation on Essential Fish Habitat and Fish and Wild! ife 

Coordination Act species under NMFS's jurisdiction and input on any construction restrictions (i.e., 

construction windows) for the project area with respect to these resources. 

JCPA proposes to construct a rail line to connect an existing rail owned by Mississippi Export Railroad 

(MSE) that crosses over the Escatawpa River in Moss Point, Mississippi to an existing JCPA-owned rail 

line that crosses through the Moss Point Industrial and Technology Complex and provides access to the 

Port of Pascagoula, Bayou Casotte Harbor (the Proposed Project). The Proposed Project, referred to as the 

North Rail Connector, would be approximately 3,659 linear feet with 2,852 feet of elevated rail and 807 

feet of rail constructed on fill or existing uplands. There would be approximately 2,649 cubic yards of fill 

at the pile abutments for the elevated rail and in an area of estuarine wetlands. Approximately 0.90 acres of 

wetlands will be filled associated with the project. An existing grade crossing on Orange Grove Road would 

be relocated approximately 50 feet to the west to allow for the curve needed to accommodate the train 

lengths and speed. The existing MSE rail at the west end would need to be adjusted to allow insertion of a 

turn out to join with the new elevated rail line. For construction, a laydown yard would be established 

within the MPITC in an area that was recently used for the same purpose. The laydown yard would be 

approximately 1 acre in size and not located within a wetland. A topographic map, a Habitat Map/Wetland 

Map and preliminary site plans are provided for your information (Figure 1, Figure 2 and Attachment 

l(Figures 2.0-2.3). 

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

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

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

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

traffic and creates delays at four major roadway intersections. Also, the curve alignment from the existing 

MSE line entering into the Moss Point Industrial and Technology Complex (MPITC) is too tight for the 

expected length of train to travel through that area safely. The Proposed Project is needed to remove 

operational conflicts between railroads, reduce congestion, and accommodate the proposed restoration of 

passenger rail service. 
In a phone call with NMFS, FRA and Compton Engineering on February 10, 2021, the NMFS asked for 

the following information: 

Alternative Evaluation 

Alternate Alignments and Construction Methods 

1) Existing rail line - JCPA considered using the existing MSE rail line that crosses under Highway 

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

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

rail also is flooded on a frequent basis. Use of this section of rail has been discontinued due to safety 

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

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

2) Alternative alignments that avoided marsh - Two alternate alignments (2a and 2b) were considered 

that established an acceptable radius that would allow the trains to maintain the optimal speed. These 

alignments required the rail to be added south of the existing MSE rail line and impacted several single 

family residential properties. In addition, these alignments would pass under a p011ion of the Highway 63 

bridge which would not provide enough vertical clearance for the trains to pass underneath. An acceptable 

vertical clearance for a main line rail is 22 feet. The two alignments considered only provided 21 '7" and 

20'7" of clearance. 

3) Alternative alignment that crossed over marsh, freshwater forest and uplands - The previously 

permitted alignment includes approximately 3,576 linear feet through marsh and through 1,115 feet of 

forested wetlands. The rail would cross over 107 feet of uplands. This alignment was proposed to be 

constructed using an alternative construction method of filling the alignment from the south end working 

towards the no11h and using the previously filled area to access further along the alignment, so the areas 

outside of the fill area will not be impacted. Silt fence would be placed along the project footprint to prevent 

fill from moving outside of the project area. This alignment impacted 3.73 acres of marsh and 1.16 acres of 

freshwater forested wetlands for a total of approximately 4.89 acres. This alternative construction method 

and alignment was permitted, however, additional geotechnical work in the permitted project footprint 

indicated that subsurface conditions were not suitable for construction on fill. There would need to be two 

layers of fill on a footprint that was twice as wide as initially designed. This drove up the estimated easts 

to more than an alternative construction method and alignment. 

4) An alternative construction method - An alternative construction method utilizing sheet pile was 

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

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

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

wetlands outside of the rail footprint. Based on the cost and damage from heavy equipment, this option was 

not selected. 

5) Construction of elevated rail in permitted footprint of approximately 4,800 linear feet -

Construction of a combination of elevated rail and construction on fill was considered in the permitted 

alignment. This alternative would reduce the amount of fill discharged into the alignment but construction 

costs for this length of rail were estimated at approximately $33 million. In addition, the method for building 

an elevated railroad at this location could require construction from barges or construction of a temporary 

access road adjacent to the railroad alignment resulting in additional destruction of the wetland habitat. The 

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

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

6) No Action Alternative - With the No Action alternative, the main rail line would not be relocated 

and rail traffic would continue through downtown Pascagoula and Moss Point. Traffic congestion would 

increase as the expected rail traffic increases and the train length increases to as much as 60 to 70 cars for 

some trains. Air quality would continue to be negatively impacted by idling cars. Freight rail would 

continue to be congested and lines would not be available for future passenger rail traffic. 

7) The Preferred Alternative - The preferred alternative moved the alignment to the west and south 

of the previously permitted footprint. This allowed for a shorter length over the estuary and included more 

upland areas. By using partial construction on pilings to elevate the portion of the rail over the marsh the 

impacts to the habitat were greatly reduced. The proposed alignment includes approximately 2,852 linear 

feet of elevated rail line over marsh (0.90 acres of impact from fill at the abutments and a small marsh area) 

and 807 feet of rail on uplands. The cost to construct a shorter length of elevated rail on pilings is also 

much less than the previously permitted construction on fill. Driving pilings to a stable depth is a more 

feasible option than filling and compacting on top of sediment. Construction will be from existing rail or 

from uplands. This combination of elevated rail line, fill, and a modified footprint resulted in an estimated 

cost of approximately $15.5 million. 

Drawings showing these alternative alignments and construction methods are attached. (Attachment 2). 

EFH Assessment - Impacts to Fisheries 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) mandates that federal agencies 

conduct an essential fish habitat (EFH) consultation with NOAA Fisheries on any actions they authorize, 

fund, or undertake that may adversely affect EFH. An adverse effect is any impact that reduces the quality 

and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse effects may include direct or indirect physical, chemical, or biological 

alterations of the waters or substrate and loss of, or injury to, benthic organisms, prey species and their 

habitat, and other ecosystem components. Adverse effects to EFH may result from actions occurring within 

EFH or outside of EFH and may include site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, 

cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions. 

The estuarine waters near the Escatawpa Rivers and in the project area provide EFH for three species or 

groups of species. EFH surrounding the project area is present for coastal red drum (Sciaenops ocellatus), 

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

Red Drum (Information from USM Gulf Coast Research Lab) 

Red drum are robust, elongated fish with moderately compressed bodies. Their head is straight in profile 

with a somewhat conical cross section. The mouth is located beneath the head. Unlike some other drums, 

the red drum has no chin barbels or "whiskers". The red drum is easily distinguished from the black drum 

(Pogonias cromis) by its lack of chin barbels, more elongated body, and the presence of a large black spot 

on either side of the tail just ahead of the fin. (There may be additional spots elsewhere on the body.) The 

dorsal fin has two sections, with a spiny fin at front separated by deep notch from the soft dorsal fin. The 

scales are large and have jagged edges. The body color is typically an iridescent silvery gray, bronze or 

copper on the sides and whitish on the belly. There are one or more dark spots near the base of the caudal 

fin or tail. (The species name Oscellatus refers to these eye-like spots.) Older fish tend to lose their excess 

spots. The tails of young fish, less than about 18", may be bluish. 

The color ofred drum varies with the type of water they inhabit. Where the bottom is muddy and the water 

is brackish, red drum have a dark copper color. Fish living in surf areas and areas with higher-salinity water 
and sandy bottoms are lighter colored and may even be silvery or silvery pink. During the spawning season, 

the fins take on an orange color. 

Red drum may reach five feet in length and a weight of 90 pounds. They may live to an age of 40 years or 

more. The name "drum" comes from the ability of the male red drum, and the males of its drum family 

relatives such as the spotted seatrout and black drum, to produce a deep drumming sound by contracting 

muscles on either side of the swim bladder. The sound is used during comiship and sometimes when a fish 

is distressed. 

Because red drum tolerate a wide range of salinity and water temperature, they are found in all types of 

water from freshwater to the open Gulf to the lower reaches of coastal rivers. In general, younger fish prefer 

the lower salinity of inshore waters and older fish prefer higher salinity found offshore. Red drum can 

survive water temperatures from 36 °F to nearly 100 °F, though rapid temperature changes may be fatal. 

Red drum can be successfully acclimated to freshwater. 

Red drum live in both inshore and offshore waters, with younger fish inshore and older fish moving offshore 

when they mature. Younger juvenile red drum are found in bays and estuaries and seagrass beds. Juvenile 

red drums are patiicularly attracted to the edges on marshes and seagrass beds. Older juveniles and 

subadults move to more open water over sand, mud, and seagrasses, and move into shallower water to feed 

on rising tides. 

White and Brown Shrimp (Information from South Carolina Department of Natural Resources) 

Brown and white shrimps have similar life cycles. Spawning usually occurs in the ocean, ranging from near 

the beaches to several miles offshore. A single female produces between 500,000 and 1,000,000 eggs and 

may spawn several times. Brown shrimp spawn during October and November, and occasionally later. 

White shrimp typically spawn in the spring and early summer. The exact timing of the spawning period 

depends on water temperature. 

During mating, the male transfers a packet of sperm, called a spermatophore, to the female. Brown shrimp 

mate when the female's exoskeleton is soft, immediately after molting. The spennatophore is covered by 

two "plates" that hold it in place. Females may spawn days later. White sluimp mate between molts when 

the exoskeleton is hard. The spermatophore is glued to the underside of the female, and spawning occurs 

almost immediately. Eggs of both species are fe1iilized as they are ejected past the spermatophore and sink 

to the ocean floor. After about 12 to 24 hours, they hatch into tiny larvae that rise into the water column. 

The initial larval stage, during which the shrimp looks like a tiny mite, is followed by about 10 larval phases 

before reaching the post-larval stage after about two weeks. Post larvae look like miniature adult shrimp. 

Brown shrimp post larvae remain in the ocean bottom sediments during the winter. As the ocean warms in 

late February and March, these post larvae become active and ride tidal currents into the estuaries. White 

shrimp post larvae move into the estuaries about two weeks after spawning, usually in late May and June, 

moving fmiher in with each high tide. Death rates are very high for larval and juvenile shrimp; less than 

one or two percent of the eggs spawned survive to adults. 

Post larval shrimp settle out in the shallow waters in the upper ends of salt marsh tidal creeks. Shrimp stay 

in this "nursery habitat" for about two or three months, growing to about four inches long. During high tide, 

juveniles move into the marsh grass to feed and escape predators. At low tide, when the water level is below 

the salt marsh grass, shrimp gather in creek beds. The smallest shrimp stay close to the creek bank while 

larger juveniles prefer deeper water. In unusually clear water, shrimp seek the deepest areas available to 

avoid predatory birds, fish, and crabs. Both brown and white shrimp prefer muddy bottom. 
Young shrimp grow quickly, up to 2.5 inches per month, molting their exoskeleton as they grow. Small 

shrimp molt several times per week, but molting slows as they become larger. Shrimp can tolerate a wide 

range of salinities. The ideal nursery habitat has salinity about 25 to 40 percent seawater for white shrimp 

and 35 to 65 percent seawater for brown shrimp. Shrimp can do well, however, in salinities near 100 percent 

seawater (such as in Murrell's Inlet) or in 10 percent seawater (such as the Cooper River near Charleston). 

Shrimp move three different ways, using either their walking legs, swimming legs, or with a sudden tail 

snap. While shrimp can walk short distances, when migrating long distances, they swim as much as two to 

five miles a day. To escape predators, a shrimp contracts its abdominal muscles, which causes the tail to 

snap, and propels the shrimp backwards. White shrimp commonly use this method to jump from the water. 

As shrimp become larger, they leave the nursery area and move toward the ocean on the outgoing tide, 

particularly at night. Shrimp move from the shallow estuary creeks into coastal rivers when they are about 

four inches long. They continue to grow as they move into the lower reaches of sounds, bays and river 

mouths where they gather just before moving into the ocean. 

When white shrimp are in the staging areas, they feed in nearby shallow areas at night. Brown shrimp, on 

the other hand, prefer to stay in deeper waters at night. In years when shrimp are abundant, they migrate 

into the ocean when they are between four and five inches long. When the population is smaller, however, 

shrimp may be six inches or more before they leave the estuaries. When shrimp are more concentrated in 

the tidal creeks, growth rates slow due to competition for limited food, or each shrimp spending more time 

protecting its space instead of feeding. Low salinities due to heavy rainfall cause juvenile shrimp to leave 

nursery areas early, reducing growth and survival. 

Shrimp seldom live more than eight or nine months. The record white shrimp (just over ten inches) was 

caught by a commercial shrimper off Seabrook Island in July 1979. That shrimp was probably about 14 

months old. 

Shrimp are bottom-feeding omnivores, eating most organic materials - animal or plant - they encounter at 

the bottom. Smaller shrimp pick food off the sediment while larger shrimp become predators, feeding on 

polychaete worms, amphipods, nematodes, emstacean larvae, isopods, copepods, small fishes, grass 

shrimp, fiddler crabs, and squareback crabs. Shrimp also eat other shrimp. 

Impacts 

The evaluation of impacts on biological resources considers whether the action would result in a direct 

injury or mo1tality of an individual, particularly a protected or sensitive species. Each species has unique, 

fundamental needs for food, shelter, water, and space and can be sustained only where their specific 

combination of habitat requirements is available. Removal of sustaining elements of a species' habitat 

affects its ability to exist. Therefore, the evaluation of impacts on biological resources also is based on 

whether the action would cause habitat displacement resulting in reduced feeding or reproduction, removal 

of critical habitat for sensitive species, and/or behavioral avoidance of available habitat because of noise or 

human disturbance. 

EFH in the project area would be permanently impacted by filling (0.90 acres) adjacent to the abutments 

associated with the elevated rail section. This fill would cause the loss of estuarine marsh vegetation, 

estuarine water column and estuarine water bottoms. The marsh vegetation provides forage and cover for 

juvenile fish, shrimp and crabs as well as offering shelter and nesting sites for several species of migratory 

waterfowl. The water column provides for circulation in estuaries that promotes the transport of organisms, 

nutrients, oxygen and sediments. Simultaneously, the mixture of fresh and salt water leads to variations of 

the physicochemical and biological components of the region. The water bottoms provide substrate for 
burrowing organisms that is in turn food for foraging species. 

Impacts from above alternatives 1 and 2a and 2b do not impact new habitat, however, they are technically 

unfeasible. Alternative 3 uses fill and would require a wider footprint than fill between sheet pile. This 

alternative would permanently impact approximately 3.73 acres of water bottoms, the water column and 

estuarine vegetation. Alternative 4 uses fill between sheet pile. This alternative would permanently impact 

approximately 3 acres of water bottoms, the water column and estuarine vegetation and reduce habitat for 

fisheries. These permanent impacts would have to be mitigated for with permittee responsible mitigation. 

The no action alternative (Alternative 6) would not impact any EFH but the purpose of the proposed project 

would not be accomplished. 

The preferred alternative (Alternative 7) permanently impacts approximately 0.90 acres of wetland habitat. 

This will be mitigated for by creation of emergent wetland with tidal flow and will be planted with species 

similar to that being impacted. 

Permittee Responsible Mitigation 

A copy of the Draft Pennittee Responsible Mitigation Plan is attached (Attachment 3). The plan proposes 

to create tidal wetland by grading an upland area to an appropriate elevation and planting with the 

appropriate species to create a tidal marsh habitat similar to that impacted by filling associated with the 

proposed project. The proposed mitigation area is located within the MPITC property and is owned by 

Jackson County. Based on HGM evaluation, a mitigation ratio of 1: 1 is appropriate for this project. 

Approximately 1.0 acres oftidal wetland will be created. JCPA proposes to forestry mulch the entire upland 

area that is going to be converted. The vegetation will be cut all the way down to existing grade. Beginning 

at the wetland upland interface the upland will be graded using an excavator to remove approximately+/-

3ft of material. The vegetation and soil will be removed from the project area. The final elevation will be 

graded to match that of the existing tidal marsh and its tributaries. Slight variations will be maintained to 

accommodate different plant species. BMPs to protect water quality will be installed and maintained for 

the project's duration. Plants that will be installed after grading will be the same as those that already exist 

such as Smooth Cord Grass, Saw Grass, Black Needle Rush, Salt Grass, Marsh Hay, Cattails and a few 

Bald Cypress along the shore. 

Based on the information available for EFH in the project area presented above, FRA concludes that the 

proposed project would not have an adverse effect on EFH or the Federally managed species (red drum, 

brown shrimp and white shrimp) in the area. Impacts to the habitat in the area would be offset by Permittee 

Responsible Mitigation which includes creation of an appropriate acreage of marsh habitat. Please advise 

if you concur with this determination or provide a written request for additional information within 30 days 

from the date on this letter. If you have questions or wish to discuss this project, please contact Amanda 

Murphy, FRA Environmental Protection Specialist at 202-339-7231 or Amanda.murphy2@dot.gov. 

Sincerely, 

MICHAEL M.Digitally signed by 

MICHAEL M JOHNSEN 

JOHNSEN Date: 2021.03.10 

12:08:16 -05'00' 

Michael Johnsen 

Supervisory Environmental Protection Specialist 

Environmental and Project Engineering Division 

Office of Railroad Policy and Development 
Cc: Amanda Murphy, FRA 

Rudolph C. Villarreal, USACE 

Sandy Feathers, JCPA 

Attachments: Figure I - Topographic Map 

Figure 2 - Habitat/Wetland Map 

Attachment I - Preliminary Site Plans (Drawings 2.0-2.3) 

Attachment 2 - Drawings Showing alternative alignments and construction methods 

Attachment 3 - Draft Pennittee Responsible Mitigation Plan 
• 

Site: Proposed North Rail Connector Project COMPTON ENGINEERING, INC. 

Engineering, Surveying, and Environmental Services Moss Point, Jackson County, MS 156 Nixon Street 

BIioxi, Mississippi 39S30 

Phone: (220) 432·2133 Fax: (220) 432-0149 famall: compton@comptone:nglneer1ng.com 

Figure 1 - Topographic Map (Map Source: USGS, 2012) Appendix ID: 

A 
0 140 280 560 840 

Feet 

I inch = 450 feet 

1,120 

--Rail Center Line - 0.9 mile 

- Wetlands - 3.5 ac 

-- Uplands - 3.0 ac 

FIGURE 2 - NORTH RAIL 

CONNECTOR HABITAT/ 

WETLAN OS MAP 

Wildlife Solutions, Inc. 

Phone: 251-591-2682 

-88.512122 30.414 181 Decimal Degrees 
[> 

[> 

--H3⁄4-

-

' -H 

\ ----+fj t --HI 

----.. -- ----- ---- \ _ :-:-Hi CJ-Ml 

____ (j_:= 

•1'== 

-t-ll 

L _L_-j_ _ _j__j__j__ _ _j 

<! :,,. • - ,~ 

μ ii ----Hi 

-- -----l 

__ :=:-1~""''1' ,l!"P.~:.:i,'--

1 I ~.,--1-ii-•-----

-H, 

--

r; ----Hi 

:: --H 

,, 

' ' 

____ [_ _________ _ 

\ t~--- -!'-1----+--L[ _jf--e-----+ ------

' ' ' 

' ' : 

-------- -----------\--

' ' ' ' ' ' ' \ : 

-- ------~ \ 

\ \ 

'I ' '- \ \ i<s~ 

1 1 n',--_ _,_ __ 

'' '' I, 

' :, 

,, $1 ,.,,,,_1_ __ _L __ _L __ --_,, [L __ _j_ __ 

ll ! i 

l 

() :::::•.: 100 1,0.: 21s-o,1 NORTH RAIL CONNECTOR PLANNING ASSISTANCE rnGmmirm, sJJ;wmr;G 1, Er.vtR<Y..)'WTAL savic£s [D •~• AS NOTED PORT OF PASCAGOULA RESTORE PROJECT ,M)ji COMPTON ENGINEERING, INC. [') f;;r-4s-~ ~~~'.: ),STUDSTILL NORTH RAIL CONNECTOR PLAN & PROFILE FASCAGOUlA. 8llOXI. MHT.lOUIS - w , __ _L ___ J"~"~''L='_'=-~_-=•~-~~-·='_-=''--~3, _____ ...c.. ________ -___ c.:... __ __, ,_._ .._.,_ .. _·•_"_'_'~"-"'_'·~"-"---'_"_"'_'·_"_"_; ~~-' STA: 133+00 - STA: 144+11.94 ,,.~ ... ,.rnriooe,;~·, .• .,.,,~.«<11 
5:\Pa>Ca\lOSh\O-P,oj,ct,\Wl&\Zl&•OSl JCl'A • North R,"J CoM«tor\001 f'!!Mlf.J ru,·,t,nco\Dn;,\Cu1r,ol 0H'gn\Coo«r,t•O"'•n\C2,0 • n.J,dn~, C2.Z, l/26(2021 11:34:51 A.'1, brtnll 

" p: 

t> t> 

"·" ._., 

--H 

-t-< 

--H 

-, 

, 

, 

---Hi ' 

, ------H 

, 

, --I--< 

, 

' -..a ' ' __,_. -' ' ' ' ' ' ___. ' -

' ' ' ' ---

--

-Hl 

' ---Hi ' \ --

lo 

' ' ' ' ' \_'. 

COMPTON ENGINEERING, INC. 0 s=" AS NOTED PORT OF PASCAGOULA RESTORE PROJECT iM§i 0 Joa 1;0., m•os1 NORTH RAIL CONNECTOR PLANNING ASSISTANCE rv 13.:i:~1.'} DATE: E,'<GH,CERl'm, 5\B.YEYlliG & EIN!Ro:,~mrAl SERVICES r,J g~;~t~r: \~~;~t· NORTH RAIL CONNECTOR - PLAN & PROFILE ; a:~~:,\ 1 1; '.;1;!~.:.' STA: 121 +00 - STA: 133+00 ,,-""-'""'~to.,...,11,.,.,-"'11-«m ~--~---~~c•0c·•~---~ ~-------------------' '------------~ 
" 

,, 

[> 

[> 

, ... 

,_,. 

-,41 

-, --H> 

:--

"a'-r-1-+--+s'-=~----

\,, 

.,. ?,~ ... ,:; .. n,.,.,_" ------,\;c+-,;,e.~H---+--•,-+~""'."•"""""' 

1--+--1----\ 

-{H- --+---t----t------t>'-, -f-----t----, 

' ' ' f--t----t---c---t---\,---t-----t----j 

' ' ' f,,,, ..•• ,,,,. , ________ , ___ , ___ j _____ +-----t 

' 

-rn-- ---

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' -i- I..... \ 

' ' i \ 

_, 

I 

! +i}-+-F--f---+---•-~r--

---

...... . 

, 

-------- ;_,}_f----j-----, ' , 

, ' 

, 

, 

, 

, 

, 

, 

ll---5t-,----t=:+===l==I , ', 

, 

, 

, 

, 

f 

'"-'---+-+----+--,--- --- -t···· ' 

' ' ' 0·"+---t~+---!+i------- --- ------ ---1------ ------

' ' ' ,e,+-~+--+ii--~-~•e•'o'"""""""'''!-- ---- ---- I" I" I'""'" 

' J 

~~HI 

0 ·~· AS NOTED PORT OF PASCAGOULA RESTORE PROJECT iMii COMPTON ENGINEERING, INC, () :.'.':':'-"'.:': ioe r;o., 21s.c,51 NORTH RAIL CONNECTOR PLANNING ASSISTANCE £~Gu;1:cR!~G, SJJ~VfllliG &. E~v1m,rn11Al SfR\llns ~-~-~~--- ~;~~Y-, -,-.8:~~,ft NORTH RAIL CONNECTOR - PLAN & PROFILE PASCAGOVlA • B!lOXI • BAYST.LOV!S OlK., STA: 110+00 - STA: 121+00 >l•-m:::~m~p~:,•.::-~-~::... :'.:,:"·"' 0 0 '-----------------~ 
I> 

I> 

j.. j' ·,; 

' ' ' ' ----l-----1---1 

. 

··- --+----•--r-:--

\jF' 

' ll~ 

'1-----1'-''i! --- v 

' ---------H--

,, " 

H 

,, 

: ' 

----------

-:~",:-l--~-+---+-----:q.-J--,0S"S""1-_~C;'"""'''""'""'~" 

' 

' ' ' 

__ _,_ __ ~_;' ,_ --------- .. :· ! 

' ' 

I °J 

' ' 

' ,' 

' ' 

: 1: 

--- --~J;---,',-_[_ ___ JJ __ 

!, l 1 

s L_!,!_>_ - -- -- --------1-------- i I ---- --- --- '·" -· \ 

'·" '·" 

' ' ' ' ' ' ' l :-:::,... -

i i 

___ 

~-L 

__ _,_ __ c·_,:_,_n ___ _ 

, .. , -- ,_ .. 

' 

___ 

I 

____ , __ _ 

--------1-----

' ' ' ' ' ' 

r 

i 1-"'~"~'!g:'M'.'3⁄4~~~I 

---i-L_J_ __ _J __ 

' ' 

' -

____ /_, _ _J_ __ _,_ _ __, 

' ' ' ' 

. -f C---1---l--

' ' ' 

' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 

I··- ' 

< ' ' 
'\--, 

a: 

§ 

UJ 

z ::.: z uO 

<( u a: ...J 

.... -tu~ 

UJ ::C a: f- f- a: VlQ 

...JZ 

=o :EUJ V) 

0 

c.. 

0 

a: 

c.. 
ERNATIVE 3 - PERMITTED 

.IGHNMENT 

:EFERRED AL TERNAVIE 

'4SGAGOI.AA • 11:LOil • IIAY ST.LCIUI$ 

~,..1.,-10 ::-u-:111 . :ie-1-n111 

--
NCW ,_(Ca\~ COtOCT'C 

Dll.l0eCCUI.CICII 

1•":;Q,l'll;tSTIIC.'Z 

CONO:rn,iu:~ 

t:,. 

1 TYPE I TYPICAL SECTION - FILL OPTION 

CS.0 SCALE: J/8. • 1'•0" 

2 TYPE II TYPICAL SECTION - SHEETPILE WALL OPTION 

C5.0 SCALE: 3/4" • l'•O" 

TYPE II TYPICAL SECTION - BRIDGE OPTION 

t:,. 

ALTERNATIVE4 

CONSTRUCTION METHOD USDING FILL 

ALTERNATIVES 

CONSTRUCTION METHOD - FILL BETWEEN SHEET PILE 

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE 

CONSTRUCTION METHOD - ELEVATED 

NtW!ITtn'1.AT10ll14 

Wffi1 HANOb.lL, AA.I. U~lff'~~IUl:0,,-0 

t:,. t:,. 

cj t ~i §~ 

O :'i ""$ 8' ii!::.. ! 

.u.~ t=.l,5 .. z ; 0 

~'2 o~ ~i mi ,..•'";'n, 

;z:< Hf oa; 3 ~ 

~J E,~ 

o -~ f'" ul 

II 

>-

t; b w 0: w u Oo ,_ :t "' V, 

I- "- ;:;; :::i w 

<t 15 ~V') I-,_ -2: 

a:: ffi :::o 

0 "' s6 :5 Q. w 

>- "" V, ::, I- 0 §-' C:: (.!) w5 

:::i 6 z0 "' 8~ W < 

c:: "- 0~ :,:: 

WO g <t "- ..... 

2: 

;= - Oo I · 

V, ;; 

V, 

< 
DRAFT 

PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION (PRM) 

MITIGATION PLAN 

Jackson County Port Authority 

North Rail Connector 

Moss Point, Mississippi 

Prepared For 

Jackson County Port Authority 

PO Box 70 

Pascagoula, MS 39568 

Prepared By 

CECOMPTON ENOJNEBRJNO. JNC. 

,ii! 

1969 Market Street 

Pascagoula, Mississippi 39568 

(288) 762-3970 

MARCH 2021 

CE Project No. 218-051 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................ 2 

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/OBJECTIVES ............................................................................. 2 

2.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION SITE/SITE SELECTION ............................................................. 3 

3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT ...................................................................................... 3 

4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION .................................................................................................. 3 

5.1 IMPACT SITE .................................................................................................... 5 

5.2 MITIGATION SITE ............................................................................................ 6 

5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREOITS ........................................................................................... 7 

6.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN ................................................................................................... 7 

7.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN .......................................................................................................... 7 

8.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ............................................................................................ 7 

9.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS .......................................................................................... 8 

10.0 LONG TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN .................................................................................... 8 

11.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN ....................................................................................... 8 

12.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ................................................................................................. 8 

FIGURES 

Figure 1 

Figure 2 

Figure 3 

Site Location Map 

Rail Layout and Wetland Impacts at Project Site 

Proposed Mitigation Area 

Appendices 

Appendix A - Wetland Delineation Report 

Appendix B - Detailed Work Plan 

Appendix C - HGM Worksheets 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

218-051 

Mitigation Plan 

Page 11 
INTRODUCTION 

This Draft Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan is for the modified layout area for the 

North Rail Connector in Jackson County, Mississippi. The rail layout is in the same 

general location as the permitted rail (SAM-2018-00124-RCV) but has been modified to 

impact less square footage of marsh wetlands and the construction method has been 

modified from mostly fill (4.79 acres of impact) lo mostly elevated rail on pilings (0.90 

acres of impact). 

JCPA proposes to construct a rail line to connect an existing rail owned by Mississippi 

Export Railroad (MSE) that crosses over the Escatawpa River in Moss Point, 

Mississippi to an existing JCPA-owned rail line that crosses through the Moss Point 

Industrial and Technology Complex and provides access to the Port of Pascagoula, 

Bayou Casotte Harbor (the Proposed Project). The Proposed Project, referred to as the 

North Rail Connector, would be approximately 3,659 linear feet with 2,852 feet of 

elevated rail and 807 feet of rail constructed on fill or existing uplands. There would be 

approximately 2,649 cubic yards of fill at the pile abutments for the elevated rail and in 

an area of estuarine wetlands. Approximately 0.90 acres of wetlands will be filled 

associated with the project. An existing grade crossing on Orange Grove Road would 

be relocated approximately 50 feet to the west to allow for the curve needed to 

accommodate the train lengths and speed. The existing MSE rail at the west end would 

need to be adjusted to allow insertion of a turn out to join with the new elevated rail line. 

For construction, a laydown yard would be established within the MPITC in an area that 

was recently used for the same purpose. The laydown yard would be approximately 1 

acre in size and not located within a wetland. 

The purpose of the Proposed Project is to provide additional railroad capacity and 

connectivity between existing infrastructure to support the growing needs of the Port of 

Pascagoula, Bayou Casotte Harbor. Currently, freight trains that travel from the north on 

the MSE line must pass through downtown Moss Point and Pascagoula to the 

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

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

alignment from the existing MSE line entering into the Moss Point Industrial and 

Technology Complex (MPITC) is too tight for the expected length of train to travel 

through that area safely. The Proposed Project is needed to remove operational 

conflicts between railroads, reduce congestion, and accommodate the proposed 

restoration of passenger rail service. The proposed layout of the new rail was 

determined by the requirements for clearance, maintaining speed of the trains, reducing 

impact to privately owned residential properties, and reducing the length of rail through 

wetlands. 

The proposed project will fill approximately 39,261 square feet (0.9 acres) of 

jurisdictional wetlands. This mitigation plan is for creation of wetlands on parcels owned 

by Jackson County Port Authority that are adjacent or near to the proposed new rail line 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

218-051 

Mitigation Plan 

Page 2
impacts. This draft mitigation plan includes the twelve components outlined in 33 CFR 

332.4(c)/40 CFR 230.92.4(c). 

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ OBJECTIVES 

The proposed rail line is located in Jackson County on parcels 754.20-003.0004.00, 

754.20-003.0008.00, 754.20-003.0010.00, 754.20-003.0011 and 754.20-03.0012.00. 

The approximate center point of the proposed new rail line is located at 30.415546 

degrees latitude and -88.514452 degrees longitude. The proposed new rail line is 

bordered on the north and east by Secretary of State owned property and crosses 

privately owned property that Mississippi Export Railroad is currently in negotiations 

with to obtain right of way easements. 

The subject property is located in Section 19, Township 7 South, and Range 5 West of 

Jackson County, MS. A Site Location Map is shown on Figure 1. 

JCPA proposes to construct a total of approximately 3,659 linear feet of rail line 

combined in an elevated rail and rail constructed on fill. There will be approximately 

2,852 linear feet of rail over marsh and 807 feet constructed on uplands. Impacts to 

marsh will be limited to fill at the abutments to the elevated sections. One section of 

wetland approximately 413 feet long by 15 feet wide will be filled for continuity of 

construction methods between sections built on uplands. This will total approximately 

39,261 square feet (0.90 acres) of fill in wetlands. A wetland delineation was conducted 

along the proposed rail line layout to determine the location of marsh and forested 

wetlands or uplands. A copy of the Wetland Delineation Report is included in Appendix 

A. A drawing showing the proposed rail layout and the areas of impact is shown on 

Figure 2. 

2.0 PROPOSED MITIGATION SITE/SITE SELECTION 

The JCPA has already purchased mitigation credits for the proposed impacts to the 

forested wetlands associated with the permitted layout. There will be no forested 

wetland impacts and these credits cannot be used. The impacts to the marsh wetlands 

will be mitigated for by creation of marsh wetlands nearby. This creation proposal was 

chosen based on the location of the proposed mitigation area adjacent to the proposed 

rail line, the likelihood of success and ability to maintain the improvements over time. 

The adjacent and nearby marsh vegetation has already been impacted by industrial 

activity (the marsh is crossed by power lines and several power line towers are located 

within the marsh. These structures have to be maintained on a regular basis and the 

marsh has been damaged by marsh buggies, boats, or other equipment to provide 

access to the power line). It appears that any restoration or enhancement of the marsh 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

218-051 

Mitigation Plan 

Page 3
vegetation would be subject to future damage. Therefore, enhancement/restoration of 

the existing damaged marsh wetland was not chosen during site selection. The 

proposed mitigation area was evaluated to ensure that there was enough upland 

acreage that could be graded to the appropriate elevation that would allow marsh 

vegetation to grow. Based on field surveys of the area, approximately four acres were 

identified as available for mitigation activities. 

The proposed mitigation area is located on the same parcels of land that the rail line will 

be located. The proposed mitigation area is optimal based on the following factors: 

1. The existing marsh interfaces well defined uplands that belong to the project's 

owner. 

2. The upland is easily accessible from a lightly traveled paved road allowing for 

easy ingress of trucks and machinery. 

3. The upland is somewhat degraded due to the presence of invasive exotic plants 

such as Tallow, Privet, and Camphor. 

4. The site can be worked completely from the upland side eliminating disturbance 

to existing wetlands. 

5. Plenty of nearby commercial dirt pits to handle the fill once removed. 

JCPA proposes to forestry mulch the entire upland area that is going to be converted. 

The vegetation will be cut all the way down to existing grade. Beginning at the wetland 

upland interface the upland will be graded using an excavator to remove approximately 

+/- 3ft of material. The vegetation and soil will be removed from the project area. The 

final elevation will be graded to match that of the existing tidal marsh and its tributaries. 

Slight variations will be maintained to accommodate different plant species. BMPs to 

protect water quality will be installed and maintained for the project's duration. Plants 

that will be installed after grading will be the same as those that already exist such as 

Smooth Cord Grass, Saw Grass, Black Needle Rush, Salt Grass, Marsh Hay, Cattails, 

and a few Bald Cypress along the shore. A detailed work plan for marsh creation is 

attached in Appendix 8 of this plan. 

A map showing the proposed acres to be converted from uplands to marsh is shown on 

Figure 3. 

3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT 

The mitigation area will be legally described and recorded as a conservation easement 

to remain as a natural area and prevent clearing or industrial development. 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

218-051 

Miligallon Plan 

Page 4
4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION 

The objective of the permittee responsible mitigation is to provide compensation for 

impacts to 39,261 square feet (0.90 acres) of fresh water emergent wetlands. The 

impact site and mitigation site are both located in the Gulf Coast Flatwoods region of the 

Southern Coastal Plain. The Southern Coastal Plain extends from South Carolina and 

Georgia through much of central Florida, and along the Gulf Coast lowlands of the 

Florida Panhandle, Alabama, and Mississippi. From a national perspective, it appears to 

be mostly flat plains, but it is a heterogeneous region containing barrier islands, coastal 

lagoons, tidal marsh, and swampy lowlands along the Gulf and Atlantic coasts. The 

Coastal plain was once covered by a variety of forest communities that included trees of 

longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), slash pine (P. elliottii), pond pine (P. serotina), beech 

(Fagus grandifolia), sweetgum (Liquidamber styraciflua), southern magnolia (Magnolia 

grandiflora), white oak (Quercus alba), and laurel oak (Q. laurifolia). Land cover in the 

region is now mostly slash and loblolly pine with oak-gum-cypress forest in some lowlying areas, citrus groves in Florida, pasture for beef cattle, and urban. 

In Mississippi, the Gulf Coast Flatwoods is a narrow region of nearly level terraces and 

delta deposits composed of Quaternary-age sands and clays. Wet, sandy flats and 

broad depressions that are locally swampy are now usually forested or in pine 

plantations, while some of the better-drained land has been cleared for pasture or 

crops. Dominant land uses include woodland, wildlife habitat, and urban. Historically, 

pine savannas with slash and long leaf pine (Pin us elliottii, P. palustris) and a variety of 

grasses, sedges, rushes, pitcher plants and orchids were common. A high natural fire 

frequency was typical, often sparked by lightning and fueled by wiregrass (Aristida spp.) 

that maintained the more open savannas. 

Ecoregions of the southeast also share other features, including: a high percentage of 

land area in wetlands, a dominant role of frequent fire over the majority of the 

landscape, a diversity of river and stream systems, limited but important karst areas, 

diverse estuarine and tidal systems, and significant large scale disturbance events, 

such as hurricanes. The area is characterized by a warm to hot, humid, maritime 

climate. 

In North America, the Gulf Coastal Plain ecoregion is one of the true hotspots of 

biodiversity and endemism. Part of the reason for this is that the ecoregion has never 

been glaciated and has been continuously occupied by plants and animals since the 

Cretaceous, giving ample time for the evolution of narrow endemic species. Many 

species, particularly vascular plants, reptiles, amphibians, and fishes occur only in this 

ecoregion, and many of those are even more narrowly limited within the ecoregion. 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

210-051 

Mitigation Plan 

Page 5
The dominant ecological drivers of the terrestrial systems are soils (texture and 

chemistry), fire frequency, and hydrology. Habitats in the Gulf Coastal Plain include 

barrier island systems with annual-dominated beaches, maritime grasslands and scrub, 

maritime shrub hammocks, and evergreen forests (both broadleaf and needleleaf). 

These grade through salt marshes to productive estuaries. Inland, longleaf pine 

woodlands are dominant over most of the landscape, on upland and wetland sites and a 

wide variety of soils. 

4.1 Baseline - Impact Site 

Approximately 0.90 acres of wetlands will be permanently filled for the rail line. The 

wetlands are mapped on the National Wetlands Inventory Map for the Pascagoula North 

quadrangle as E2EM1 Pd, which is described as estuarine, intertidal, emergent, 

persistent, irregularly flooded, partially drained (modified by ditches). This type of 

wetland comprises approximately 76 percent of the project area. Other types of 

wetlands near the project area include PFo4B (palustrine, forested, needle leaved 

evergreen, seasonally saturated), PSS3/1 Rd (Palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad leaved 

evergreen, broad leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded, partially drained/ditched) which 

make up the nearby forested wetlands. 

According to the FEMA flood map the property is in zone AE with base flood elevation 

of 10-11 feet which is within the 100 year flood plain (subject to inundation by the 1 % 

annual chance flood). Hydric soil determination was based on confirmation of field 

indicators of hydric soils, as defined in Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United 

States, Version 5.0 (NRCS 2002). 

4.2 Baseline Proposed Mitigation Site 

The proposed mitigation area includes forested uplands that are adjacent to the project 

area. The mitigation site provides habitat for small and medium sized mammals 

(raccoon, opossum, armadillo), reptiles, amphibians, and aquatic species (crayfish). The 

understory is densely overgrown with Chinese privet (Triadica ligustrum). 

The proposed mitigation site is owned by Jackson County. The soils in the mitigation 

area are mapped as the Daleville silt loam, 0-1 percent slopes. The Daleville series 

consists of poorly drained soils that formed in loamy marine or fluvial sediment. 

Permeability is slow. These nearly level soils are on uplands and terraces of the 

Southern Coastal Plain. They are saturated late in winter and early in spring. Water runs 

off the surface very slowly. Slopes range from O to 1 percent. The proposed mitigation 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

218-051 

Mitigation Plan 

Page 6
area has been modified in elevation by placement of spoil material from excavation of 

the nearby drainage ditches. This has modified the hydrology and soil characteristics. 

The proposed mitigation site has not been previously developed and is not currently 

occupied. If the property is not placed in a conservation easement, the potential exists 

for it to eventually be developed as part of the Moss Point Industrial Technology Center. 

The mitigation area exists near the railroad line. Given the proximity of multiple modes 

of transportation surrounding the mitigation site, ii would be a prime area for 

development. 

Although the proposed mitigation site is near the rail line, it is important to wildlife in the 

area as ii provides a safe corridor for travel between other forested and wetland habitats 

within the MPITC. Converting the mitigation site into marsh wetland will replace habitat 

that is lost to filling for the rail line. The marsh will perform the functions of nursery for 

fish and crustaceans, shelter for birds and aquatic organisms and food for birds, 

mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and fish. Wildlife in the area will continue to nest, roost 

and breed in the area. 

The impact area for the permitted rail line and the proposed marsh creation area were 

evaluated using the Hydrogeomorphic method to determine if the proposed marsh 

creation would sufficiently account for the impacts to the marsh by the proposed rail 

line. Results of the HGM evaluation indicate that the filling of wetlands in the impact 

area would result in a loss of 0.32 Functional Capacity Units (FCU) and the marsh 

creation area will result in a lift of 0.32 FCUs. This indicates that a ratio of 1: 1 would be 

sufficient to mitigate for the loss as a result of the proposed project. A copy of the HGM 

worksheets is attached in Appendix C. 

5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS 

The JCPA previously purchased mitigation credits for the impacts to the forested 

wetlands associated with the permitted layout and to create wetlands in the surrounding 

area as mitigation for impacts to the marsh wetlands (since no credits are available for 

marsh mitigation). Since the impacts to the forested wetlands have been eliminated, 

the credit purchase is no longer needed. (JCPA will be working with the Corps and 

Wetland Solutions for a credit or refund for this prior purchase.) Since there are no 

credits available for purchase for marsh vegetation impacts, JCPA will conduct 

permiltee responsible mitigation by creating marsh wetland from forested uplands at a 

ratio of 1 :1 resulting in no net loss of wetlands as a result of the project. 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

218-051 

Mitigation Plan 

Page 7
6.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN 

Improvement and management activities will be conducted by the Jackson County Port 

Authority. The mitigation area is located on the same parcels of land that the rail line will 

be located. JCPA proposes to forestry mulch the entire upland area that is going to be 

converted. The vegetation will be cut all the way down to existing grade. Beginning at 

the wetland upland interface the upland will be graded using an excavator to remove 

approximately =/- 3ft of material. The vegetation and soil will be removed from the 

project area. The final elevation will be graded to match that of the existing tidal marsh 

and its tributaries. Slight variations will be maintained to accommodate different plant 

species. BMPs to protect water quality will be installed and maintained for the project's 

duration. Plants that will be installed after grading will be the same as those that already 

exist such as Smooth Cord Grass, Saw Grass, Black Needle Rush, Salt Grass, Marsh 

Hay, Cattails and a few Bald Cypress along the shore. The detailed work plan is 

attached in Appendix A 

7.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN 

It will be the responsibility of the JCPA to conduct any required maintenance of the 

mitigation site. JCPA will contract with a qualified contractor to conduct annual 

maintenance activities for a period of five years. Invasive species will be removed 

during the annual maintenance activities. 

8.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 

Performance standards are observable or measurable attributes that can be used to 

determine if a compensatory mitigation project meets its objectives. Success of the 

management activities will be evaluated through the first five years with respect to 

hydrology and percent cover. Hydrology must meet the wetland definition of 1987 

Corps of Engineers Wetland Manual, with saturation to the surface of the soil for 12.5% 

(31 days) of the growing season; and with aerial cover of at least 50% consisting of the 

planted species in emergent wetland areas. 

9.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS 

It is anticipated that the JCPA will conduct annual monitoring of the mitigation area for 

five years. The first year will include two inspections and two reports. The goal of the 

annual monitoring will be to assess continued survival of the planted species and to 

remove any invasive species. Any regrowth of popcorn trees, Chinese privet or other 

invasive or noxious species will be removed. In addition to evaluation of the entire 0.9 

acres for plant survival, monitoring plots will be established. These monitoring plots will 

be approximately 0.010 acres randomized circular plots and cover a total of 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

218-051 

Mitigation Plan 

Page 8
approximately 3,900 square feet (10% of the mitigation area). Annual monitoring 

reports will be submitted to the Corps of Engineers, Mobile District. 

The annual report shall include, at a minimum, the following: 

A. A US Geological Survey topographic map with the track indicated. 

B. A detailed narrative that summarized the condition of the tract and all regular 

maintenance activities. 

C. Appropriate site maps that show the locations of sampling plots, permanent 

photographic stations, sampling transects, etc. 

D. Results of vegetation surveys. 

E. Monitoring Reports to be disseminated to: 

US Army Corps of Engineers 

Mobile District 

Regulatory Branch 

P.O. Box 2288 

Mobile, Alabama 36628 

10.0 LONG TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN 

Long term management of the property will be the responsibility of the JCPA. JCPA will 

continue to monitor the mitigation area after the performance standards have been 

achieved. Any growth of the invasive species will be managed as needed; however, 

reports will not be submitted. 

11.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN 

The JCPA will use adaptive management strategies to maintain the quality of wetlands 

at the mitigation site. Monitoring in an adaptive management context focuses on early 

identification of undesirable trends and provides the guidance, through an experimental 

construct, necessary to determine the appropriate remedial action to reverse an 

undesirable situation or trend. After the second annual monitoring report, the planted 

species survival should be 50%. If planted species have not reached the two year 

survival rate the need for additional plants will be evaluated. By year three the area 

should match the percent cover that exists in the reference site (adjacent brackish 

estuarine marsh). If by year three the planted species do not match the reference site 

cover, JCPA will evaluate the need for additional planting. The need for adaptive 

management will be evaluated in conjunction with input from the Corps of Engineers. 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

218-051 

Mitigation Plan 

Page 9
12.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES 

JCPA has purchased a $50,000 Performance Bond for !he project to provide funds for 

remediation of the mitigation area if the success criteria are not met. JCPA has long 

been a good environmental steward of the properties that it owns and is responsible for 

and has conducted long term management of several properties with conservation 

easements, deed restrictions, memorandum of agreement or other protective 

documents. 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

218-051 

Mitigation Plan 

Page 10
References 

Environmental Laboratory. (1987). "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical 

Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. 

Robert W. Lichvar and John T. Kartesz. 2009. North American Digital Flora: National Wetland Plant 

List, version 2.4.0 (https://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer 

Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, 

NH, and BONAP, Chapel Hill, NC. accessed [1/15/2019]. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland 

Delineation Manual: Atlantic and Guff Coastal Plain Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. 

Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-10-20. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and 

Development Center. 

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2010. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United 

States, Version 7.0. LM. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and C.V. Noble (eds.). USDA, NRCS, in cooperation with 

the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. 

Wunderlin, R. P., and B. F. Hansen. 2008. Atlas of Florida Vascular Plants 

(http://www.plantatlas.usf.edu/). [S. M. Landry and K. N. Campbell (application development), Florida 

Center for Community Design and Research.] Institute for Systematic Botany, University of South 

Florida, Tampa. 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

218-051 

Mitigation Plan 

Page 11
Compton Engineering, Inc. 

218-051 

Mitigation Plan 

Page 12

FIGURES 
Compton Engineering, Inc, 

218-051 

Mitigation Plan 

Page 113 

Figure 1 Site Location Map 
Site: North Rall Project Area 

• 

COMPTON ENGINBBRING1 INC. 

Engineering, Surveying, ~nd Envtronmental Services Moss Point, Jackson County, MS 

156 Nixon Street DIiox!, Mississippi 39530 

Phone, (228) 432-2133 Fox, (228) 432·8149 

E•mall: (omplonO~omptonongfneertng.com 

Figure Title: Topographic Map (Map source: usGs, 2012) Appendix ID: 

A 
Figure 2 Rail Layout and Wetland Impacts at Project Site 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

218-051 

Mitigation Plan 

Page 13
--

,a 11 ij t ! I ! I :; ·d i 

--

ii d ; g ; et - q 

--

i 3i i~ n ; ! 4 ; . -

--

F 

ff I R F~ ~,! ff ~, 

if -- ! ! !! ! ! l) ! !! ! ! 

! I I :a I I 

J d_ :t ~t ~t ~t J 

--
Compton Engineering, Inc. 

218-051 

Mitigation Plan 

Page 14

Figure 3 Proposed Mitigation Area 
-------------- 2l8-0Sl 

COMPTON ENGINEERING, INC. JACKSON COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY (JCPA), 

NORTH RAIL CONNECTOR, 

PROPOSED PERMITTED RESPONSIDLE, 

MITIGATION AREA, 

SHEET 2 

ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & EtlVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 

PASCAGOULA • BILOXI • BAY sr. LOUIS 

228-762-3970 228-432-2133 

______________ www.comptonenglneerlng.com SCALE: NTS .., ORN. BY: JDL 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

_j 
10.00 

5.00 

0.00 

-5.00 

FINAL 

GRADE 

10.00 

5.00 

0.00 

-5.00 

100' BUFFER _____________ J_G_S,_S4 _________ -t-_ 

100' BUFFER 

FINAL 

GRADE 

10.00 

5.00 

0.00 

-5.00 

FINAL 

GRADE 

10,00 

5.00 

0.00 

-5.00 

FINAL 

GRADE 

10.00 

5.00 

0.00 

-5.00 

SECTION 1 

SCALE: NTS 

EXISTING 

GRADE 

TOBE -------

EXCAVATED 

EXISTING 

GRADE 

TO BE ------,. 

EXCAVATED 

SECTION 3 

SCALE: NTS 

EXISTING 

GRADE 

TO BE ------,. 

EXCAVATED 

SECTION 4 

SCALI:: NTS 

10.00 

5.00 

0.00 

-5.00 

10.00 

5.00 

0.00 

-5.00 

10.00 

5.00 

0.00 

-5.00 

------------- 218·051 

COMPTON ENGINEERING. INC, JACKSON COUNTY FORT AUTHORITY (]CPA), • NORTH RAIL CONNECTOR, 

ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & EllVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROPOSED PERMITTED RESPONSIBLE, 

PASCI\GOULA • BILOXI • BAY ST. LOUIS MITIGATION AREA, 228·762-3970 228-432·2133 SHEET 3 

www.comptonenglneerlng.com SCALE: NTS 

ORN, BY: JOL 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

_J 
Compton Engineering, Inc. 

218-051 

Mitigation Plan 

Page 15

Appendices 
Compton Engineering, inc. 

218-051 

Mitigation Plan 

Page 16

Appendix A - Wetland Delineation Report 
W.arJffit,N 

\\\lllft 

I.Ill /,.r,J 

,I 

s1n9lno Rive, 

hland 

\ \ 

I' 

n__n_J ,___ _ __.I 

0 0,5 1 2 3 

Moss Point, Mississippi 

•• + 

I 

!Miles 

4 

,•: 

I . 

:ti . ' / 11 t ~ · 

,J···' 

~· ¥' ,it 

r

. 1 .d-"'<t' 

I 

, l , 

!•) 

_,_ 

I _ ,_) ' 

' J 

' r 

I) 

Wildlife Solutions, Inc. 

Phone: 251-591-2682 

I inch == 2 miles 

Ot<1hJ ll.1/ 

th~1 

WUhf\tf!IJ'! 

f,ttnl ~ Ill 

l.t-i:fllt• Bl)' 
,,, 

· ... , 

·· .. , 

,ala11p.1 River 

J, 

0 265 530 

,, 1,, 

._,f • • , •• , .. 

,,, ), ....... , 

.. ,, ,,,. ,.,,. ''•· • • ••I•• ._, ·;,, , : · •I• 

1,060 1,590 

Moss Point, Mississippi 

l I! )} I' 

:\'i' I o r, 

. ' 

• • 1. 

.J .• 

,. 

Feet 

2,120 

':• . . , 

I ot f,-, 

.. , 

•! .. , ,, ••• •. !• •h 1,•I 

• •?• •• I , 1, 1! ,I ,.; '" 

.., 

. ,. 

,, . , ,. 

., .. · .. . , l• 

.. ,, 

V 

fl I 11 I 

Old Slnu RU 

'' ,II 

Wildlife Solutions, Inc. 

Phone: 251-591-2682 

I inch = 800 feet 

I I 

,,, 

' I 

,., t, . ••• • ..... 

. ' . t ,~ •I• ,,, • • ,1 .. 

' . 

• • 1, 

E '>,.:il aw 

•I 

. ' i ' 

rl 1 1 u 

\~·' ., it 

,. '·1 

r 
Wildlife Solutions, Inc. 0 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Phone: 251-591-2682 

Feet 

I inch = 800 feet -88.512122 30.414181 Decimal Degrees 
N w*n n_n_J I 

0 140 280 560 

Feet s 1 inch = 450 feet 

I 

840 1,120 

- - Rail Center Line - 0.9 mile 

1111 Wetlands - 3.5 ac 

Uplands - 3.0 ac 

Soil TYpes 

Wildlife Solutions, Inc. 

-~- Phone: 251-591-2682 

-88.512122 30.414181 Decimal Degrees 
-- Rail Center Line - 0.9 mile 

- Wetlands - 3.5 ac 

Uplands - 3 .0 ac 

N 

-~- \V+~H nJ7_J I I Wildlife Solutions, Inc. 

0 140 280 560 840 1,120 Phone: 251-591-2682 

Feet s l inch - 450 feet -88,512122 30.414181 Decimal Degrees 
B8'30'6DW 88'30'54'W ea•30•~ow B8'30'4.7W 88'30'43'W ll8'30'40'W ll6'30'3B'W S8'30'32W 88'30'29'\II BS'30'2-5'W 68'30'22 ..... 

z 

b, 

+ + + + + + + + + + +~ I" 

0 

., 

(ffl Wetlands - 3.5 ac 

?- D Uplands - 3.0 ac ., 

+ + + + + + + +~ 

f 

+ + + + + + + + + + +~ 0 

., la! 

z 

t 

.. + + + + + + + + + +?i 

b D ., ., 

!; "l-

+ + + + + + + + + +, D D .., ., 

t' ii< 

+ + + + + + + + + +~ 0 0 ., ., 

z 

!" "' + + + + + + + + + +~ 0 

., 

z 

--~ + + + + + + + + +~ 

g 

:z 

b 

!_II + + + + + + + + +~ !" " 0 D ., n 

:z :z. 

f,. f,. 

-~ + + + + + + + + + -I-{ 

!" I" 

0 D "' ., 

z +! !,, 

+ + + + + + + -; + + + I" 0 0 ., n 

r N 

-~-

7-

D 0 "*" rLrLJ Wildlife Solutions, Inc. H , 

,,-

l" ' I" 0 0 140 280 560 840 1,120 g .., Phone: 251-591-2682 

Feet s 

1 inch = 450 feet -88.512122 30.414181 Decimal Degrees 

86'J '\'\V ea·iifso·w 8B'J;4W 88'aT6ow 80'~7-W 88'J;3W 68':J;O'W ea•J;r,,w 86'~2-W OO'j;!l"W aa-Ji5-w 88';,~2' 
Appendix B +-Detailed Work Plan 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

218-051 

Mitigation Plan 

Page 117 
Wetland Mitigation Work Plan 

Jackson County Port Authority 

North Rail Connector 

Moss Point, Mississippi 

Prepared For 

,Jackson County Port Authority 

PO Box 70 

Pascagoula, MS 39568 

October, 2019 

Revised March 2021 

Prepared By 

Wildlife Solutions, Inc. 

250 S. School Street, 

OFFICE: 251-591-2682, FAX: 251-990-9830 

Fairhope, ALA. 36532 
Introduction 

This Work Plan was prepared to support the Pcrmittce Responsible Mitigation Plan prepared by 

Compton Engineering for the North Rail Connector project proposed by the Jackson County Port 

Authority. This plan includes the steps needed to convert an upland forested area into a tidal 

marsh. 

Site 

JCPA has identified an area of uplands with sufficient acreage to mitigate for tidal marsh impacts 

at a ratio of approximately 1: 1 (0.90 acres impacted: 1.0 acres created). The upland site that is to 

be converted into a tidal marsh inte1faces with an existing tidal marsh. Its plant community is 

typical of that found in the smrnunding Coastal Flat Woods. The canopy is dominated by Slash 

Pine pinus elliottii and scattered Water Oaks quercus nigra with a mid story of smaller oaks 

along with Southern Magnolia magnolia grandiflora, Red Maple Acer rubrum, Sweet Gum 

Liquidambar styraciflua, Gallbeny ilex glabra, Yaupon ilex vomitoria, and a heavy component 

of invasive species such as Camphor cinnamomum camphora, Tallow Tree Triadica sebifera and 

Chinese Privet Ligustrum sinense. Site access is optimal as it is bordered by a low traffic paved 

road along the southern border allowing easy ingress and egress for construction and monitoring. 

The hydrology of this system is groundwater driven and the water table fluctuates in elevation 

throughout the year depending on rainfall and tidal fluctuations. 

Construction 

SiteSm·vey 

Prior to the commencement of constrnction the entire site will be surveyed and staked 

delineating the limits of construction, zones of activity and establish bench marks for elevation. 

Clearing and Erosion co11trol 

The entire site will be cleared to existing grade by mechanical mulching followed by grubbing to 

remove any large sh1mps or debris. Any woody vegetation that is not mulched will be burned on 

site or hauled from the site to a proper disposal facility. Prior to the start of any trucking from the 

site a rock mud mat will be constructed at the road entrance to the site to decrease the tracking of 

soil onto the paved road. Prior to beginning excavation Class A silt fence will be installed along 

the construction limits of the project in areas at risk of sedimentation from storm water runoff. 

The silt fence along with any other storm water BMP's put in place will be maintained 

throughout the construction process until a time in which the site is stabilized by vegetation. A 

Jackson County Port Authority Rail Over Marsh Mitigation Project 

Prepared by Wildlife Solutions, Inc. Fairhope, Alabama March 202I 
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and Small Construction Notice of Intent will be prepared 

and submitted to MDEQ ifrequired. 

Grading 

Excavation will commence at the northwest side of the project at the upland marsh interface 

using an excavator. The soil substrate will be removed to a level approximately the same grade 

as the existing marsh. Frequent checks will be made using an automatic level to ensure elevation 

is correct prior to the excavator moving to a point it cannot reach in order to minimize 

disturbance in the newly exposed tidal soil. Minor undulations in elevation within the excavated 

tidal zone arc desired in order to facilitate a mosaic of various plant species as found in a natural 

system. Prelimimuy soil sampling does not indicate the presence of high chroma or pure clay 

soils at the desired final grade. However if encountered these areas will be cut down to 

approximately 6" below desired grade then back filled with newly excavated clean top soil from 

the site containing the highest levels of organic matter. As a proactive measure in case this type 

of material is required a stockpile of top soil will be kept on site and readily available until all 

grading is complete. It is estimated that approximately 13,000 cubic yards of material will be 

excavated in order to reach the desired grade within the limits of the marsh creation zone. All 

excavated materials not used as back fill will be hauled from the site and taken to a local 

commercial dirt pit. Once the excavation reaches the interface of the upland buffer a gradually 

slopping bank with variations will be created with a minimum slope ratio of 1 :4. This bank will 

be stabilized using a combination of tempora1y and permanent seed then covered with clean 

wheat straw mulch to retain moisture and prevent erosion. 

Planting and Seeding 

Once the dirt work is completed, all disturbed areas outside the tidal zone will be seeded with a 

temporaty and permanent seed mix followed by an application of fertilizer in sequence as 

follows. The tempormy seed mix will be done using a cool or warm season seed depending on 

time of application. 

1. Permanent seed will consist of Ernst FACW Wetland Meadow Mix applied at a rate of 

25 lbs per acre. 

2. Cool season temporary seed will consist of Rye Grass applied at a rate of 50 lbs per 

acre. 

3. Wann season temporary seed will consist of Brown Top Millet applied at a rate of 50 lbs 

per acre. 

4. Seeding will be followed by an application of 10-10-10 fertilizer at a rate of 100 lbs per 

acre. 

Jackson County Port Authority Rail Over Marsh Mitigation Project 

Prepared by Wildlife Solutions1 Inc. Fairhope, Alabama. D March 2021
5. Immediately after seeding, the entire area will be covered with clean wheat straw mulch 

at a rate of 40 bales per acre. 

6. Bald Cypress Taxodium disticl111111 in one gallon containers will be planted along the newly 

created shoreline at random spacing and elevation to mimic adjacent existing shoreline 

conditions. 

Herbaceous plants for the tidal marsh zone - planting density will be approximately 10,000 plugs 

per acre / 2' X 2' spacing, approximately 10,000 plugs will be required. The following plants 

listed are those currently found in tidal marsh iu which the newly created marsh will interface. 

During planting, care will be taken to insure species composition and densities mimic as closely 

as possible the existing marsh. Actual plant quantities may vary among species as adjustments 

are made during planting to accommodate for micro site changes in elevation. 

• 20-40% Juncus roemerianus (Black Needle Rush) 

• 20-40% Spartina alternijlora (Smooth Cordgrass) 

• 5-10% Spartina patens (Marsh Hay Cordgrass) 

• 5-10% Typha angust/folia (Narrowleaf Cattail) 

• 20-40 % Cladiwnjamaicense (Sawgrass) 

Note: All seed source material for this project have been procured from authorized collection 

sites along the Mississippi and Alabama Gulf Coast. These sites are all located within 50 miles 

of the project site. All plants for this project will be procured from Tidelands Wetland Nurse1y, 

located in Loxley, Alabama. 

Jackson County Port Authority Rail Over Marsh Mitigation Project 

Prepared by Wildlife Solutions, Inc. Fairhope, Alabama March 2021
COMPTON ENGINEERING, INC. 

ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 

PASCAGOULA • BILOXI • BAY ST, LOUIS 

228-762·3970 228-432·2133 228-467-2770 

www.comptonenglneerlng.com 

218-051 

JACKSON COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY (JCPA}, 

NORTH RAIL CONNECTOR, 

PROPOSED PERMITTED RESPONSIBLE, 

MITIGATION AREA, 

SHEET 2 

SCALE: NTS 

ORN. BY: JDL 

_ _____ _J 
10.00 

5.00 

0.00 

-5.00 

100' BUFFER 

FINAL 

GRADE 

10.00 

s.oo 

0.00 

-5.00 

FINAL 

GRADE 

10,00 

5.00 

0.00 

-5.00 

FINAL 

GRADE 

10.00 

s.oo 

0.00 

-5.00 

EXISTING 

GRADE 

TOBE--~ 

EXCAVATED 

149,32 

SECTION 2 

SCALE: NTS 

EXISTING 

GRADE 

TOBE--~ 

EXCAVATED 

SECTION 3 

SCALE: NTS 

EXISTING 

GRADE 

TO BE ------, 

EXCAVATED 

FINAL 

GRADE 

10.00 

5,00 

0.00 

-5.00 

100' BUFFER 

10.00 

5.00 

0.00 

-5.00 

100' BUFFER 

10.00 

5.00 

0,00 

-5.00 

100' BUFFER 

10.00 

5.00 

0.00 

-5.00 

100' BUFFER 

II 

------------- 218·051 

COMPTON ENGINEERING, INC. JACKSON COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY ()CPA), NORIB RAIL CONNECTOR, 

ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES PROPOSED PERMITTED RESPONSIBLE, 

PASCAGOULA • DILOXI • BAY ST, LOUIS MITJGATION AREA, 

228•762·3!>70 229. 432-2133 228•467-2110 SHEET 3 

1'11'11'1,C0mptonengtneerlng,com SCALE: NTS 

DRN, BY: JDL ,. 

I 

I 

I 

I 

_J 
W.:nJ(1;,1 t-, 

'li\\llk 

f.llllo~ 

,, 

0 

Singing 

Rlvt1 

ltl1nd 

0.5 

I I • I -4--• 

. 

I: ./ 

,- , .l 

@) r· ... 3⁄4. ./ .. ., 

{> .. 

t ~· ,j ," 

; ~l-

" /· \ i 

i I . 

\ 

., 

j 

.i" \ 

0 

r 

t .· I , , 11 • 

' )I' 

I/'/. 

/. 

,~ 

. . .•· . 

.. 

/,- .. 

.~ ~,I 

•'!,J)' . I ,,;,' 

/

. 1"' , 

• 1• 

t- ·. 

I 

" ., . 

U uttllbt 

fhlr.nJI 

WUA.~ A-f1>,-

f\.,.lfll \ th 

U r:,...,..., 81r 

1 2 3 

Miles 

4 

Wildlife Solutions, Inc. 

Moss Point, Mississippi 

Phone: 251-591-2682 

I inch = 2 miles 
\, 

at M.-pu n1ver 

f,t, Im,, L.11~ 

fl, ' 

,I, 

rLf7...J 

0 265 530 

I• 

•:·-• • , •' • ~.1., 

.,. 

,, 

.,, 

,I . 

"It 

., ,I 

... , 

'\I 

, .. 

j., 

,,. ·'."· ., ,1 • • • ·•Jv ; • 

1,060 1,590 

·,,i, ..... 

GtJt rGoh , l . It 

!Feet 

2,120 

Moss Point, Mississippi 

I ,It 

.,, 

,,, 

,,, ,,, 

t , ·, ··.1 

, .. 

,t,, 

)) \ I 

• '•I 

.. 1 

... 

... 

,I, 

. " 

•• I , '•• I , 

1,, 

lo . I 

_ 0111 Slnu RII 

Wildlife Solutions, Inc. 

Phone: 251-591-2682 

1 inch = 800 feet 

II 

• h, 

,,. 

.Lu I,, 

., I• 

IJ 
.-.-,i',\ •,:\,\ . <t., 

W*E 500 1,000 2,000 

Wildlife Solutions, Inc. 

Phone: 251-59 .1-2682 

s 
N 

nJ7_J I 

0 140 280 560 

Feet s l inch = 450 feet 

I 

840 1,120 

--Rail Center Line - 0.9 mile 

11111 Wetlands - 3.5 ac 

Uplands - 3.0 ac 

Soil TYpes 

-~-

Wildlife Solutions, Inc. 

Phone: 251-591-2682 

-88.512122 30.414181 Decimal Degrees 
--Rail Center Line - 0.9 mile 

- Wetlands - 3.5 ac 

· Uplands - 3.0 ac 

N w*~ -~-

rLSl...J I Wildlife Solutions, Inc. 

0 140 280 560 840 1,120 Phone: 251-591-2682 

Feet s I inch = 450 feet -88.512122 30.414181 Decimal Degrees 
ea•30•5sw M'30'54'W 00'30'50"W B8'30'47'W 68'30'43'W 66'3(l'40W 68'J0'36'W 88'30\12'W 86'30'29'W BB'30'26'W 811'30'22 

;z j;; a, 

v + + ·+- + + + + + -+ +- +r 

g g 

[ffl Wetlands - 3.5 ac 

z CJ Uplands - 3.0 ac £; .., + -+ + + + + + +i;; "' !" 

g 0 

., 

z z i,, I-< 

r + + + + + + + + + + +" V 0 0 ., ., 

;z :z 

!" + + + + + + + + + lo -r1 

g lil 

z z 

+ + -+- + + + + + + +~ tl 

0 0 ., <'l 

z ;z 

g + + + + + + + + + +~ 0 

r) ., 

" + + + + + + + + + +~ 

!-: I" 

0 

"' "' 

z ?; It· 

Y> + + + + + + +l'l -r, !" 0 0 ., ., 

;z z 0 b ,,, + + + + + + + + +!fl ; 

g g 

t'.: ;z 

,.. +- + + + + + + +- + -.., +~ 

!" 

0 

., 

j;; :,: 

;., ,.. + +- + + + + + + + + +~ 

g g 

z N 

-~, ;z 

b 

w~f-• b .., -., n_ru Wildlife Solutions, Inc . fl "' 

g 0 140 280 560 840 1,120 0 

Phone: 251-591-2682 

.., 

Feet s 

1 inch = 450 feet -88.512122 30.414181 Decimal Degrees 

- 88'3 '1'W 88';}58,'I 8B'J;;4W M'JcJ5o·w SS'J*TW M'3t3'W BB';tOW 68'3;136'W 68';;132"W 88'J;e·w 68'3"J;b'W ea·j;2 
68'31'1'W 68'30'56'W 68'30'5ffW 06'30'47'W 

+ + Polygon a) 2.47 ac 

+ + + + + 

+ + + + 

" z "' "' f + + + + + ;!; 

0 

2 z 

+ + + + ;!; 

0 !l 

N 

-~- W~~E 

Wildlife Solutions, Inc. 

0 65 130 260 390 520 Phone: 251-591-2682 

Feet s 

I inch~ 201 feet -88.512122 30.414181 Decimal Degrees 

+ + + + + 00'31'1'W 68'30'68'W 68'30'li4'W 08'30'60'W 88'30'47"W 
88'30'47'VI 

v"' o'\t o>c.-v ...,_ 

"<; X <,; xS'V " 8: ;,,-,. 

(.,,?<..;,(':v'V~ VV -G~ 

"'<~xx; "°" 

- + 

I I 

0 20 40 80 120 

Feet 

1 inch = 74 feet 

sa•30•41w 

I 

160 

. B8'30'43'W 

+ Polygon b) 0.64 ac 

Wildlife Solutions, Inc. 

Phone: 251-591-2682 

-88.512122 30/114181 Decimal Degrees 

88'30'43'W 

I 

... 

. 
88'S0'36"W 80'30'32-W 

Polygon c) 0.36 ac 

+ 

z z !; + + t; 

" « 

g b 

tt 

nsu Wildlife Solutions, Inc. 

0 15 30 60 90 120 Phone; 25)-591-2682 

Feet 

I inch 62 feet -88.512122 30.414181 Decimal Degrees 

613'30'36-W 8a"30'32'W 
] 

! 

:: 

! 

: 

3 

: 

... 

i ; 

s 

,s 

l .'l 

I 

j 

-r 

:: 

! 

: 

A 

= 

! 

'ii 

.. 

-= 

} 

t Cut/Fill R~port 

~IW,t~ - ·--

~,,,,,,. ... ,... 

- °" .. .. _ c,, ,. "" -,_ ~"' '°'""" '°'""' ,O,.Y<> 

... , ... , .. ...... 

- "'"' =-

.. .... LIO _,. r...,. mJO ,..__ 

.. , ... ,,. =- ...,. W--" ,.._ 

.. UI I.II ""'-"' 11.,. .,.,, .,_,.._ 
Appendix C - HGM Worksheets 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

218-051 

Miligalion Plan 

Page 18
Impacted Tidal Marsh a) 0.08l ha, b) 0,203 ha, c) 0.081 ha 

Mean FCI: a) 0.90 b) 0.84 c) 0.88 -Total FCU's: 0,32 

Where: 

Function 1: Wave Attenuation Energy 

FCI's = a) 0,77 b) 0,54 c) 0.46 

Function 2: Biochemical Cycling 

FCI's = a) 0,93 b) 0,93 c) 0.93 

Function 3: Neklon Utilization 

FCI - • ' 

FCl's a) 0.90 b) 0.83 c) 1.0 

Function 4: Wildlife Habitat 

FCI = 

FCl's a) 0.89 b) 0,91 c) 1.0 

Function 5: Plant Structure & Composition 

FCI or or 

FCl's = a) 1,0 h) 1.0 c) 1.0 
Created Tidal Marsh 0.38 Ha - Lift equals 0.32 FCUs 

Mean FCI: 0.85 

Where: 

Function 1: Wave Attenuation Energy 

FCI 

Function 2: Biochemical Cycling 

FCI = 0.93 

Function 3: Nekton Utilization 

FCJ =0.82 

Function 4: Wildlife Habitat 

FCI =0.75 

Function 5: Plant Structure & Composition 

FCJ =[Minimum or or or }] 

FCI = 1.0 
Assessment.Team: , Project: N ort h Ra , Date: 2 / 5 / 1 

Size of the WetlandAssessment Area {WAA): I, 0 {ha) 

Sample vnriablcs 1-5 using aerial photos, digital ortho-pholo quadrongle 

imagery, etc., at a scnlc of(l:4800) {I inch c 400 feel) {color infrared or true 

color preferred), using GIS or olhcr means. 

I. Vs11.1: Wetland Pnteh Size (ha) /I, !; 

Calculate the nrea (in hectares) of the contiguous tidnl fringe wclland within 

which the W AA is localed. In some situations, the WAA may encompass the 

entire wetland palch and the WAA size and wclland patch size will be equal. 

2. VLANousi: Adjacent Jund use 

Determine the proportion of the WAA perimeter (expressed as a percentage, 

rounded lo the nearest 5 percent) that is bonndcd by each of the following 

land use types. 

glonof 

Land Use Category Description eter 

Undeveloped naturally a) Open water: Shoreline is at loasl 100 m ftom 

vegetated areas or navigation channel, if present 

oponwalor b) Terrestrial: > 75% of lotal area Is 11a1urally vege!ated 

forested ot grassy uplands or wollands. 

MosUy agrlcuUural More lhan 50% of lhe total aroa Is occupied by cropland. 

Mostly developed a) Open wale,: Harbors. ports. and marinas 

b) rer,estrial: More than 403⁄4 of the tolal area Is 

developed (I.e., resldenUal, commercial, or lnduslrlal 

areas; also Includes point sources such as golf courses, 

wastewater treatmenl plantoulfalls, reedlols, etc,) 

Mix:ed a) Open waler: areas where the shore!tno is within 

100 m or a navlgat!on channel. 

b) Terrnstrial: Does tiot lit any of the above <Allegories, 

may Include low-density rural resldantlal, unpaved roads, 

etc. 

., C, 3. Vwmrn Mc•n Marsh Width ~• 1 o (m) 

Establish !he appropriate number oftransccls according to the baseline length 

and record !he length of each transect (in mclcrs) in the boxes below, !hen 

calculalc the average. 

B2 Appendix B Field Data f:om1s 
Assessment Ieam1 

Project: \'I~ .-"\' 

Date: ::i I t ~- /? 1 

4. V ,xeos• Wave Energy Exposure 

Circle the exposure condition thnt most closely corresponds to the site 

condition described in the tnblc below. 

Note: Sites with no exposed shorelines nrc not assessed for this function. 

SIie Ooscrlptlon Exposure 

Geomorphlc Salting: Low-Energy lnlerlor Marsh Low 

These sltos haYo ono or mom shoroHnos localed along lhe edges of proleclod coves or 

ombaymenls {concaYe shorellM) OR along tho edge of e small tldal crook nol used by 

C<lmmorcial boa\ lraffic, 

Oeomorphlc Salting: Modorate,Enorgy Interior Marsh 'Moderet(!,. 

These sites have one or more shorolfnes localed along the edges of large lid al creaks or rivers that are used by rocreaUonal end/or commercial boat uaffic. 

GeomQrphlc Selling: Open Bay or Estuary High 

Theso s!tos have ono or mOro $horelines located direclly along the edges of an esl!Ja,y 

or bay (e.g., Mississippi Sound, Mobile Bay}. Shotellna Is generally Un ear, exposed to 

r4;1laUvely hlgh wind and wave energy, with long fetch distances, or adjacenl to 

navlgaUon channel Iha! Is frequenlly used by recreaUonal or commercial boa I traffic. 

Geomorphlc SoHlng: Zero-Energy lnter1or Marsh None 

The so sites have no shorelines exposed lo 'hind or wave energy prescnl , 

5. V ,,,a, Aquatic Edge 

Circle the qualitntivc or quantitative measure that most closely corresponds 

to the site condition described in the table below, Sec pictorial key in 

Appendix E (Figures EI-El I) for specific examples. Note: U11vegetated 

shorelines (i.e. sandy beaches) are 110/ Included as edge. 

aualltatlve Quantllal 

Sito Description Moasura Measure 

1) Well-developed lidal drainage nolwoIB present (Figures E-1 High :: 225 m.lha 

and E-2). 

OR 

2) Very narrow fringe marsh that lacks tidal e1ee1<s. one 

lenglhwise shoreline that represents at leas! 40% ol Iha total 

perimeter Is exposed lo Uclal waters (e.g., Daphna Bayfronl 

Patk). 

3) Other geomo1phic configuration with a large amounl or 

shoreline relalivo to total area (I.e., small island or narmw 

peninsula) (Figures E·3 and E-4). ....---=-

Simple lldal drainage network (may consist of one or more small 'Mode, 175,224 m/lla 

channels) lhat are well-dislribuled across the total WM area High 

(Figures E-5 and E-6). 

lldal a eeks may be lacking, or if pmsenl, drain only e small Moderate- 100•175m/lla 

proportion of the tolal WM area {Figures E-7, E-8, end E-9). Low 

Shoreline Is generally linear or smooth curvi!fnear wi!houl Low 1-100 m/ha 

embaymenls or convolutions. Tidal creeks typically absenl. The 

area of marsh Is large relative to shoreline length {Figure E-10). 

No vogelatod marsh•water intorfaco present ln WM Absent 0 M/ha 

(Figure E•11). 

Appendix O Field Data Forms B3 
Assessment ream: 

Project: \\l 11 ' •\ I,,. 

Date: td :, ,;, I 'J I , 

Sample variriblcs 6-8 based on a walking reconnaissance of lhc WAA. 

6. Vll\'D1w Hydrologic regime 

Place n check in the box that most closely fits site conditions. 

Sllo 0nscrlp\lon V,m>Ro 

Slle Is open lo free exclrnnge oftidal waters, Lower edges of vegetated marsh surface are 

flooded on a regular basis as evidenced by wtack lines, walerma!lis, etc. No obvious 

hydro!og!c alteraUon, lill, or restrictions present 

Minor hydrologlc allorallon or rastlicUon presenl (l.e., presence of !ow,olevalion berm, 

which Is frequently overtopped by high-tide events or has multiple breaches or large 

culverts; presence of some fill lhnl raises a small portion (<20 percent of mar.;h area} o! 

marsh surface above normal tidal flooding zone). 

Mo<le1ale hydrolog!c alleral!on p1esenl (l.e., presence of high,elevalion berm, wll!ch is 

infrequsnUy ovllrloppod by hfg!J.lldo evonls or has a slng!o opening, breach, or small 

culvarl; greater exlenl or fill (>2.0 parcenl) that raises portlons of marsh surface elevation 

above normal lldel flooding 2011!1), 

Severe hydrologlc al leraUon; site receives Iida I noodwalars only during exl!ema tide ovanls 

{i.e., surface elevaUon of marsh Is above normal Udal flooding ~ona; blocked culverl, etc.). 

Sile ls lsolaled lrom tidal exchange. 'fhe plinclpal source of Roodlng Is waler sources olhar 

lhan Uc!al action (Le .• preclpltallon or groundwater). 

Nale: If rh/s condition exists, use of 11110/her wellond 11ssessmen/ made/ should ba strongly 

ronsldered un/Bss /ha silll was e Iida/ well81td prior lo hydro/ogle madi!icalian. 

7, VNIID Nckton Habitat Diversity 

Chock the habltals prcse11t within Iha WAA 

Low marsh (daily 1idal flooding) 

H!gh marsh (irregular tidal flooding) 

Subtidal channels 

Intertidal channels (exposed al low1ida) 

Shallow(.: 1 m} sand or mud flats 

Ponds or depressions (lernporary or permanent) V' 

Check tho habitats presonl wUhln 30 m or WM perimeter 

Submerged aquatic vegetation 

Oyster reef 

'fotal number of neklon habllat types presant 

84 Appendix B Fteld Data Forn1s 
\>\)~ Assessmentfli am: .I 1 '1) · I 

Project: _ 1> • 1 "" t"-., .-.. , \ 

Date: J { >. ( !I I 

8. Vw11o Wildlife Habitat Diversify 

Check lhe habitats present within !he WAA or adjacent to the WAA 

perimeter. 

Chetk II 

Wlldllfe Habit.al Yype presont 

Large patches ol !all, r!JbUsl herb~ceous veg~\alion within lho WM lhal Is al least 

l11egular1y llooded 

(S. a/lemlflora, J. fOIJmelianus, Typha spp., Schoonop/acfus spp,) 

Does tall robus! herbaceous vegetalion occupy al leas\ 50 percent of the total WM 

area? LYES __ NO 

rr tall ro\lusl herbaceous Llation OCtUrs fn a narrow rringe, Is this fringe 

greater lhan 10 m wide? YES NO , 

Short herbaceous v~eletion within the WM that ts Infrequently Oooded (S. pBlens, 

DJslich/Js sp/ceta, Bom'chla lrutestens, Balis mantima) 

lnle/tidal croaks and muonats within lhe WM th al are exposed al low Ude 

Natura Hy vegetated upland buffer adjacent to WM Ylilll a minimum vMtll of 30 m 

(foresteo, shrub-scrub, or dense herbaceous) 

Appendix B Field Dala Forms 65 
Assessment :reami ..-\~"'..,-;),.. ....,..-------------- Project: \'-i ,, • ·, lr « l1 , 

Date: ) I :., t; I ~, t 

Plant Communlly Flold Data Sheol Pago 1 

Record Iha BB cover class mldpolnl () for each species. 

Braun-Blanquel Covar lndioos: 1 =-1-5% (2.5%); 2 = 6,25% (15.5%); 3 = 26-50% (37.5}; 4 = 51-75% (67.53⁄4}; 5 = >75% (87.5%) 

Herbaceous Welland Species Plot 1 Plot2 Plot3 Plo14 Plot 5 Plot6 Plot7 Plot 6 PlotO Plot 10 

I. Tall, RobustSpoclos' 

Sparlina D/f9mlllora 

Spartlns cynosurofdos 

Juncus roemarianus 

Schoenopleclus americsnus 

Schoenopfoclus robusfus 

Clad/um Jamafcensa 0 

7Ypha DtlgusUfolia 3 sZizenlopsls ml/lace a 

Phragmites austrafls 

'Height (cm) for each plot 

II. Low-Growing Species 

Batis mari//ma 

Crinum emoricanum 

Disllchfis spicat8 

Efeocharls spp 

Jpomooa sagittats 

Ponl6deria rorda(a 

Sagiflaria spp. 

Spartlnt1 patens 

Sslicomfa spp. 

Symphyofrichum tenuifolivm 

Tola.I Cover by l1/ot 1, '1 !, 

'Height (cm) for each pfol I t\6 bl• 

'Height Is only measured for Group I species, If ptasent. 

'Height Is measured ro, species i11 Group II only U none of the species In Group I ls prosent onslle, 

86 Appendix B Field Oala Forms 
I 

Assessment Team: l/> .:i 

Project: t,\ ~) , ·\~~,-.~\-~,-. ,-,~: -,-----------------

Date: .:, I '1 I_· I :, , 

Plant Community Flold Oala Shoot Paga 2 

Rn cord the BB cover dass mldpolnl () for each species. 

Braun-Blanquat Cover Indices: 1::: 1-53⁄4 (2.5%}: 2 = 6-25% {15.5%): 3 = 26-50% (37.5}; 4 = 51-75% (67.5%}; 5 !: >75%(87.5%) 

Woody Speclos Plot 1 Plot 2 Plol 3 Plot 4 Plot 5 Plot 6 Plot 7 Plot 8 Plot9 Plot10 

A<XJr rubrum ~. Ba"haris halimlfolia 

I/ox vomltoria 

/Jex docldua 

Morella cerifera 

Iva fwfescons 

Nyssaspp, ... 

T6x<>divm dis/ichum :Ci 

I,> ,;II 

Estimate P1oportlon of Entire Sito Occuplod by Woody Vagotallon I 

FACJFACU Spoclos 

Baccharis halimifolia 

lfex vomitoria 

Morerra cerifcra 

Pan/cum virgatvm 

Total FAC Cover by Plot OR 

Estimate Ptopor1ion of Entire Silo Occupied by FAC/FACU Species I .-, 

(Use whichever melhod results in lhe highest value for percent cover) 

Exotic or fnvaslve Species 

Allomonfhfilro phlfoxero1des 

Phragmites oustralls 

Cuscuta spp. 

lmperata cyfindn'ca 

Panfcum t'Jpens 

Triadic.a sebllera 

Typha lalifolia 

Total Exotic Cover by Plot OR 

Estimate Proportion of Entire Silo Occuplod by E_xollca ... 

{Use whichever method results In tha hlghesl vafue ,v, iii 6 

Appendix B Field Oala Fonns B7 
Assessment Team: 1

\.1,\ 

1

) ·::i , I 

Project: •1'\o ,', \f\ h '\ , Date: j. :1 ~·- ~) 

Size of the Watland Assessment Area (WAA): 0, 1).-b (hn) 

Snmplc vnrinblcs 1-S using ncrinl pholos, digilnl orlho-pholo quadrangle 

imngcry, clc., nl n sen le of ( I :4800) ( I inch= 400 feel) (color infrared or !rue 

color preferred), using GIS or olhcr mcnns. 

I. Vs,z& Welland Patch Size (ha) / h 

Cnlculnlc the arcn (in hectares) of the contiguous tidal fringe we!land within 

which !he WAA is locntcd. In some situaiions, the WAA may encompass the 

cnlirc wetland patch and the WAA size nnd wetland patch size will be equal. 

2. V1.11NousE Adjacent land use 

Detemiine the proportion of the WAA perimeter (expressed as a percentage, 

rounded to the nearest S percent) that is bounded by each of the following 

land use types. 

Proportion of 

WAA 

Land Use Category Descrlptlon Porlmetot 

Undeveloped naturally a)Opeo walor: Shornlfne Is etleasl 100 ru rrom 

vegetated areas or navigation channel. if present v" open waler b)Terrnstrial: > 75% of total area Is naturallyvegolated 

forested or grassy uplands or wetlands. 

Mostly agricultural More than 50% of the Iota! area Is occupied by Cf Opland. 

Mostly developed e) Open waler: Harbors, ports, and marinas 

b)Terrestrlal: More than 403⁄4 of the total area Is 

developed {i.e., cesldenual, commarclal, or fndusttial 

areas; also Includes point sources such as golf courses, 

was!ewaler treatment plan I outfalls, feed!ols, etc,) 

Mixed a) Open waler; areas whore the shoreline is within 

100 m of a navigation channel, 

b) Terrestrial; Does nol fit any of Ula ebovo calegorios, 

may Include low-density JUral resldenlial, unpaved roads, 

ate. 

3. Vwmrn Mean Mnrsh Width tfo 6 (m) 

Establish the appropriate number of transects according lo the baseline length 

and record the length of each transect (in meters) in the boxes below, then 

calculate the average. 

T4 T5 

T7 T9 T10 

B2 
4. Vi:x,•osi: Wnve Energy Exposure 

Circle lhc exposure condition Iha! mos! closely corresponds lo the sile 

condition described in lhc table below. 

Nole: Sites wilh no exposed shorelines ore nol assessed for this fimction. 

SIie Oes:crlpllon Exposure 

Goomorphlc Selling: Low-Enorgy lntorlor Marsh , Theso sites havo ono or moro shorelines located along lhe edges of proloclod coves or 

embaymonls (concave shoreline) OR along lho odge of a small Udal crool< nol used by 

e-0mmorcial boat traffic. 

Goomorphlc SetUng: Moderate,Enorgy lntorlor Marsh Moderate 

Those sites hiivo one or more shore!lnas located along tho edges of large tidal crooks 

or riven, I.hat are used by rocmaUonal and/or commercial boat lraffio. 

Geomorphlc Setting: Open bay or El!uary High 

Those sites have one or moro shorelines located directly along lha edges of an esluary 

or bay (e.g., Mississippi Sound, Moblle Bay), Shorotine ti, generally linear, exposed lo 

relatively high wind and v,avo onorgy, with long fetch distances, or adjacent to 

navigation channel Iha\ Is frequenUyused by rocroalional or oommorctal boa! lraffic. 

Goomorphlc Selllng: Zoro•Enargy lnlerlor Marsh None 

These sites have no shoretlnes exposed lo wind or wave energy presonl , 

5, V,na• Aquatic Edge 

Circle the qualitative or quantitative measure that most closely corresponds 

to the site condition described in the table below. Sec pictorial key in 

Appendix E (Figures El-El I) for spcciilc examples. Nore: U11vege/a/ed 

shoreli11es {i.e. sa11d)' beaches) are 110/ i11c/11ded as etlge. 

Qualltatlva Quanllt.atlvo 

Site Description Measure Measure 

1) WoH•doveloped tidal dralnage network present {Figures E·1 High ?: 225 m/ha 

end E·2), 

OR 

2) Very nauow fringe marsh that Jacks tidal creeks. One 

lengthwise shoreline lhal represents at leas! 40% of lhe total 

perimeter is exposed to Udal waters (e,g .• Oephne Bayfronl 

Park). 

3) Olher geomorphic ronflgurallon with a large amount or shote!ine relali'Je to total area (I.e., sma111sland or narrow 

peninsula) (Flgu,as E-3 and E-4). 

Simple tidal drainage netwo1k (may consist of one or more small Moderate• 175•224 m/ha 

channels) \hat are well-dlstribu!ed across the Iota! WM.area High 

(Ffgures E•5 and E•6). 

Ttdal creeks may be lacklng, orff present, dmin only e small ( Moirnfatoj 100-175m/ha 

p1oport!on of the lolal WAAeroa (Figures E-7, E-8, and E-9), Low 

Shoreline Is gonorally linear or smooth curvilinear without iow..,.,- 1•100 m/J1a 

embaymenls or convolutions. Tidal creeks typ!cally absenl. The 

a1ea of ma,sh Is large relative to shoreline length (Figure E-10). 

No vegetaled marsh-water Interface present In WM Absent Om/ha 

(Figura E-11). 

Appendix 8 field Data Forms B3 
Assessment Team: 

Project: \},] 

Date: ~-b t; I ? 1 ' I 

Smnplc variables 6-8 based on a walking rcconnaissiincc of the WAA. 

6. Vumno Hydrologlc regime 

Place u check in the box that most closely fits site conditions. 

sue Descrlptlon VHYt>AO 

Site Is open lo rroo oxchango of tidal watnrs. towor edgos of voge!aled mersll surfaoo oro 

nooood on a regular basis as evidenced by wrack lines, watermaixs, etc. No obvious 

hydrolO\)lc alteration, Ml, 01 roslrictions present 

Minor hydro!oglc altewUon or roslriction pres0t1t {i.o,, prosonce of low-olov;iUon berm, 

v,ti[ch Is frequenUy overtoppod by high-ticla ovonls or has multiple breaches or largo 

culverts: prosonC8 of &Omo fill !hat raises a small portion (<20 peroontof marsh area} of 

marsh surface above r10rmal tidal nooding w11e). 

Moderate hydrotogic a1teraUon presenl (i.e., presence of hlgh-eleval!on berm, v.nkh Is 

lnfraquenUy ovartopped by high-tide avants or has a sfng!e opening, breach, or small 

culvwt greater exlonl of ftll (>20 po1cMI) lhal raises portiOils of marsh surface elevallon 

Qbove normal l!da! flO<K!ing zone}. 

Savera hydrologlc alteratlon; site receives Ilda! floodwaters only during extrnme Udo events 

(l.o., surface elevation of nla rsh Is above normal tidal flooding zono; blocked culvorl, etc.}. 

Site Is lS-Ola!ed from Ilda! exchange. The principal sourw ol lloo<llng Is waler sources otha1 

lhan tidal action (i.e., preclpilation or groundwater}. 

Note: 11 lhfs condition axMs, use o/ nnolher 11•0J/and essossment mods! should bs slrongly 

e-0nslderad unless Iha sila was n Ilda/ walland prior to hydrolo[Jlc modificnrfon. 

7. Vmm Nekton HolJ!tat Diversity 

Chock the hablla!s present within tho WAA 

Low marsh (daily lid al flooding) ..f" 

High marsh {Irregular tld~l Roo<llng) 

SubUdal channels 

Intertidal channels (exposed al tow Ude) 

Shallow(< 1 rn) sand 01 mud flats •./ 

Ponds or doprosslons (1emporaiy or permanent) 

Check Iha habl!ats present wllhln 30 m or WAA parlmeter 

Submerged aquatic vegelallon 

Oyslerreer 

Tola! numbor of noklon hab1t01 types presont 5 

84 AppMdlx 8 Field Data Forms 
l,.~ Assessment Team:, 1 1 Project: \'Io,"< I.,,. 

Date: I'. I ;; t;· / I 

8, Vwno Wildlife Habitat Diversity 

Check the habitats present within the WAA or adjacent to the WAA 

perimeter, 

Cheek II 

WIidiife Habitat Type ptesont 

larga patches of !all, robust ha1baceous vagelalion withln the WM lhat Is at least 

Irregularly nooded 

(S. ollomfllom, J. roemorianus, Typhs spp,, Schormopfuclus spp,) 

Ooes tal~busl herbaceous vegelation ocwpy et least 50 percent of the total WM 

arep? __ YES __ NO 

U tall robust herbaceous vegetation oe<:urs In a oarcow fringe, Is this fringe 

grealerthan 10 mwlde? YES NO 

Short herbaceous vegetalion wllhln the WM that Is Infrequently Hooded (S. palens, 

Dlstichlfs spi~tu, Borrichlr1 f,u/escens, Balis maritlma) 

ln!ertfda\ creeks and mudRals within tho WM that are exposed al low tide 

Nalurally vegetated uplanel buffer adjacent lo WM with a minimum width of 30 m v' (forostod, shrub-scrub, or dense herbaceous) 

Appondlx B flald Dele Forms B5 
Assessment Tpam: \,\J e; Project: ~,\ P •·-1;~,~i,__-~·~1;~~,-,-r,,-r\ ___________ _ 

Date: ·, 1·~ 1; h I 

' ' 

Plant Communlly Flold Data Sheet Pago 1 

Record the BB cover ctass midpoint() for each species. 

Braun•Blanquel Cover lndrces: 1 = 1-5% (2.5%); 2 = 6-25% (16.5%); 3 = 26-50% (37.5): 4 = 51-75% (67.5%); 5;:; >75% (87.5%) 

s Wella11d Species Plot 1 Plot2 Plol3 Plot4 Plot5 Plot6 Plot7 Plo18 Plol9 Plot 10 

I, Tall, Robust Specles1 

Sparlina allominoro 

Spartina cynosuroidas 

Juncus roamarisnus 

Schoonopleclus Bmaricenus 

Schoonoplectus robustus 

Cladium /ameicense \ 

Typha ongusllfolia \ 

Zizanlopslsmlliacea 

Phmgmitos auslrafls 

1

Height (cm) foroach plot 

II. Low-GtowJng Species 

Batis maritlma 

Crinum amen'canum 

Dislichfis spic.ala 

Eleocharis spp 

lpomoea ssgfttata 

Pontoderia cordats 

Sagittaria spp. 

Sparlfna patens 

Saficomla spp. 

Symphyofrichum tanuilo/ium 

Total Cover by Plot li5' 2

Hefghl (cm} ror oach plot IP• 1

Helghl Is only measured ror Group I species, if present. 1

Helght Is measured for species In Group II only ff none of Iha species in Group I ls present onsite. 

86 Appendix B Field Data Fonns 
Assessment Teal'(l: -~\.~0_._),..,... ____________ _ Project: 1'-1,, • •\ ~, " , 

Date: l !•,) ', I~)\ 

' 

Plarit Community Field Dala Sheet Pago 2 

Record the BB oovor class midpoint O for each spades. 

Braun-Blanquet Cover Indices: 1 = 1-5% (2.5%); 2 = 6,25% {15.5%): 3 = 26-503⁄4 (37.5); 4 = 51-75% (67.5%); 5 = >753⁄4 (67.5%} 

Woody Spoclos Plot 1 Plot2 Plo13 Plol4 Plol 5 Plot6 Plol 7 Plol8 Plot9 Plot10 

Acerwbrvm 

Bacchoris hatimlfolio 

llex vomi/on'a 

I/ex decldua 

Moroffa cerifero 

fva lrutes-cens 

Nyssa spp. 

Texodium dislichum .. , 

.. ·- ,: '·,/:·· .•.. ,,;. Eellmale Proportion of Entire Sito Oceupied by Woody Vegeta\lon I t) 

FAC/FACU Spaclos 

Beccheris halfmifolia 

/lex vomltoria 

Morelle cen'fero 

Pen/cum virgelvm 

Total FAC Cover by Plot OR 

Estimate P(oportion of Enltre Site Occupied by FACIFACU Species I 6 (Use whichever method results In the hlghesl value for percent cover) 

Exotic or Invasive Species ,, ·• .... ·,;., ... ·. 

Altemanlh&ra phifoxeroides 

PhragmUes australls 

Cuswta spp. 

lmperata cyllndrica 

Pen/cum re pens 

Triadica sebilero 

Typha /ali(o/la 

Total Exotic Cover by Plot OR 

l:stlmate Proportion of Jrnllro SIio Occupied by Eicollcs •• ' I 0 (Use whichever method results lri lha highest value for percent cover) ·- ·--: ••'•I 

Appendix B Field Data Forms B7 
v>S Assessmen\ Team: · 

Project: N, •- -1-, 'i?_ ~' 

Date: •~· •) ,, 1·) I 

Sito of the olland Assossmonl Area (WAA): {) • I f (ha) 

Snmplc vnrinblcs 1-5 using nerinl photos, digil!II ortho-photo quadrnngle 

imngc,y, etc., nt n sen le of (I :4800)( I inch= 400 feet) (color infrared or true 

color preferred), using GIS or other means. 

I. Ysin: Wetland Patch Size (hn) _~~---

Cn\culnlc the urea (in hectares) of the contiguous tidal fringe wetland within 

which the WAA is located. In some situations, the WAA may encompass the 

entire wetland patch and the WAA size and wetland patch size will be equal. 

2. Yu,NDUst Adjacent lnnd use 

Determine the proportion of the \VAA perimctcr(cxpresscd as n percentage, 

rounded to the ncnrcst 5 percent) that is bounded by each of the following 

land use types. 

l'roportlon or 

WM 

Land Uee Category Oescrlplfon Perlmoter 

Undeveloped naturally a) Open water: Shorel1ne fs al least 100 m from ./ vegetated areas or navigation channel, I( present. 

open water b) Teueslriel: > 75% of total area Is naturally vegelated 

forested or grassy uplands or wetlands. 

MosUy agricultural More than 50% of lhe total area Is occupied by cropland. 

MosUy developed a) Open waler: Harbors, ports, and marinas 

b) lerreshial: More than 40% of \he to\al area ls 

developed (I.e., residential, C(Jffiffierc!al, or Industrial 

arees; e!so includes point sources such as golf C(JUrses, 

waslewaler t,ealmenl planl outfalls, feedlots, etc,) 

MIKOd a) Open waler: areas where the shoreline Is within 

100 m of a na\'lgalion channel. 

b) Teneslrial: Does not fit any of Iha above categories, 

may include low•densi!Y niral rasldenltal, unpaved roads, 

elc. 

3. Ywmru Mean Mnrsh Width f (m) 

Establish the appropriate number of transects according to the baseline length 

and record the length of each transect (in meters) in the boxes below, then 

calculate the averngc. 

82 Appendix B Field Oala Forms 

----------------------- ---·---· 
Assessment Team: \'>J\ ) 

Project: (\J v '' · \,,_ 

Date: ', ', r. I ,, 

4. V E~ros,: Wave Energy Exposure 

Circle the exposure condition that most closely corresponds to the site 

condition described in the table below. 

Note: Sites with no exposed shorelines nre not assessed for this function. 

SIie DescrlpUon EICposure 

Geomorphlc setting: Low-Energy Interior Marsh 1 

These sites havo one or more shorellnes loC<1lad along lhe edges of ptoler;!ed coves or 

embaymenle, (concave sllOraline) OR along Iha edge of a small tidal creek not used by 

commercial boa! traffic, 

Gaomorphlc Setting: Moderate-Energy Interior Marsh Moderate 

These silos have one ot moro shorelines localed along the edges of large Ilda! C(eeks 

or rivers that are used by <ecreational andfor commercial boa! traffic. 

Geomorphlc Setting: Open Bay orEsluary High 

Ttiese Siles have one or more shoielines localed direc\ly along the adges of an esluary 

or bay (e.g,, Mississippi Sound, Mobile Bay}. Shoreline Is generally linear, o:.:posod lo 

relatively high wind end wave energy, wilh long fetch distances, or adjacent lo 

nav!gaUon channel th al Is ftequently used by recreaUonal or commercial boat lraffic. 

Geomorphlc Setting: Zero-Energy Interior Marsh None 

These sites have no shorelines exposed to wind or wave energy presenl. 

5. V Enae Aquatic Edge 

Circle the qualitative or quantitative measure that most closely corresponds 

to the site condition described in the table below. Sec pictorial key in 

Appendix E (Figures El-El I) for specific exomples. Note: Unvegetated 

shorelines (i.e. sandy beaches) are not included as edge. 

Qu;tllt.atlve Quentuatlve 

Site Description Measure Measure 

1) Well-developed Udal drainage network present (Figures E-1 High ?, 225 m/ha 

ond E,2). 

OR 

2) Very narrow fringe marsh Iha! lacks Iida! cteeks, One 

lengthwise shoreHne Iha! represents at least 40% of lhe total 

perimeter Is exposed lo Iida! waters (e,g,, Daphne Bayfront 

Park), 

3) OU1er geomorphlc conflgurallon with a large amounl of 

shorelille re\aliva to total area (I.e., small island or narrow 

penlnsula) (Figures E-3 and E-4}. 

Simple tidal drainage network (may conslslof one or more small ,M0dorat5 175·224 mllla 

channels) that ate well-dlsttibuted acmss Iha total WM area 1 High 

{Figures E--5 and E-6). '-·,.----·· 

lid al creaks may be lacking, or if prosenl, drain only a small Moderale• 100-175 m/lla 

proportion of Iha total WM.area (Figures E-7, E-8, and E-9). Low 

Shoreline Is generally linear or smooth curvilinear wilhoul low 1-100 mllla 

embaymenls orconvolullons. lidal creeks typlcally absent. The 

area of marsh Is largo rolalive lo shoreline length (Figura E-10). 

No vegetaled marsh-water lnt&rface present In WM Absenl Om/lla 

(Figura E-11), 

Appendix B Fleld Dale Forms B3 
I 

Assessment Team: 10).) , 

Project: 1\) c,, ~-, v> ., , \ 

Date: • . ,, ,;. I 

Smnplo variables 6-8 based on a walking reconnaissance of tho WAA. 

6. Ym·nao Hydrologic regime 

Place a chock in lho box lhat most closely fits site conditions. 

Site Dascrlpllon Vlm)RO 

Sile Is open to free oxchango of tidal waters, Lower edges of vegela\ed marsh surfaoo aro 

noodad on a regular basis as evidenced by wrack lines, watermarks, etc. No obvious 

hydrologlc allemtlon, ~!I, or reslriGlions present. 

Minor hydrologlc elteraUon or ceslriction present (I.e., p1esence of fow-elovaUon berm, 

v.tiich Is frequanUy over1opped by hlgh•Ude evenls or has multiple breaches or large 

culverts: presence of some fill thal raises e small po11lon {<20 percenl of marsh area) of 

marsh surface above normal Udal flooding zone). 

Moderale hydrologlc alteration present (I.e., ptesence of hlgh-elevalron berm, which is 

lnrrequenUy overtopped by hlgh-tldo evenls or has a single opening, breach, or small 

culver1; greater extent of fill (>20 parcon\) Iha! raises portions ol ma1sh surf ace olevallon 

above normal tidal flooding zone). 

Severa hydrologlc a!!eraUon: site receives tidal noodwa!ers only during extreme Iida evenls 

(i.e., surface elevalion of marsh ls above 11ormal tidal flooding 2ooe: blocked culver1, olc.}. 

Silo Is isolated from tidal exchange, The principal soure& of rloOdlng Is water sources olher 

than l!dal aclion {i.e., prectpltaUon or groundwaler}. 

Note: II thfs condition exls/s, uso of onolher wolland assessment modal should be strongly 

considarad unless Iha si(a was a tidal wetland prior lo hydrologfc modifiCotion. 

7. VNIID Nekton Habitat Dlvcrslly 

Chock Iha habllals present within Iha WAA 

low marsh (daily Iida! flooding) 

High marsh (Irregular Iida I Oooding) 

Subtidal channels 1,.,"" 

Intertidal channels (exposed al low Ude} ,, 

Shallow{< 1 m) sand or mud Oats .,,. 

Ponds or depressions (temporary or permanent) 

Check tho habllals prosent wUhln 30 m of WAA perimeter 

Submerged aqua lie vegelation 

Oyster reef 

Total number of nekton habitat types present ,,, 

~> 

84 Appendix B Fleld Data Forms 
Assessmen!Team: 1 '\, , \ 

Project: I\\ P r \ "' l.z", 

Dale: ;, \ ? ~, I :, \ 

8. Vwuo WIidiife Hobllot Diversity 

Check \he hubi\B\s present wi1hin \he WAA or adjacen\ \o \he WAA 

perirne\er. 

Check If 

Wildlife Habitat Type prosent 

largo pale.hes of !all, robust he,baceous vegetation within Iha WM that Is at least 

lrregular1y flooded 

(S. alfemiflora, J. roemen·anus, Typha spp., Schosnoplsclus spp,) 

Does ~bust herbaceous vegetation occupy al leas! 50 pore.en\ of the totaJ WM 

area? , YES __ NO 

If tall robust herbaceous vegetaUon ocwrs tn a narrow fringe, fs this fringo 

greater than 10 mwide? YES NO 

Short herbaceous vegetation within lhe WM that Is infrequently flooded (S. pa tens, 

Dlstlchlis sp/cala, Bom'chls frotescens, Batis marilima) 

lntortldal creeks and mudnats within lhe WM that are exposed at low tide ~-· 

Naturally vegetated upland buffer adjacent to WM with a minimum 'Mdlh of 30 m v· {forested, shrub-scrub, or dense herbaceous) 

Appandlx B Flold Data FolTJlB B5 
Assessment Team: 

Project: l'J ,, ,-\ 1,~l<..,-L\-,-.---------------

wS 

Date: , I iJ 1

; I) 1 

' 

Plant Community Field Data Sheet Paga 1 

Record Iha BB cover class midpoinl () for each species. 

Braun-B!anquel Cover Indices: 1 = 1•53⁄4 (2.5%): 2 = 6-25% (15.5%}; 3 = 26-50% {37.5}; 4 = 51-75% (67,5%); 5 = >75% (87.5%} 

Herbaceous Wetland Species Plol 1. Plol2 Plol3 Plot4 Plot 5 Plot6 Plo17 Plot 8 Plot9' p 

I. tall, Robust Speclos1 

Spartina sftemfllora 

Spartina cynosuroldes 

June/JS roomerianus l 

Schoenopleclus omeriCJJnus 

Schoenoplaclus robus/us 

Cladium /emalcense 1: 

Typha anguslifolia I 

Zizeniopsis mlliacea 

Phrogmltes sustralls 

'Height (cm) for oach p!ol 

II, Low..Orowlng Species 

Batis meri/ima 

Crinum americanum 

Dislichlls spfcata 

Eleocharis spp 

/pcmoep sagit(l'tta 

Pontodon'a cordata 

Ssgilfaria spp. 

Sparlin a pa tens 

Sal/com/a spp. 

Symphyofn'chum lonuifolium 

Total Covar by Plot ",,. 1

Hefghl (cm) for each plot /10 

'Height Is only measured for Group I species, If prasenl. 1

Helght is measured for species In Group II only If none of the species In Group I is prosenl ons!te. 

B6 Appendix B Field Dala Forms 
Assessment\Tea111: --rc\,.,,'-\_c_>,...,. _____________ _ Project: P ,'1.,'\ ·p.., ,· I 

Date: :J I t~ ( i;, I 

Plant Community Flold Data Shoot Pffge 2 

Rocord tho BB cover cla5S m!dpoinl() for each species. 

Braun-Blanquet Cover Indices: 1 = 1-5% (2.5%): 2 = 6-253⁄4 (15.5%); 3 .. 26-50% (37,5); 4 = 51•76% (67.5%); 5 = >75% (87.5%) 

Woody Spoclos Plot 1 Pio! 2 Plot 3 Plot 4 Plot 5 Plot 6 Plot 1 Plot B Plot 9 Plol 10 

--

Baccharis halimitolia . ··-::·._:::;_, 

I/ox vomlloria 

1/oxdociduo 

Morelfo cerifara 

Iva fflltescens 

Nyssa spp. 

Taxodlum dlsflchum 

Estimate Proportion ot Entire Sito Occupied by Woody Vegetation 

FACIFACU Species 

Bactharis hslimilolia 

lfex vomiton'a 

Morella cerifara 

Pan/cum vfrgarum 

Total FAC Cover by Plot OR 

Estlmale Ptoportlon of Entire SIie Occupied by FAC/FACU Spoclas 

{Use w11ich!lver method results in lhe highest vaiue for percent cover) 

Exottc or lnvas\vo Spec\&s 

Altemanthera phlloxeroi(fas 

Phmgmitos austrefis 

Cuscuta spp. 

Jmpersla cylindrice 

Pen/cum repens 

Triad/ca sobifora 

rypha latifolia 

Total Exollc Cover by Plot OR 

I 

I ) 

Appendix B Field Data Forms B7 
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF MARINE RESOURCES

COASTAL ZONE CONSISTENCY 

CORRESPONDENCE 
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

Tate Reeves 

Governor 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF MARINE RESOURCES 

Joe Spraggins, Executive Director 

NOTICE OF ADVISORY COMMISSION ON MARINE RESOURCES

ORDER 

TO CONDUCT REGULATED ACTIVITIES 

Certification Number: DMR20-000346; USACE File: SAM-2021-00025-RCV 

Date: September 16, 2021 

Issued to: Jackson County Port Authority 

Attn: Michael Smith 

P.O. Box 70 

Pascagoula, MS 39568-0070 

Project Description: Coastal Wetland Fill 

Project Location: Wetlands adjacent to the Escatawpa River 

Immediately East of the Highway 63 bridge 

Moss Point, Jackson County, Mississippi 

DMR Project Manager: Greg Christodoulou 

228-523-4109 

greg.christodoulou@dmr.ms.gov 

NOTICE: Read this document carefully. Failure to follow the listed 

conditions can result in substantial fines and penalties. 

This document serves as certification that the subject activity has been reviewed by the 

Mississippi Department of Marine Resources (MDMR). The application was presented to the 

Mississippi Advisory Commission on Marine Resources (MCMR) and recommended for 

approval on July 20, 2021 and approved by the MDMR Executive Director. 

This document will substitute for and supersede DMR-190178, issued on May 18, 2020. 

In accordance with the provisions of the Mississippi Coastal Wetlands Protection Act and the 
findings made in compliance with the Mississippi Coastal Program (MCP), a Permit to conduct 

Regulated Activities is issued to you this day by the Executive Director. The activities herein 

authorized shall be conducted in a manner resulting in the least damaging impacts to wetlands and 

the coastal environment. This certification does not relieve you of other federal, state, or 

local authorizations that may be required. 

The following activities and impacts are authorized by this certification as indicated on the 

attached approved diagram: 

1. Permanent fill of approximately 0 .90 acre of Coastal Wetlands and tidally-influenced 

wetlands occupied by emergent tidal marsh vegetation (primarily Juncus roemerianus and 

Cladium jamaicense) for the construction of railroad line 

2. Variances to Miss. Admin. Code Title 22, Part 23 (The MS Coastal Program): Chapter 8, 

Section 114.01; Chapter 8, Section 114.03; Chapter 8, Section 105.01; and Chapter 8 

Section 105.03 of the MCP 

The applicant must abide by specific conditions as listed below. 

Any deviations beyond the above-authorized dimensions, the project footprint as shown on 

the attached approved diagram, or the specific conditions as set forth below will be 

considered a violation and may result in the revocation of the permit. Violations of these 

conditions may be subject to fines, project modifications, and/or site restoration. Both the 

permittee and the contractor may be held liable for such violations or for conducting 

unauthorized work. A modification to the project dimensions or footprint or to these 

conditions may be requested by submitting a written request along with a revised project 

diagram to the MDMR. Proposed modifications to proiect dimensions, footprint, or conditions 

must be approved in writing prior to commencement of work. 

The specific conditions of this certification are as follows: 

1. Permanent fill of emergent, tidal and tidally-influenced wetlands authorized above must: 

a. Be mitigated by the creation of 1.0 acres of emergent tidal wetlands and tidallyinfluenced wetlands as described in the attached Mitigation Plan 

2. All authorized activities must: 

a. Use Best Management Practices (BMPs) at all times during construction, including, but 

not limited to, the use of staked hay bales; staked filter cloth; sodding, seeding, and 

mulching; staged construction; and the installation of turbidity screens around the 

immediate project site 

b. Be conducted in a manner that minimizes the discharge of turbid waters into Waters of 

the State 

c. Not result in construction debris, sewage, oil, refuse, other pollutants, or unauthorized 

fill material entering Coastal Wetlands or Waters of the State 

d. Not impact wetlands, submerged aquatic vegetation, or shellfish beds unless 

specifically authorized above 
Work authorized by this certification must be completed on or before: 

September 16, 2026. 

This certification is contingent on clearance from the Mississippi Department of 

Environmental Quality (MDEQ) and the Mississippi Department of Archives and History 

(MDAH). The Permittee shall maintain all standards, regulations, and restrictions as set 

forth by the MDEQ and the MDAH under MS state law with regards to protection of 

water quality and cultural resources and conservation of water resources. 

Issuance of this ce1tification by MDMR does not release the applicant from other legal 

requirements including but not limited to other applicable federal, state, or local laws, 

ordinances, zoning codes, or other regulations, including a possible Tidelands Lease from the 

MS Secretary of State's Office, required City or County construction setbacks, or building 

permits from the City or County where the project is located. A list of contacts has been 

provided for your assistance in determining whether any further certifications are required. 

This ce1tification conveys no title to land and water, does not constitute authority for 

reclamation of coastal wetlands and does not authorize invasion of private property or rights in 

prope1ty. 

It is the responsibility of the applicant or property owner and their contractors and authorized 

agents to construct all authorized structures in a manner that does not impede access to 

riparian/littoral zones of adjacent property owners or other property owners in the vicinity (see 

MS Code Annotated§ 49-15-9, enclosed). Failure to adhere to this could result in legal action 

by the affected parties. The MDMR does not make prope1ty or riparian/littoral boundary 

dete1minations. 

The MDMR has also coordinated a review of your project through the Coastal Program review 

procedures and determined that the project referenced above is consistent with the Mississippi 

Coastal Program, provided that you comply with the noted conditions and reviewing Coastal 

Program Agencies do not disagree with said plans. By copy of this ce1tification, we are 

notifying the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers of this determination. 

Please notify this Department upon completion of the permitted project so that compliance 

checks may be conducted by MDMR staff. 

THIS CERTIFICATION IS EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. 

Joe Spraggins 

Executive Director 

MS Department of Marine Resources 

JS/gsc 
Attachments: Approved Diagram 

Mitigation Plan 

MS Code Annotated§ 49-27-61 

MS Code Annotated § 49-15-9 

cc: Mr. Rudolph Villarreal, USACE 

Ms. Florance Bass, OPC 

Mr. Raymond Carter, SOS 

Ms. Lisa Morrison, Compton Engineering 
-

. 

--

11 

0 

• 

I I I 

i ii Ii 

Ii 

• 

a 

I t 

I 

p 
Mitigation Area 

COMPTON ENGINEERING, INC. 

ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES

PASCAGOULA • BILOXI • BAY ST. LOUIS 

228-762-3970 228-432-2133 228-467-2770 

www.comptonenglneerlng.com 

218-051 

JACKSON COUNTY PORT AUTHORITY (JCPA), 

NORTH RAIL CONNECTOR, 

PROPOSED PERMITTED RESPONSIBLE, 

MITIGATION AREA, 

SHEET 2 

SCALE: NTS 

ORN. BY: JDL 
Document: Miss. Code Ann.§ 49-27-61 

Miss. Code Ann. § 49-27-61 

CopyCitationl 

Current through the 2021 Regular Session not including changes and corrections made by the Joint 

Legislative Committee on Compilation, Revision and Publication of Legislation. The final official version 

of the statutes affected by 2021 legislation will appear on Lexis Advance in the fall of 2021. 

Mississippi Code 1972 Annotated Title 49. Conservation and Ecology (Chs. 1 -

37) Chapter 27. Coastal Wetlands Protection Act(§§ 49-27-1 - 49-27-71) 

§ 49-27-61. Charges for materials removed under permit; alternative for 

dredge material disposal. 

(1) 

(a) The commission shall charge Fifty Cents (50¢) per cubic yard for any sand or gravel removed 

from wetlands and Twenty-five Cents (25¢) per cubic yard for any other materials removed from 

coastal wetlands by a permittee or his agent under the terms of any permit issued. 

(b) There shall be no charge levied by the commission for the removal of one hundred (100) cubic 

yards or less of any material removed from wetlands by a permittee or his agent under the terms of 

any permit issued. 

(c) The commission may waive these charges on any project of a governmental agency or any 

project wherein expenditures are made as the result of a governmental grant or governmental bond 

proceeds. 

( d) Any party participating in the beneficial use of dredge materials programs under subsection (2) 

shall be exempt from these charges. 

(2) The department shall require any party permitted to conduct dredging activities of over two 

thousand five hundred (2,500) cubic yards to participate in the department programs involving 

beneficial use of dredge materials, provided the material is suitable and a beneficial use site is 

available . If approved by the executive director, or his designee, a party may deposit acceptable 

dredge materials in a designated location for a fee not to exceed fifty percent (50%) of the fair 
LexisNexis Cookie Policy 

Terms & Conditions 

market cost to transport and dispose of the material in an approved upland site. The department shall 

consider in-kind services for offsetting depositional charges. 

History 

Laws, 1973, ch. 385, § 11; Laws, 1988, ch. 408, § 3; Laws, 1994, ch. 578, § 46; Laws, 2005, ch. 

371, § 2; Laws, 2010, ch. 412, § 1, eff from and after July 1, 2010. 

Mississippi Code 1972 Annotated 

Copyright © 2021 The State of Mississippi All rights reserved. 

Content Type: 

Terms: 

Narrow By: -NoneDate and Time: Sep 16, 2021 03:01:03 p.m. EDT 
Miss. Code Ann. § 49-15-9 

[ Copy Citation ] 

Current through the 2019 Regular Session. 

Mississippi Code 1972 Annotated Title 49. Conservation and Ecology (Chs. 1 - 37) Chapter 15. Seafood (Arts. 1 

- 7) Article 1. General Provisions. (§§ 49-15-1 - 49-15-100.3) 

§ 49-15-9. Rights of riparian owners on Gulf Coast defined. 

The sole right of planting, cultivating In racks or other structures, and gathering oysters and erecting bathhouses and other 

structures In front of any land bordering on the Gulf of Mexico or Mississippi Sound or waters tributary thereto belongs to the 

riparian owner and extends not more than seven hundred fifty (750) yards from the shore, measuring from the average low water 

mark, but where the distance from shore to shore is less than fifteen hundred (1500) yards, the owners of either shore may plant 

and gather to a line equidistant between the two (2) shores, but no person shall plant In any natural channel so as to Interfere with 

navigation, and such riparian rights shall not Include any reef or natural oyster bed and does not extend beyond any channel. A 

riparian owner shall comply with the Coastal Wetlands Protection Act In exercising the use of these riparian rights. Stakes of such 

frail materials as will not Injure any watercraft may be set up to designate the bounds of the plantation, but navigation shall not be 

impeded thereby. The riparian owner shall clearly mark such cultivation racks and other structures. The commission may adopt 

regulations to require that the racks are adequately marked to ensure the safety of users of public waters. Any oysters planted by 

such riparian owner are the private property of such riparian owner, subject to the right of the commission to adopt reasonable 

rules and regulations as to the planting and gathering of such oysters. All bathhouses, piers, wharfs, docks and pavilions, or other 

structures owned by riparian owner are likewise the private property of such owner, who shall be entitled to the exclusive use, 

occupancy and possession thereof, and may abate any private or public nuisance committed by any person or persons In the area 

of his riparian ownership and may, for such purposes, resort to any remedial action authorized by law. The governing authorities of 

any munlclpality and the board of supervisors of any county are authorized to adopt reasonable rules and regulations to protect 

riparian owners in the enjoyment of their riparian rights, and for such purposes may regulate the use of beaches, landings, and 

riparian areas abutting or fronting on roads, streets or highways. 

History 

Codes, 1942, § 6047-10; Laws, 1960, ch. 173, § 10; Laws, 1962, ch. 193, § 10; Laws, 1991, ch. 438 § 1, eff from and after 

passage (approved March 21, 1991). 

Mississippi Code 1972 Annotated 

Copyright © 2020 The State of Mississippi All rights reserved. 

Content Type: 
DMR21-000346 Exclusion 

Final Audit Report 2021-09-17 

Created: 2021-09-16 

By: Willa Brantley (willa.brantley@dmr.ms.gov) 

Status: Signed 

Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAglWO7tgZ0p1 wnFMKL 15BOcXxBkHW4x49 

"DMR21-000346_Exclusion" History 

Document created by Willa Brantley (willa.brantley@dmr.ms.gov) 

2021-09-16 - 9:43:25 PM GMT- IP address: 69.60.32.16 

g Document emailed to Joe Spraggins Uoe.spraggins@dmr.ms.gov) for signature 

2021-09-16 - 9:43:49 PM GMT 

Email viewed by Joe Spraggins Uoe.spraggins@dmr.ms.gov) 

2021-09-17-1 :32:36 PM GMT 

Document e-signed by Joe Spraggins Uoe.spraggins@dmr.ms.gov) 

Signature Date: 2021-09-17 1 :32:52 PM GMT - Time Source: server 

f) Agreement completed. 

2021-09-17 -1:32:52 PM GMT 

Adobe Sign 
Lisa D. Morrison 

From: Greg Christodoulou <Greg.Christodoulou@dmr.ms.gov> 

Sent: Tuesday, November 24, 2020 3:02 PM 

To: Lisa D. Morrison; CESAM-RD@sam.usace.army.mil; Villarreal, Rudolph C CIV USARMY 

CESAM (USA) 

Cc: Sandy Feathers; Joey Duggan 

Subject: RE: Permit Modification Request SAM-2018-01204-RCV, DMR190178 

Received and is being entered into the system. 

Greg Christodoulou 

Biological Program Coordinator-Wetlands Permitting / Office of Coastal Resources 

Mgmt. 

Mississippi Department of Marine Resources I dmr.ms.gov 

1141 Bayview Avenue I Biloxi, MS 39530 

Office: 228-523-4109 I Fax: 228-374-5008 

From: Lisa D. Morrison <lmorrison@comptonengineering.com> 

Sent: Wednesday, November 11, 2020 10:27 AM 

To: CESAM-RD@sam.usace.army.mil; Greg Christodoulou <Greg.Christodoulou@dmr.ms.gov>; Villarreal, Rudolph CCIV 

USARMY CESAM {USA) <Rudolph.C.Villarreal@usace.army.mil> 

Cc: Sandy Feathers <sfeathers@portofpascagoula.com>; Joey Duggan <joey@comptonengineering.com> 

Subject: Permit Modification Request SAM-2018-01204-RCV, DMR190178 

Attached please find a request to modify the above referenced permits for the Jackson County Port Authority - North 

Rail Connector in Moss Point, Mississippi. 

The attached letter and Environmental Assessment provide the purpose for the modification and details of the revised 

rail footprint and design. Please contact me with any questions or need for additional information. 

Thank you. 

Lisa D. Morrison, RPG

Senior Geologist 

COMPTON ENGINEERING, INC. 

156 Nixon Street, Biloxi, MS 

P: 228-432-2133 F: 228.432-8149 C:760-0643 

The contents of this email transmission are confidential and may be protected by professional privilege. The contents are intended only for the named recipients of 

this email. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, reproduction, disclosure or distribution of the information contained in this 

facsimile is prohibited 

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail" 

1 
COMPTON ENGINEERING, INC. 

ENGINEERING, SURVEYING & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 

November 10, 2020 

Mr. Rudolph Villareal 

Department of the Army 

Mobile District, Corps of Engineers 

P.O. Box 2288 

Mobile, AL 36628-0001 

Mr. Greg Christodoulou 

Mississippi Department of Marine Resources 

1141 Bayview A venue, Suite IO 1 

Biloxi, MS 39530 

Re: Modification-SAM-2018-01204-RCV, DMR190178 

Jackson County Port Authority - North Rail Connector Rail Line, Moss Point, MS 

Dear Mr. Villareal and Mr. Christodoulou: 

The Jackson County Port Authority {JCPA) received authorization from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, and the Mississippi Department of Marine Resources and Water Quality Certification 

from the Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality to construct a railroad connector 

between the existing MSE rail over the Escatawpa River and an exchange yard located in the 

Moss Point Industrial and Technology Center (MPITC). The permitted rail was to be constrncted 

on fill within a footprint that crosses over marsh and forested wetlands and forested uplands. The 

footprint crossed over 3,576 linear feet of emergent marsh vegetation and 1,115 feet of forested 

wetlands. The initial cost estimate for a railroad on fill versus an elevated rail line indicated that 

the fill constrnction method would be the most cost effective. A permit to construct the North 

Rail Connector was received by JCPA on October 14, 2020. 

Ongoing evaluation of geotechnical borings conducted within the proposed rail footprint through

the marsh indicate that it would require several layers of fill within a footprint that would be 

much wider than proposed and result in a much more expensive project. The original cost 

estimate for a rail line on fill as initially estimated was approximately $8 million. Based on the 

recent geotechnical evaluation, the construction cost is estimated at approximately $30 million. In 

an effort to reduce construction costs, the JCPA has evaluated other construction methods and rail 

line footprints. The evaluation has resulted in proposed use of an elevated rail crossing over a 

shorter section of marsh, crossing over a longer section of forested uplands and joining to existing 

rail at a different location. The cost estimate for this revised layout and constrnction method is 

approximately $15.5 million. 

The modified footprint crosses over approximately 2,852 feet of marsh wetlands and 807 feet of 

uplai1ds. By using elevated construction methods, the impact to the marsh wetland is greatly 

reduced with fill going in only at the abutments to the elevated sections and a short section of 

marsh (approximately 413 linear feet). The total impact for the revised footprint is approximately

39,261 square feet (0.90 acres) and will require approximately 2,649 net cubic yards of fill. 

·
COMPARISON OF PERMITTED AND PROPOSED MODIFICATION 

Square 

Linear Feet of Acres of 

Linear Feet of Impact Impact Cubic Yards 

Feet of Forested to to of Fill in 

Marsh Wetlands Uplands Wetlands Wetlands Wetlands 

Permitted 3,576 1, 11 S 107 113,440 4.89 20,589 

Proposed 

Modification 2,852 0 807 39,261 0.90 2,649 

The JCPA is submitting a request for a permit modification based on constrnctability and cost. 

Attached please find drawings that show the proposed modified layout and an Environmental 

Assessment for the new proposed footprint. 

Please review and let me know if you have any questions. 

Sincerely, 

COMPTON ENGINEERING, INC. 

Lisa D. Morrison,R.P.G. 

LDM/cf 

Attachments 

!CPA• IWI 
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

for 

NORTH RAIL CONNECTOR 

MODIFIED FOOTPRINT 

On behalf of 

Jackson County Port Authority 

P.O. Box 70 

Pascagoula, MS 39568-0070 

by 

COMPTON ENGINEERING, INC. 

Engineering, Surveying, and Environmental Services 

156 Nixon Street 

Biloxi, MS 39530 

(228) 432-2133 

NOVEMBER 2020 

JCPA • No11h Rail 111912020 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................... 1 

2.0 PROJECT PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................................ 1 

3.0 PROJECT AREA DESCRIPTION AND PROJECT IMPACTS ............................................ 2 

3.1 Impacts to the Human Environment 

3.1.1 Air Quality ............................................................................................................... 3 

3. 1.2 Noise ........................................................................................................................ 4 

3. 1.3 Traffic Congestion ................................................................................................... 4 

3.1.4 TrafficSafety ........................................................................................................... 4 

3 .1.5 Economic ................................................................................................................. 5 

3. 1.6 Livability ................................................................................................................. 6 

3. 1.7 Cultural Resources ................................................................................................... 6 

3.2 Impacts to the Natural Environment 

3.2.1 Essential Fish Habitat .............................................................................................. 7 

3.2.2 Shellfish ................................................................................................................... 7 

3.2.3 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation ............................................................................... 7 

3.2.4 Threatened and Endangered Species ....................................................................... 7 

3.2.5 Wetlands .................................................................................................................. 9 

3.2.6 Water Quality .......................................................................................................... 9 

3.2. 7 Floodplain ................................................................................................................ 9 

3.3 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 

4.0 PROJECT ALTERNATIVES ..................................................................................................... 11 

4.1 Other Alignments 

4.2 Construction Methods 

4.3 No Action 

5.0 MITIGATION .............................................................................................................................. 12 

Figure 1 

Figure2 

Figure 3 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

Environmenlal Assessment 

218-051 

Page i 

FIGURES 

Project Location 

Modified Alignment 

Cut/Ilill Report for Moclificcl Alignment
APPENDICES 

A Wetland Delineation for Modified Footprint 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

Environmental Assessment 

218-051 

Page ii 
Environmental Assessment 

Jackson Co1111ty Port Authority North Rail Connector

Moclifiecl Footprint 

Moss Point, Mississippi 

November 2020 

1,0 Project Description 

The Jackson County Port Authority has received a permit to construct a North Rail Connector in 

Moss Point, Mississippi. The permitted project includes construction of a rail line on fill, similar 

to the existing Mississippi Export Railroad structures that cross nearby marsh and to which the 

North Rail Connector will extend from, This permitted footprint requires filling 3,73 acres of 

coastal tidal wetlands, 1.16 acres of non-tidal wetlands with mitigation by creation of3.8 acres of 

emergent tidal wetlands and purchase of 3.48 mitigation credits. The cost estimate for 

constrnction of the rail was based on constructing the rail on fill similar to the MSE rail line. 

Ongoing geotechnical evaluation indicates that using fill would require at least two levels of fill 

with a much wider footprint that originally designed. Using this method, there is no guarantee 

that the line would not subside over time requiring expensive repairs. Therefore, the JCPA has 

modified the footprint in order to cross over a shorter section of marsh so that it is economically 

feasible to construct an elevated rail that will not require fill. The modified footprint extends 

further south than the original permitted footprint, uses straighter curves and ties into existing 

rail near Orange Grove Road. This layout requires JCP A to purchase privately owned parcels of 

land. The approximate center point of the proposed modified rail is at 30.415546 degrees latitude 

and -88.514452 degrees longitude. The new rail begins at approximately 30,251207/-88.310005 

on the no1ih and extends to 30.413308/-88.508269 where it joins existing rail. 

JCP A has evaluated the impacts associated with the revised footprint and determined that the 

revised footprint impacts 0.90 acres of marsh wetland and 0.27 acres (807 linear feet by 15 feet 

wide) of uplands. 

The subject property is located in Section 19, Township 7 South, and Range 5 West of Jackson 

County, MS. A map showing the permitted project footprint and the proposed modified project 

footprint is shown on Figure 1. 

2.0 Project Purpose ancl Need 

There are no changes to the project's purpose and need associated with this footprint 

modification. 

3.0 Project Area Description and Project Impacts 

The permitted project footprint is situated pmiially in an upland area and partially in estuarine 

and forested wetlands. The length of the permitted rail line through estuarine wetlands is 

approximately 3,576 lincar feet and through forested wetlands is approximately 1,115 linear feet. 

The modified footprint crosses over 2,852 feet of estuarine wetlands and 807 feet of uplands. No 

forested wetlands are within the modified footprint. Since the modified footprint will be 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

E11vironmental Assessment 

218-051 

Page I 
constructed using rail constructed on elevated pilings, the impacts are associated with fill at the 

abutments and one section of marsh (21,820 square feet) and the total acreage of impact is 0.90 

acres. A layout map for the modified footprint is shown on Figure 2. 

The estuarine vegetation in the modified footprint is similar to that in the permitted footprint and 

consists mainly of black needle rush (Juncus roemerianus) and sawgrass (Caladiumjamaicense). 

The upland forested areas in the modified footprint are dominated by pines, oaks and magnolia. 

The entire forested area is heavily infested with exotic invasive plant species including Chinese 

tallow (Triadica sebifera) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense). This footprint eliminates 

impacts to forested wetlands. 

The permitted footprint required approximately 20,589 cubic yards of fill material to be used 

during construction of the rail through the estuarine wetlands and forested wetlands. The 

modified footprint will require approximately 2,649 cubic yards of fill. 

The estuarine wetland area is already crossed by high power electrical transmission lines and an 

existing rail line operated by Mississippi Export Railroad. The area is downstream from the 

former International Paper Mill facility (now the MPITC) and west of the former Aeration 

Stabilization Basin which previously discharged to the Escatawpa River. 

3.1 Impacts to the Human Environment 

The impacts to the human environment associated with the modified footprint are similar to 

those of the permitted footprint. The infonnation below is reproduced from the Environmental 

Assessment for the permitted footprint. 

3.1.1 Air Quality 

The project will result in improvements to air quality in and arom1d Moss Point and Pascagoula. 

Various data sources indicate that freight transport by rail and water vessels generate 

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

rail and water transportation are significantly more efficient than truck transpmiation. As 

repmted in the Mississippi State Rail Plan produced by the Mississippi Department of 

Transportation, 2011, the fine particle matter (PM2.5) impact per million ton-miles of rail and 

water transport is approximately one-tenth of trucktransport (0.0158 and 0.0128 versus 0.1126, 

respectively). Similarly, the nitrogen oxide (NOX) emission tons per ton-mile traveled for rail 

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

2.8549, respectively). 

Combined, PM2.5 and NOX emissions generate environmental damages per million ton-miles of 

$41,480 for truck transport, which is several times greater than rail ($6,710) or water ($5,610) 

transpott damages. Fmther mamnade greenhouse gases include CO2 (the dominant emission), 

methane, nitrous oxide and fluorinated gases. Similar to the PM2.5 and NOX emissions, the 

impact of both rail and water freight transport for these gases is a fraction of truck transport. 

According to the Association of American Railroads (AAR) white paper, PUTTING 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

Environmental Assessment 

218-051 

Page2 
TECHNOLOGY TO WORK HOW FREIGHT RAIL DELIVERS THE 2IST CENTURJ'. May

2018, moving freight by rail instead of truck reduces greenhouse gas emissions by 75%. 

The AAR also stated that one gallon of diesel fuel moved a ton of freight by rail 4 79 miles - four 

times the efficiency of trucks. The U.S. Envirolltllental Protection Agency estimates that for 

eve1y ton-mile, a typical truck emits three times more nitrogen oxides and particulates than a 

train. Related studies suggest that trucks emit six to 12 times more pollutants per ton-mile than 

railroads, depending on the pollutant measured. 

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers found that 2.5 million fewer tons of carbon 

dioxide would be emitted into the air annually if IO percent of intercity freight now moving by 

highway were shifted to rail. If 10 percent of truck traffic went by rail - via intermodal 

movements involving both railroads and trucks - the cumulative estimated GHG reductions from 

2017 to 2030 would be 210 million tons. 

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

automobile idling burns approximately one-fifth of a gallon of gas and releases nearly 4 pounds 

of CO2 into the air. Excessive amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere can contribute to diminished 

air quality. Relocation of the main line to a less populated and congested location will reduce 

congestion and idling time and thereby reduce emissions of CO2 and NOX into the atmosphere. 

3,1.2 Noise 

The project will result in reduced train noise in Moss Point and Pascagoula. Noise from train 

horns and general train traffic can have a significant effect on the livability of a connnunity. 

Conmmnities can establish quiet zones but must implement rail crossing upgrades in order to 

reduce horn noise. Relocating the main line will eliminate much downtown train horn noise and 

the need for crossing upgrades. 

3.1.3 Traffic Congestion 

The project will result in a reduction in traffic congestion, idling time and backups at the rail 

crossings. Local rail traffic is expected to increase due to anticipated construction of new 

industry in northern Jackson and George Counties. Some of the trains, known as unit trains, may 

be up to a mile long including 65-75 freight cars each. These unit trains must travel at reduced 

speeds to maneuver through sharp turns and through cmmnunities. By relocating the main line to 

the proposed route, the number of railroad crossings will be reduced from 22 to seven, thereby 

reducing traffic congestion at rail road crossings significantly. Rail speeds can be maintained on 

the proposed new rail line, which will also help in reducing congestion and idling time. 

3.1.4 Trnffic Safety 

The project will result in improved traffic safety. The rail mode is one of the safest transportation 

modes. According to the MSRP each year more 30,000 deaths and 2 million injuries from 

highway collisions are reported by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In 2008 

more than 700 highway-related deaths were recorded in Mississippi. The economic cost of these 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

Environmental Assessment 

218-051 

Page 3 
collisions to the U.S. economy is more than $200 billion- more than 2 percent of the U.S. gross 

domestic product. Much of this cost is borne by the public at large either through public 

expenditures (law enforcement, medical, disability payments, etc.) or insurance premiums. 

Freight rail transportation is also very safe and, as reported by the Federal Railroad 

Administration, the multi-year trend is positive with all reportable accidents (derailments, 

fatalities, injuries, etc., on the national rail system) declining by almost 32% between 2007 and 

2017, 

The rail safety area most visible to the general public and for which the public is most exposed to 

potential harm is grade crossings. There are 4,209 highway-rail crossings in Mississippi, with 

2,282 located on public roadways, 1,911 crossings on private roads, and 16 pedestrian crossings. 

Reducing rail crossings will reduce the potential for accidents and injuries at these crossings, 

3.1.5 Economic 

The project will result in reduced operation and maintenance costs for the local communities. It 

will also provide communities with the ability to increase jobs by providing manufactures that 

may locate along the rail line the ability to efficiently transport goods for shipment. 

According to the MSRP freight rail plays a prominent role in the livability and sustainability of a 

community. The ability to efficiently transport goods and create access to economic centers is 

critical to the overall success of a region's economy, Time wasted due to transportation 

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

business to a region. 

The efficiency of rail freight is especially important in rural areas where agricultme, local 

industries and communities rely on freight shipping, Many communities have seen a loss or 

reduction in rail freight services in recent years. Improving, expanding and preserving the rail 

network can improve the competitive stature of local industries, agriculture and communities. A 

revitalized rail line can lower shipping costs, provide pricing power for local industries and 

agriculture vis-a-vis trucking, provide redundancy in the transportation network, and shield local 

industries and agriculture from predicted increases in the cost of fossil fuel. 

The freight transp01t unit costs per ton multiplied by the large shipment volumes result in huge 

cost savings compared to truck. For example, it takes 70 large truck semi-trailers to carry the 

same amount of dry cargo as 16 rail cars ( approximately 4.5 trucks per rail car), 

The P01t of Pascagoula conducted a cost/benefit evaluation for plam1ed improvements to the Port 

and MSE rail system that provides rail access to the Port. The following is a brief summary of 

the savings projected for each cost categ01y: 

1)•ack Maintenance - The new track would actually reduce the rail route distance from Lucedale 

to the Port of Pascagoula by four miles and result in annual maintenance savings of more than 

$46,000. 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

E11vironmental Assessment 

218-051 

Page 4 
Crossing Maintenance - Reducing the number of railroad-highway grade crossings on the route 

by 16 would lower crossing maintenance costs by nearly $6,000 per year. 

Highway Maintenance - Shifting product transp01t from trucks to trains would eliminate the 

potential damage that would otherwise be done to state highways by $37,000 in the first year and 

by more than $50,000 in the fifth and subsequent years. 

Transportation Operations - Shifting from trucks to trains would lower operating costs for 

shipping products from Lucedale to the Port of Pascagoula by almost $4.7 million in the first 

year and by more $7.0 million in the sixth and subsequent years. 

Emissions - 111e shift from trucks to trains would reduce the estimated value of mobile-source 

pollutants emitted by vehicles transporting goods from $73,000 to $86,000 per year. 

Carbon Output - The shipping mode shift would reduce the discounted (at three percent per 

annum) social cost of carbon output by vehicles transporting goods by $25,000 to $73,000 per 

year. 

Discounted Net Benefits would peak at $4.873 million in the sixth year and then fall off little by 

little to $1 .405 million in the last year of the 25-yera cycle. The aggregate value of savings over 

25 years would be $79.622 million. 

State of Good Repair. The US Department of Transportations' National Rail Plan states that, 

"the performance of the freight system can be greatly improved by enhancing the connections 

between individual modes of transportation in order to make the best use of the inherent 

efficiency of each mode." By more efficiently connecting rail to the Po1t of Pascagoula, 

connections between these modes are significantly strengthened and thus creating an efficient 

and reliable transp01tation network. 

3.1.6 Livability 

The project will result in improved livability in the area. The removal of trains from the most 

densely developed sections of the Pascagoula-Moss Point Urbanized Area will significantly 

enhance opportunities for upgrading public infrastructure in both residential and commercial 

areas to accommodate pedestrians, bicyclists and residents or visitors engaged in recreational 

pursuits. Relocation of train operations to the eastern periphery of both cities will make it 

possible to create cleaner, safer, quieter and more aesthetically pleasing central business districts 

and to improve the visual character and appeal of nearby residential neighborhoods in less 

affluent sections of Pascagoula and Moss Point 

3.1. 7 Cultural Resources 

The project is to be conducted within estuarine and forested wetlands and on uplands. 

Constrnction will include using fill material to build up the rail line base to an appropriate 

elevation for construction. Cultural resources are not likely to exist in the marsh and other 

wetland areas. The upland area was part of the former International Paper Company mill and was 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

Environmental Assessment 

218-051 

Page 5 
prior impacted with industrial development. As such, historical architectural, archeolegical or 

Native American resources are not expected to be encountered during the construction process. 

During development of the permit for the permitted rail layout, the JCPA requested input from 

the Mississippi Department of Archives and History (MDAH) in a letter dated November 8, 

2018. MDAH responded in a letter dated November 21, 2018 that they had no objections to the 

project but would like to review the location of the placement of fill material and the source of 

the fill material. A map showing the modified layout of the rail line will be provided to MDAH. 

Requests for comments on the project were provided to the Choctaw Indian Tribe of Oklahoma 

and the Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. As of this date, neither has responded. 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

Environmental Assessment 

218-051 

Page6 
3.2 Impacts to the Natural Environment 

The impacts to the natural environment associated with the modified footprint are similar to 

those of the permitted footprint. The information below is reproduced from the Environmental 

Assessment for the permitted footprint and modified where appropriate. 

3.2.1 Essential Fish Habitat 

The project is located within an area identified as essential fish habitat. The National Marine 

Fisheries Service provided input on the project and worked with JCPA to develop a mitigation 

plan for impacts to the estuarine habitat. The modified footprint and elevated rail reduces the 

impacts to the environment. JCPA will request input from NMFS regarding the modified 

footprint. 

3.2.2 Shellfish 

The area is not identified as a commercial oyster fishery and no known oyster beds are rep011ed 

in the area. 

3.2.3 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation 

The project area is dominated by estuarine and forested wetlands. Submerged aquatic vegetation 

requires shallow open water with low turbidity. Since the area is densely vegetated and no open 

water areas are found within the project footprint, SA V is not present. 

3,2,4 Endangered Species 

Federally listed threatened or endangered species thought to occur within Jackson County are: 

Group Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status 

Amphibians Lithobates sevosa dusky gopher frog endangered 

Birds Ammodramus maritimus Seaside Sparrow imperiled 

Birds Ammodramus 11elso11 Nelson's sharp tailed imperiled

sparrow 

Birds Charadrius melodus piping plover endangered 

Birds Grus canadensis pulla Mississippi sandhill crane endangered 

Birds Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald Eagle imperiled 

Birds Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker endangered 

Ferns and Allies Isoetes louisianensis Louisiana quillwort endangered 

Fishes Acipenser oxyrinclms desotoi gulf sturgeon threatened 

Fishes Percina aurora pearl darter candidate 

Fishes Atraclosteus spatula Alligator Gar imperiled 

Mammals Tricheclms manatus West Indian manatee endangered 

Mammals Ursus americanus luteolus Louisiana black bear threatened 

Reptiles Che/onia mydas green sea turtle threatened 

Reptiles Dermochelys coriacea leatherback sea turtle endangered 

Reptiles Erelmochelys imbricala hawksbill sea turtle endangered 

Reptiles Gopherus polyphemus gopher tortoise threatened 

Reptiles Graptemysjlm1imaculata yellow-blotched map turtle threatened 

Reptiles Lepidochelys kempii Kemp's ridley sea turtle endangered 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

Environmental Assessment 

218-051 

Page 7 
Reptiles Pituophis melanoleucus lodingi black pine snake candidate 

Reptiles Pseudemys a/abamensis Alabama red-belly turlle endangered 

Endangered species that may occur in the area include several terrestrial and aquatic species. The 

terrestrial species are identified as the Red cockaded woodpecker, the Mississippi sandhill crane, 

the piping plover, two sparrows, the Louisiana black bear, the black pine snake, and the gopher 

tortoise. The Red-cockaded woodpecker and Mississippi sandhill crane are not known to nest in 

the area and can avoid the area during construction activities. The optimal habitat of the seaside 

sparrow is found in unaltered marshes with expanses of medium-high cordgrass with a turf of 

clumped, residual stems. Especially suitable are spots not subject to extreme flooding that have 

open muddy areas for feeding, Dense vegetation such as salt meadow grass is little used and high 

marshes provide marginal sparrow habitat. Therefore, it does not appear that the project area is 

suitable for the seaside sparrow. The Louisiana black bear is not likely to be present due to the 

separation of the construction area by water bodies. 

The gopher tmtoise digs its burrow in dry habitats. Based on the proximity to the estuary and the 

Escatawpa River, it is not likely that the gopher tmtoise is present in the area. 

The black pine snake lives in upland, open longleaf pine forests with sandy, well-drained soils 

and dense grassy or herbaceous groundcover. These snakes may also be found within stream or 

river corridors and in or near pitcher plant bogs located within or adjacent to longleaf pine 

forests. They require large tracts of undisturbed land, from 135 to 385 acres, to conduct seasonal 

and daily activities such as eating, mating and hibernation. Based on the habitat requirements of 

the black pine snake it is not likely to be found in the project area. 

A letter was sent to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the Mississippi Department 

of Wildlife Fisheries and Parks (MDWFP) for comment on the potential effects of the project on 

endangered species. The USFWS responded that the Alabama red bellied turtle (Pseudemys 

a/abamensis) and the wood stork (Mycteria Americana) could potentially be present in the 

project area. The USFWS requested that a biological survey be conducted to identify the 

presence of these species and to evaluate the effect, if any, the project would have on these 

species, A visual survey of the project area was conducted for indications of the Alabama redbellied turtles and the wood stork. There are no areas of deep open water that is the preference 

of the turtles during the winter months. The survey was conducted on warm sunny days and no 

turtles were observed in potential basking areas USFWS was concerned about the culverts being 

constructed beneath the rail line lo allow passage of tidal flow lo the east and west sides of the 

rail. USFWS was concemed that there be enough free board in the culverts so that the turtles 

would not drown when crossing through these culverts. The modified layout includes an elevated 

rail that will not require culverts, therefore, the requirement involving the culverts does not 

apply to the modified footprint. No wood storks have been identified in the project area. The 

MDWFP indicated that best management practices should be implemented, monitored and 

maintained for compliance, in pmticular measures that will prevent suspended silt and 

contaminants from affecting water quality and habitat conditions in nearby streams and 

waterbodies. Best management practices will be implemented during construction. The practices 

will be identified in a Stonnwater Pollution Prevention Plan. 

The remaining species that may be present are aquatic. The Gulf Sturgeon, West Indian Manatee 

and the Leatherback, Hawksbill, Kemps Ridley and Green sea turtles are not likely to be found in 

Compton Enginecrh1g, Inc. 

Environmental Assessment 

218-051 

Page8 
the project area due to the dense vegetation, water quality, and water depth. The area is not 

mapped as Gulf Sturgeon critical habitat. It is not likely that gulf sturgeon would be found in the 

project area since it is entirely shallow estuarine and forested wetlands with no open water areas. 

The sea turtles would also not likely be found in the project area based on the dense marsh 

vegetation and water quality considerations. 

Compton Engineering> Inc. 

Environmental Assessment 

218-051 

Page 9 
3.2.5 Wetlands 

A wetland delineation was completed in the modified project area to identify the types and 

amount of wetlands that are present in the modified project area. Approximately 3.5 acres 

(based on a width of 45 feet) of tidally influenced estuarine wetlands are present in the proposed 

project area. An additional 3.0 acres of uplands are present within the project footprint and 

approximately 0.27 acres of upland will be impacted by construction of the rail. A copy of the 

wetland delineation is included in Appendix B. Marsh habitats can provide habitat for fish 

nurseries, amphibians, aquatic reptiles, wading birds, waterfowl, and song birds. Riparian 

woodland can provide foraging, roosting, and nesting habitat for a variety of birds and provide 

cover and refuge sites for small mammals, amphibians, and reptiles. These wetlands will be 

impacted by construction activities associated with driving the pilings for the rail line. 

Temporary impacts will occur from construction activities that may require a barge to access 

portion of the rail line. A Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan was prepared and approved by 

the National Marine Fisheries Service, DMR and the US Corps of Engineers. JCPA will work 

with these agencies to evaluate potentially reducing the size of the PRM marsh creation area. In 

addition, the JCPA has already purchased credits for impacts to forested wetlands and these 

impacts are reduced or eliminated from the project. 

3.2.6 Water Quality 

The project location is located adjacent to the Escatawpa River Segment 3 which is described as 

the river from Interstate 10 to the mouth of the Pascagoula River. The Escatawpa River Segment 

3 has been listed as an impaired water body since 1996. Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) 

were established for biological oxygen demand (BOD), chlorine, fecal coliform, pH and toxicity 

in 2001. The water quality standards for other listed contaminants (mercmy, nutrients, priority 

organic compounds, suspended solids and turbidity) were attained in 2005 based on monitoring 

data or lack of numeric criteria for the category. The fill material used to build the rail line will 

be from a clean source of material that will be free of pollutants, and is not expected to adversely 

impact the TMDLs in the Eseatawpa River or the surrounding enviromnent. Best management 

practices will be implemented to prevent sediment from leaving the construction area and to 

prevent increases in turbidity outside of the constmction zone. 

The modified footprint rail line will be elevated by construction on piling and will allow 

continued tidal flushing of the area, 

Stormwater best management practices (bmp's) will be used during construction to protect all 

waters downstream and down gradient of work areas. Erosion and sedimentation will be 

minimized by limiting the size of the work area, installing sediment control structures, and 

stabilizing disturbed soils (in upland areas) as soon as installation is complete by seeding and 

covering with erosion control blankets. A Small Construction Notice oflntent will be prepared 

and a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) will be completed and utilized to ensure 

that adjacent waterbodies are protected. 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

Enviromnental Assessment 

218-051 

Page 10 
3.2. 7 Floodplain 

The project area is located within the floodplain. A Jetter was sent to the Mississippi Emergency 

Management Agency (MEMA) for comment on potential impacts to the floodplain. MEMA 

responded that the project was in a Special Flood Hazard Area as shown on the Flood Insurance 

Rate Map (FIRM) 28059C0342G dated March 16, 2009. 

3.3 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts 

The JCPA evaluated indirect and cumulative impacts associated with the project. Indirect effects 

are caused by an action and are later in time or fmther removed in distance, but are still 

reasonably foreseeable. Indirect impacts were identified as: 

• Constrnction of the rail line will have ongoing impacts to the tidal marsh and forested 

wetlands. Water circulation patterns could be altered which could result in changes to the 

areas adjacent to the rail line footprint. The fill portion of the rail line is modified to be 

elevated and cross over a shorter section of tidal marsh, therefore that will be minimal 

impacts to tidal flow in the area. 

• The project will cross over .98 acres of tidal marsh habitat. The marsh habitats can 

provide habitat for fish nurseries, amphibians, aquatic reptiles, wading birds, waterfowl, 

and song birds. Riparian woodland can provide foraging, roosting, and nesting habitat for 

a variety of birds and provide cover and refuge sites for small mammals, amphibians, and 

reptiles. Because the rail will be elevated, minimal impact to this habitat will occur. . 

• Removal of the invasive species within the rail line footprint will remove inferior habitat 

and help to prevent spread of the species into nearby areas. 

• Improvements to rail transportation in Jackson County supports improvements to the 

MSE in George County where new manufacturing facilities are planned or underway. 

This supports new jobs, improvements to other infrastructure and economic development 

in general. Having direct rail access (o the Port of Pascagoula is an incentive for 

businesses to locate along the rail footprint. 

Cumulative impacts are impacts on the environment that result from the incremental impact of an 

action when added to other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions. If a project 

would not result in a direct or indirect impact on a resource, then it will not contribute to a 

cumulative impact on that resource. The impact used in the cumulative impact analysis is the net 

impact (i.e., chosen alternative impact minus proposed minimization and/or mitigation 

measures). For resource areas where the impact would be fully offset by the proposed 

minimization and/or mitigation measures, there is no contribution to cumulative impacts from 

the project. The environmental analysis conducted for the project has determined that the project 

would not result in a net impact on any resource, with the exception of wetlands. 

Cumulative impacts were identified as: 

• The filling of the estuarine and forested wetlands can degrade habitat and species 

diversity through consequences such as displacement and fragmentation of habitats and 

populations, alteration of hydrology, contamination, erosion, sedimentation, disruption of 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

Environmental Assessment 

218-051 

Page 11 
migration corridors, changes in water quality, and introduction or promotion of predators. 

The impacts from fill are reduced with the modified footprint. These impacts will be 

mitigated by replacement or preservation of similar habitat within the same watershed. 

• The project can also contribute to potential community impacts identified for the project, 

such as changes in community character, traffic patterns, air quality and employment. 

The community impacts associated with the project are positive. 

• JCPA researched past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects and actions 

that could result in impacts that would coincide in time and space with impacts from the 

proposed rail line. JCP A determined that the relevant projects included 1) railroad 

improvements at the Port of Pascagoula with wetland impacts, 2) construction of a 

manufacturing facility and addition of rail line in George County that connects to the 

Mississippi Export Railroad rail line. The impacts at the Port of Pascagoula have been 

permitted by the USCOE and mitigated for by purchase of mitigation credits. The 

development projects that are ongoing in George County will also require USCOE 

permits and mitigation if there are any wetland impacts. The development in George 

County is expected to provide up to 200 jobs and will be a positive impact on the 

community. 

4.0 Project Alternatives Considered 

4.1 Other Alignments 

Other aliguments for the new rail line were considered. 

1) An aligument was considered that would cross south of the proposed alignment. This 

alignment was several hundred feet longer, crossed a larger area of forested wetland and 

would require purchase of private residentially developed property. Therefore, this 

alignment was not chosen. The alternative alignments are shown in Appendix D. 

2) Utilizing the existing rail line that crosses under Highway 63 and joins the main line at 

the rail yard also includes a tight curve that would not be safe for unit trains to travel. 

Use of this section of rail has been discontinued due to safety considerations. The 

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

make rail use economically advantageous. 

3) Two altemate aligmnents were considered that established an acceptable radius that 

would allow the trains to maintain the optimal speed. This alignment required the rail to 

be added south of the existing MSE rail line and impacted several single family 

residential propetties. In addition, this alignment would pass under a p01tion of the 

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

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

alignments considered only provided 21 '7" and 20'7" of clearance. The layout of these 

alternatives are shown in Appendix D. 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

Environmental Assessment 

218-051 

Page 12 
4) The permitted alignment includes approximately 3,576 linear feet and through forested 

wetlands is approximately 1,115 linear feet. The rail will cross over 107 feet of uplands. 

5) The proposed modified alignment includes approximately 2,852 linear feet of elevated 

rail line over marsh (0.90 acres if impact from fill at the abutments and a small marsh 

area) and 807 feet of rail on uplands. 

4.2 Construction Methods 

Based on constrnctability and cost, JCPA looked at elevated the rail rather than construction on 

fill. 

1) Construction of a railroad bridge was considered. This alternative would reduce the 

amount of fill discharged into the alignment but would require that a sidewalk be 

constructed attached to the rail line for maintenance purposes. This would result in an 

approximately 15 foot wide footprint. This width of shaded area would prevent 

continued growth of the estuarine and forested wetland vegetation resulting in a similar 

reduction in wetland habitat. In addition, the method for building a rail road bridge 

would require construction from barges adjacent to the rail road aligrunent resulting in 

additional destruction of the wetland habitat. The area was previously impacted by 

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

line maintenance activities and it does not appear that the marsh vegetation has 

recovered. Estimated costs for rail road bridge construction were estimated to be $33 

million. 

2) An alternative construction method utilizing sheet pile was considered. This would 

involve driving sheet pile along the layout, filling in between the sheet pile and 

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

is a more expensive than filling and involves additional heavy equipment to drive the 

sheet piles that would damage additional wetlands outside of the rail footprint. Based on 

the cost and damage from heavy equipment, this option was not selected. 

3) The constrnction method for the permitted rail line was to fill the alignment from the 

south end working towards the north and using the previously filled area to access 

further along the alignment, so the areas outside of the fill area will not be impacted. 

Silt fence will be placed along the project footprint to prevent fill from moving outside 

of the project area. This resulted in a total impact of 4.89 acres of tidal and non-tidal 

wetlands. Ongoing geotechnical evaluation indicates that constrncting the rail on fill is 

not technically sound and would likely result in a rail that needed ongoing repairs. 

4) Combination of elevated rail line, fill, and a modified footprint resulted in an estimated 

cost of approximately $15.5 million. 

Compton Inc. 

Environmental Assessment 

218-051 

Page 13 
4.3 No Action 

With the No Action alternative, the main rail line would not be relocated and rail traffic would 

continue through downtown Pascagoula and Moss Point. Traffic congestion would increase as 

the expected rail traffic increases and the train length increases to as much as 60 to 70 cars for 

some trains. Air quality would continue to be negatively impacted by idling ears. 

5.0 Mitigation 

JCP A has already purchased 3 .48 credits from Wetland Solutions mitigation bank for mitigation 

for impacts to forested non-tidal wetlands (1.16 acres) associated with the permitted alignment. 

JCPA would like to use these credits for a foture project. 

Impacts associated with the permitted footprint included impacts to tidal estuarine wetlands (3. 73 

acres). A Permittee Responsible Mitigation plan that included creation of tidal wetlands by 

grading an upland forested area within the MPITC to restore/create tidal flow and planting 

appropriate marsh vegetation species. The PRM plan was approved and JCP A purchased a 

Pe1formanee Bond for $50,000 to be used if the PRM failed to achieve success within five years. 

The JCP A proposes to work with the agencies to evaluate reduction in the area to be created or to 

be able to use the excess created wetlands for mitigation for future projects. 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

Environmental Assessment 

218-051 

Page 14 
References 

Association of American Railroads (AAR) white paper, PUITING TECHNOLOGY TO WORK 

HOW FREIGHT RAIL DELIVERS THE 21S1' CENTURY, May 2018, 

Mississippi State Rail Plan, Final Report, June 2011, Mississippi Department of Transportation 

Port of Pascagoula Intermoclal Improvement Project, Tiger Grant Executive Summary, Port of 

Pascagoula, July 2013 

Railroad-Highway Grade Crossing Handbook-Revised Second Edition, August 2007. US 

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 

http:/ !safety .fhwa.dot.gov/xings/com roaduser/070 l 0/sec04a.htm. 

United States Environmental Protection Agency, Watershed Assessment Tracking and 

Environmental Results, Total Maximum Daily Load Report for Escatawpa River Segment 3, 

accessed on line July 11, 2013 

United State Fish and Wildlife Service, Environmental Conservation Online System, Species by 

County Report, accessed online July 11. 2013 

Compton Engineering, Inc. 

Environmental Assessment 

218-051 

Page 15 
COMPTON ENGINEERING, INC: 

Englneeilng, surveying, ~nd Envlronmentei Services 

156 Nixon Street 

DIIC>XI, Mississippi 39530 

Phono: (220) 432·2l33 Fax1 (228) 432-0149 

l!•maU: comptonOconiptonenglneerlng.com 

Site: North Rall Connector - Project Area 

Moss Point, Jackson County, MS 

Figure Title: Topographic Map - Project Area (Map source: MyTopo Map Pass. usGs 

7,5 Minute Serles, Pascagoula North Quadrangle, 1982) 

Appendix ID: 

B 
--- ---

ll 

!I nl 
t ! I ! ! 

; 

A 

5 

; I 

D ; ! 

- -

i I I D 

t! ! ! ! ! ! 

~J ! ! ! ! ! 

! I !I I I I 

J ~t d .. :t :t ~t 

.,. 

\ 

~& p i 

I . 

1..-' . ' .1 i . 

. ·• 1 

: I : 1 1,I 

·, I 

) I i 

I 

I 

., 

I 

H 

u 

, 1 

-

... ., 

'·' 

. . 

' I 
A Wetlancl Delineatiou 

Compton Engineering, lnc. 

Environmental Assessment 

218-051 

Page J 6 
·t 

I .. 

\'/,nJ11.7Jf•J 

W.IUk U ) T /,.W 

stnolng 

HIVH 

hi.arid 

n__J7_J 

0 0.5 1 2 3 

Moss Point, Mississippi 

I Miles 

4 

_,_ 

n 

'J •. 

), 

Wildlife Solutions, Inc. 

Phone: 251-591-2682 

I inch = 2 miles 

'I 

Qra,-J lb,. 

ll1tcNil 

WJdf. Atl >~' 

f 111,I , ,,, 

' f ,. l ,, 
,\ '·~ M1rH;11,tHJ11>1 l·)(pflfl I I I t- 1 t' I 

l io 

l'J 

d 

I 

I I 

.,

I •

:..). 

.\ 

\' •J' .. ,,,· J• 

l 

',I ,t•, 

\ 

,It •• 

"" .. ., .,1. 

• •• 1 

.,,, ,, I, . • .• , •. ,, 

,. \ ,, 

I, • \\ 

,i ,, • , 1Jr 

.,. ,tl awr,.1 R IVPI 

,,1 , ,I 

n._n__J 

0 265 530 1,060 

' 

1,590 

1· .. , \ I I! )) 

JJ'< -~. 

. \ ·/ . , ,: ' 

I Feet 

2,120 

' , . ,, ,. • I 

•.•l 

.., 

h' ' 

,, ·"'· ,., ,,. ,,; 

,,, 

.1 •· 

.,, 

;, 

Wildlife Solutions, Inc. 

Phone: 251-591-2682 

Moss Point, Mississippi I inch = 800 feet 

1,1 

\\ .\\j ••... 

.. , 

... 

•\ 

.,. 

,,' 
''.\ · :~\

:-, 

< 
0 140 280 560 840 

Feet 

I inch = 450 feet 

1,120 

--Rail Center Line - 0,9 mile 

1111 Wetlands- 3,5 ac 

Uplands - 3.0 ac 

Soil TYpes 

Wildlife Solutions, Inc. 

Phone: 251-591-2682 

-88.512122 30.414181 Decimal Degrees 
--Rail Center Line - 0.9 mile 

Wetlands - 3.5 ac 

w*n Wildlife Solutions, Inc. 

-~-

n_n__J I I 

0 140 280 560 840 1,120 Phone: 251-591-2682 

Feet s 

I inch = 450 feet -88.512122 30.414181 Deeinml Degrees 

t-
86'30'68Yl 86'30'5<\'W 88'30'50W 88'3()',l'f'W 88'30'43'W 88'30'40W 88'30'30'W 86'30'32-W 66'30'29W 88'30'26W 88'30'22 

+ + + + + + 

f 

+ + + + +~ 

ffl Wetlands - 3.5 ac 

g 

LJ Uplands-3,0ac z 

fu 

+ + + + + + + +~ I" g g 

z 

+ + + + + + + + + + +~ 

" 

l' 

0 + + + + + + + + + +~ 

g " 

l' z 

+ + + + + + + + + +~ g 0 

" 

?" z 

g + + + + + + + + + +~ 

g 

' i; 

?i + + + + + + +~ I" g g 

J z 

+ +- + + + + +~ 

g b 

" 

z z b b 

-~ + + + + + + +~ 0 0 " " 

f: l' 

+ + + + + + + + + +i 

g g 

z 

+ + + + + + + + + + +E I" 

g 

N 

-~- , IV*E n_ru -. I I Wildlife Solutions, Inc. H! 

g 0 140 280 560 840 1,120 Phone: 25!-591-2682 

Feet s 1 inch c, 450 feel -88.512122 30.414181 Decimal Degrees 

813'3 '1'W sa•icT6a-w ae·&J5nv sa·3J-5ow aa·;J4.,.w SB'J:;nv aa•iJ.io-v, lW;t6'W aa•Ji2-w 88';;};9-Vl 00'.3t&'W 88';t2 
wwl,ynL!,.lc~,01~-,;»·""-" 

~UNIMII (UMO·tll ~/ll·Ul·f11 

S!OO) ".15 lW • IXOUQ • VlnWY":15\'4 

snlWlSlfi!/l~Wl!A'ff'li!l'!lll,'.l'flS:'!)~n,n',l'Y.H 

'ONI 'ElNJU33NlDN3 NOldWO 

~lf.l 

oo+on :vis - 00+001 :vis 

:lll:lOUd 18 NV1d - U01.')3NNOJ 71\/U HlUON 

iJJNVlSISSV !1NWNV1d UOl:J3NNOJ nvu IWJON 

1:J'iJCOUd IJUO.lSinJ V1nOD1t.:>SVd :10 .HJOd 

1-~~-~i•;,<.?fu:. 

- .. -.-.- ·, 

1 ., '"t."l'.l!>l 

........ li~.1.!J :·oii t(">( 

0310N sv 'HY.I~ 

j--- ----·--------

·-m- ! 

·------ !~ -·-Lt:t I 

its 

\ 

' ' 

~-----'/.J-'-__ .,_ __ ,_ 

j 

,, i 

--- r---ti--r :::! I 

3 1 ¥ a 

• B!,.-,-,..----,=~~--+--0 ·~ --~:+ A ~,:1~~ I ; .... t~ 1; ! t i;i:-,_ . I I ... ,. ..I 

I \ 'i ! 

lt---+--1 +~~---C--_j__-J._1---'::c::-' 

I / !11 

l H-' 

-~ -~I- -,>•--_J_--0--

' ' 

, 

,., . ..;_j__ __ j__---1-'---1---':~ . ! 

'l,,rnl .•...\m .....• m-i / 

1----l--+-l·f'--L 

__ L _ _J__j__]_C::":-l 

l ' l---+--J-1J-~l--+--l-+-..J 

' ' ,, """'' ,.,,.i~·, I '" 

m 

-···-

........ /;.!...;---+-- ---l...."l1"'< i 

" " 1------t-----1-----H-- ------·· 

' I,,., -l---L-_J_---1-- ~. ···--··-ur---- --- , 

\jb I 

,, ' 

1-----J---113-\--1 ---''---+---'---' 

\ d 

: ' 

I 1! .1~~1•--•aL...... \,--•; .,.,-i 

<I 

' 

" 

<l 
I• 

I> 

,! 

' • ' ' 

I ' ti 'a Ii 

§ 

' 

'' ! 

I> 

I 

I> 

I> 

§~ l;§l ~. 

•:m 

' • 

' 

. " 

" 

"Ll"---L-'--11--- i \ 

' ' ' 

' ' 

·f~f..;~-"~t;·".f'!''"' \ I-::_ ~i ,:-.. \ ,.} / 1_, ' \ : ~· ... ,:;· (' \.f . 

./,, 

{' 

,c.s1::,•;r ';~,,.,~ 

,--::~:: 

_, 

--~---~·--

----~--~-. 

i ··m··L_L_J __ _._ __ ~.- §--/1----1---1 

><"NE, AS NOTED 

J0$KI>,: 31!;~.:i_ __ 

e.\TE: 

!>~',~., l.iiTVl/~TTI 

' ' ' ' 

POIIT OF PASCAGOULA RESTOR/f PROJECT 1Nj1 . OMPTONENGINEERING, INC. NORTH RAU. CONNECTOR PLANNING ASSISrANCE [Rr,;i•,mi,G,siJ,mHIGu-'mF~r.i;m~tm:vtm 

NORTH RAIL CONNECTOR- PlAN & PROFILE PA5rAGOlll.A. • mo:o: • MY.'iT.tOl/15 

STA: 110+00 - STA: 121+00 llHn~i~:~«-~1:i~'t!!.!!..-.:'.,';~,11-mo '---'------' 
II 

PROPOSED PLAN 

,. 

! 

I 

j ; ' 1-..-~•~•m•n.i.1 ! I I I I 

I ! I ' ' "'"'l'T,:,"k1'o.i),OO ' •IO><!'Tjl.tV: .... 

I ' L¢W,r,:U:,,,<Jio 

I ...,,~,.,,,.. ...... ! I Ma.e,.,,,,o, ' "' """~ .... , i i "'l'"".,...~ i i ·-~:'.g,O• 

I I . -

' i ??. " I ' ,, -:-r. i i ' /,,.,,,,,,,,,.,.MUl\, 

I I ' WN•"'10•lllP"""'°' i ' .. ., .... ' ' 

' _,.J_ ..... 1 I .., ......... -...... __ •.-••--·· ll!tlt-fi,f-f- l1 llf l l'f f f l1 ll 'li rr -fllT rnrr f f1

lf ····--·-·1-·· 

I ' i /i ', 

l--- t : , 

--- ____ _l ____ ' -- --+./ [ ----~[~_·:-::=b . ----- j j,/ i 

__ _J _____ 

! 

i ' 

I j ! -·-r·-- ' I I i ' ' l,s ' ,,, I I ' ! I i _:h,""-"""'°"'t'C" ...,,_j) I ' i ~-~-;._·:oc,:ai.u I ""'1<T'IPl:'0" 1~~1) 

I i i i I i.1, I I I 

i i ' .,.1 ' I 

,[; ,[, ,u; 5i~ 05 ;fs :[, ~E ,1, -1, 55 ~5 ~1: :l3 .. ~-- :Jis ~!5 ~: El~ ~3 ;3 :>1•00 u,.;o ' ill•• l»•:O ,,, ... =" ,,. ... ,, .. ,., ·- 1l>-)O """ m.-.a ...... ,:,,.:;o ii, .... ,.,..,. ,._ ..... ,. ::ti••· ,,,.s, ,.,, ... ,:n-:o m-oo <;,;")O l,lJ.JO 
w»·t>.v,1~.1,~•;,1t.i>»-~-"-" 

NtNIH/1 (Uf•UnU NIN~H!! 

SJnOl •..ts ~V<l • \XOlJQ • Vll'l<Y.>Y.lW~ 

S!lU~ll liil/J,l'll'Jl/.,'ll 'Ii ~IU.:Vll)S 't).~r.!U<;J<:)!ll 

'ONI 'ONlH33NIBN3 N01d~l0:J 1

t,6'11 +M•l :v1s - OO+EE't :v1s 

cllI.:IOlld l8 NVld -110.L:TclNNO:) llVll HHION 

,·o 

- ,n:,;Vni :19 'o 0 

I I ·r q,= ,~r\ia ilJNtflSISSV DNlWNf/ld H01:J3NNOJ mm Hl~ON I O· ,-o,, 

1:J3{0Ud 3U01S:/"U V1n0.9V.?5Vd ;/0 .H/Od o:uoN S\I <.im 

IHiii= 

f-----1---+"s---! !H---;(',---+--1--- g:. I 

-: 

t---t--,ltl'·'~I ... ~-/----·- .....,, 

-, rl 

IH-.l M 

1-----1-+--+---l>-+--4' ---j-. t1 h'."..L f 

__,_ 

i.-,...._ 

-~ 

t tN• 5 

•1 H---t\-- -- -:-Mc- ! ::=(2-~~~-j 

1------1-+--+--==-~\--·-·---- - --m- ! -

, Hf-----l-,_,_---1----lC--- 0-- -if,~ 

,_,_ 

i------ - -· - ---1,4---1----1--'-- :~! ! i: :l .. 

' <I 

! 

<) 

<) 
'' I> 

I> 

I> 

"V> ~"" 

~,. 

w 

C 

,! 

m 

'.j 

' V> 

8 

0 

z 

oj 

L---1---IC----~ 7 

,. 

,. 

1 ,. •l· 

' '· L-----1-LJ, 

§ 

0 

z 

,i e--------1----!•1·., i~ 1.-:_ 

j~ L-----_,··.·---'.rf . g~ ··>·,·-•, . ' : ., I L 

_____ J!~ ... ~i J.: .. ' 

p;-· ········-···· ,j.•·+· :·t .. : L~ 

,---··· . :}HlA/:I) 

/ rr.,1'.:========l:i., ·: " }- . "-- i L---------lc I ii 

I : · ~u 

~-" .1 ,• 

h 

' 

0 •=" AS NOTED PORT OF PASCAGOULA RESTORE PROJECi iMI! COMPTON ENGINEERING, INC, n OU;o., 2IHs1 NORTH RAIL CONNECTOR PLANNING ASSCSTANCE a, .~•,'fl,,.,;;-_,;,•, l.'il.J!L............~-- £,\Gl~H~';<,\ StR'«l(l.0 A O,Y.00.',..".EJIIAl.5!.!,VlCfS • - ,. om,., J.5l\l~nu_ SHEETPILE ABUTMENT PLAN & SECTIONS tl.Sc..>.Go:JtA ' a11.on • l'An-r.,o!ll~ N O • ~~~Ill;..,_~,~£!!- llHINilJ lll•l!MUI ll&--IIMII) ~--~---"'-'-'·-' ----~ , __________________ __, '----••_•_•_•~c'_'·_··•c"_""---·c'"-·_' __ __, 
l 

C, 

C, 

C, 

C, 

c1 

p ii~ o!l -~ 

I Ji " 

I 

" " -" '" ~i g~ -~ • 

I i, IJ I ' ' I• • .. -·•I 

I •••••• 

I 
ll> . .. --- ,, ....... ..;. ·--··,"'····-·,,,S.,~~ .. - ·~-·-·~·-·--- . ' . ~··-•·~•·-"""'~"······1 'l [i) ii~ 

d )> '8 

I 

i 11 "10 rra z 

II', 

le 

n~m 

111]1 C 

ITT~ ~-

mz 

>I 

le 

I 

le 

le 

le 

m 

ra 

" " " n ,• 0 

:t- ~!;!G 

z ~3a 

fl Bl'~ 

•• o,Q:X 

t-J 

l/l tuo 

VI t:IOU 

"'-,o:u 

Ill~~~ 

illGl 

~E! 

§! ;8 

hm 

~· [ji ~2 !:i 

-~ 0 ;;;oz 

H 

II 

~._Ef; r-"·rt: 

·-u= 

n 

---

+-·-·-· I I I I I I t--·-·· 

li I""'"-=-; 

·-u= 

Ji 

_CJ 

·r-+-+-t---1· 

L+--

I I 

. . •. 

... 

. 

. ;_·.:-.:-.; -

-------·--

. 

___ .. 

. 

,~ 

~2 

s 

·-·-r· 

p 

! 

, 

/j 

, •. 

I:!'.... J. r•)' 

Ii 

{ ! ' ' l .. ,. I' 

\ I Jf 

' /'ir~ ' ' • I I ' ' . ..,....t,,, l• ' ij' !- 111_ im 1-1 

:~ 

' 6~ §. 

,,L·-r:··1· \. Ii o_) 

~i j I 

' ' ' 

I "17701 

i 

,....____ __ l 

I ~-,,p .sh 

a• 

p~ 

Po 

"" "i 

,.,. 

l'-l' I l'•l" 

.,.... 

' 11r ' ' \ I I ' ' I ' ''\.,,._' ~,,.: ' ·•• ·•(~tl 

I\ 

I

! 

- - I 

·--

l(i) i 12 ' 

:~ -; .... p~ .• •" , I 

a~ ~· ~!! 

~[ n 'TM", 

TI~ 

p 

li 

;; =='!'='=~ I 2 ' ... ~-

,--........, ' 

r" .eh 

~i 

0 ,a,., Y,' a 1'·0" PORT OF PASCAGOULA RESTORE PROJECT rijgi COMPTON ENGINEERING, INC. :.::·;~.::: '° ... , 1,a--0 1 HORTH RAil CONNECTOR PUI.NNING ASSISTANce El.!ilMUL\G, s.uwoNJ u1;'1UQ/.Y.UHJl m.=s ,{iiU""~1 ~~:,_i~m; p~ • ~!lO~I • MY$f,lQI/IS ,~v~ Qr,G,u, ,·,.~£!a.'\Ue TYPIQ\L TRESTLE BENT DETAILS llHIM~I~ m-ut-l!ll "Mll•mo -, --, filr.1~ ).!,llJ!>SIJlL' ""~-W<';t<>"-t,l;l\'<u!"•)-""' ,u 10.; 
. ' I "'~•·f•.1'>-•c:~n·;,,·,!,.,.,,-,.,., "JlUS<l<USY ,-~llJ Dl<l·l!l-~ll E!IM(>·tl! O<lM,t·UI S11\fBO lN38 t-.JQllISNWl3llS3Hl 31l'<Jl¥'lJ/ '.!ff '.Q",O 'f(fi~J S!O:,l'JS~VII • J)(Oll~ • V11lWY.Wf~ ";i"jj•~tt£h1- 1'i.'l-><l SDL\l,-:1~ l'IIJl}l,''\(m,\.'ll V !ll\tJMrns °!1⁄4'NH'<l:Yil 3JNV1SISSV fJNIWJV1d HOJ.::mmo:, mrn IWIDIJ q1_-<1t:~!1L\'l,! -Uo·ifll nmll<X =:-- 'ONI '£>Nt~3-~fNION3NOldWO!) 1:J:llOHd iU/01S:1ll \t1/l0.9V.)SVd ;JO J.HOd .,0-,1 "',,1⁄4 IJlf;,~ 

t I ' 

H, '"I 

<I y' 

i 

-~ ' ·~ ll~ <I !~ Sc-~ ! 8 ;.; 2: 

. I b~ ;; ii -- '-:.:: .. -.:.1 ' II .L __ . . . --•- - ' 

i 

L--~ . 

I . 

. . 

~d 

' ilg •• ~-n <I de I i__J 

! 

' gj[ t~:-~ "· ' ' • • § I ' ~Jg ' r v , 

- --· le..:,_ 

--r, " . - -~ -a -i--- " 

- ' " . ' . - - ; 0\ " -- ."! <I " ·if j - -' ' - • .. • "" ., I==== ' I ~!i~: • l... ~rn~ Ill d r-- on4 in " J. ~I .. ···-·----' N I ·-· iui:i ·: ,.<6 O b ot~ z • . " ·• 

i' • ~ff •' u ' - -- ' " a ' --•- n . ' ~if " , ' - - 2 -- ; Q' - ' . .,- zm G I• 

- t -~ -r· ,- ~w " () ,w '. . ' 111!u ' \ Z G .J I ' z .J ' ' -=-e. ·- - LI W D. μ, ,' r,r- <( ' --"r-, !I .. ·•-~ i 

I 

i I i<i i ,£-,1 I .(•,I j 

,l\H (!] ' ·" ' i j 

.. , ,,,.._,, o ,.,,,..,.,.,_,,='-'~•n«;•u-., .. ='>"•""" c~~,.,.,., ,_,._,,C• "'=•"-'•'-"• •~"_.._,, •&•~~ .,., .,_~_,,,.,.,_,," ••~•" ·-'U"-''>•><~ - .,,,HbL ..... ,'VJ>=•«_,,-.,,,.,...,.,_..,..,,..,~•~•....,~-,_,~--~ "1 

II ··~ rn 
US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE CORRESPONDENCE 
United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office 

6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Suite A 

Jackson, Mississippi 39213 

Phone: (601)965-4900 Fax: (601)965-4340 

March 2, 2021 

IN REPLY REFER TO: 

2020-1-0837 

Mr. Michael Johnsen 

Federal Railroad Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Mr. Johnsen: 

The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the information in your letter dated 

February 23, 2021, regarding the proposed Jackson County Port Authority - No1th Rail 

Connector Rail Line Project in Jackson County, Mississippi. Our comments are submitted in 

accordance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (87 Stat. 884, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 1531 

et seq.). 

Based on the information provided in your letter, the Service concurs with your determination 

that the proposed project "may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect" the Alabama redbellied turtle. Although there will be minor impacts to foraging habitat associated with bridge 

pilings and abutments, the effects of the action on this species are expected to be insignificant. 

No further consultation under the ESA is required with this office unless there are changes in the 

scope or location of the proposed project. 

If you have any questions, please contact David Felder of our office, telephone: (601) 321-1131. 

Sincerely, 

Stephen M. Ricks 

Field Supervisor 

Mississippi Field Office 
Lisa D. Morrison 

From: Murphy, Amanda (FRA) <amanda.murphy2@dot.gov> 

Sent: Wednesday, February 24, 2021 7:56 AM 

To: david_felder@fws.gov 

Cc: Sandy Feathers; Dixon, Marc (FRA); Lisa D. Morrison 

Subject: North Rail Connector Section 7 consultation 

Attachments: Habitat Map North Rail Realignment Delineation-2.pdf; Topo map from North Rail 

Realignment Delineation.pdf; USFWS Summary north_rail_connector_2020.s.pdf; Species 

List_ Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office.pdf; aerial C2.0 - C2.3-C2.3.pdf; aerial 

C2.0 - C2.3-C2.1.pdf; aerial C2.0 - C2.3-C2.2.pdf; aerial C2.0 - C2.3-C2.3.pdf; North Rail 

Connector USFWS Consult 022421.pdf 

Dear Mr. Felder, 

Attached is a Section 7 consultation letter for the Jackson County Port Authority's North Rail Connector Project in Moss 

Point, MS. The last attachment is the cover letter which explains FRA's not likely to adversely affect determination for 

the Alabama Red Bellied Turtle. Please let me know if you have any questions during your review. We look forward to 

your response within the next 30 days. 

Thank you, 

Amanda Murphy 

Environmental Protection Specialist 

Federal Railroad Administration 

202-339-7231 (cell) 

Amanda.murphy2@dot.gov 

1 
U.S. Department 

of Transportation 

Federal Railroad 

Administration 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

February 23, 2021 

Mr. David Felder 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Suite A 

Jackson,MS 39213 

Re: Project Review Request - Section 7, Endangered Species Act 

Jackson County Port Authority - North Rail Connector Rail Line, Moss Point, Mississippi 

Dear Mr. Felder: 

The Federal Rail Administration (FRA) chose Jackson County Port Authority (JCPA) to receive 

grant funding for the North Rail Connector Project in Jackson County, Mississippi (the Proposed 

Project). The FRA is preparing an Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Project in 

accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Pursuant to 16 U.S.C Section 

1536 (Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act) and its implementing regulation (50 Code of 

Federal Regulation [CFR] part 17) "Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants," this letter is 

being transmitted to present project findings. FRA finds the Proposed Project would not likelv 

adversely affect the Alabama Red Bellied Turtle (Pseudemys alabamensis) and requests 

concurrence from the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 

Project Background 

JCPA proposes to construct the North Rail Connector, a rail line that would connect an existing 

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

Point, Mississippi to an existing JCPA-owned rail line that crosses through the Moss Point 

Industrial and Technology Complex and provides access to the Port of Pascagoula, Bayou Casotte 

Harbor. 

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

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

latitude and -88.514452 degrees longitude. The new rail would extend from mile post 2.89 

(30.251207 /-88.3 l 0005) on the north and extend to mile post 2.05 (30.413308/-88.508269) on the 

east where it would join existing rail. A topographic map, a Habitat Map/Wetland Map and 

preliminary site plans are provided for your information (Figure 1, Figure 2 and Attachment 

1 (Figures 2.0-2.3). 

The Proposed Project would be approximately 3,659 linear feet with 2,852 feet of elevated rail and 

807 feet of rail constructed on fill or existing uplands. There would be approximately 2,649 cubic 
yards of fill at the pile abutments for the elevated rail and in an area of estuarine wetlands. 

Approximately 0.90 acres of wetlands will be filled associated with the project. An existing grade 

crossing on Orange Grove Road would be relocated approximately 50 feet to the west to allow for 

the curve needed to accommodate the train lengths and speed. The existing MSE rail at the west 

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

line. For construction, a laydown yard would be established within the MPITC in an area that was 

recently used for the same purpose. The laydown yard would be approximately I acre in size, and 

not located within a wetland. 

The Proposed Project is a modification of a previously permitted rail connector that was proposed 

to be constructed on fill crossing over the marsh. Based on constructability and costs, and desire 

to minimize environmental impacts, the layout was changed to cross over a shorter footprint of 

marsh and uplands. JCPA previously corresponded with USFWS Mississippi Ecological Services 

Field Office. The previous correspondence indicated that the Alabama Red Bellied Turtle could 

be in the project area. Based on a visual survey for the Alabama Red Bellied Turtle the USFWS 

concluded that the project was not likely to adversely effect the Alabama Red Bellied Turtle. A 

copy of the correspondence from USFWS for the previous project footprint is attached 

(Attachment 2). 

Project Purpose and Need 

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

between existing infrastructure to suppoti the growing needs of the Port of Pascagoula, Bayou 

Casotte Harbor. Currently, freight trains that travel from the 1101ih on the MSE line must pass 

through downtown Moss Point and Pascagoula to the Pascagoula Interchange to join CSX rail. 

This operation regularly blocks vehicular traffic and creates delays at four major roadway 

intersections. Also, the curve alignment from the existing MSE line entering into the MPITC is 

too tight for the expected length of train to travel through that area safely. The Proposed Project is 

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

the proposed restoration of passenger rail service. 

Project Investigation 

The USFWS Information and Planning Consultation (IPaC) Tool was used to determine the 

potential for any federal threatened and endangered species that may occur in the proposed project 

location, and/or may be affected by the proposed activities. Attachment 3 contains the IPaC 

Species List generated for the project area. No critical habitats were identified, however, thirteen 

endangered, threatened or candidate species were listed as potentially within the project area. 

Review of this list indicated that only the Alabama Red Bellied Turtle (Pseudemys alabamensis) 

could potentially be present within the project area. 

Alabama Red Bellied Turtle - The Alabama Red Bellied Tutile is a large (20 to 25 centimeters 

carapace length) freshwater and brackish water turtle found in waters with submerged and 

emergent vegetation, typically in channels with little current bordered by extensive marshes 

comprised principally of black needle rush (Juncus roemerianus) and sawgrass (Cladium spp.). 

The turtle normally has an orange to reddish plastron and a prominent notch at the tip of the upper 
jaw, bordered on either side by a toothlike cusp. The elongated carapace is highly arched and 

elevated along the mid line; its highest point is often anterior to the midbody where the carapace is 

widest. The carapace is brown to olive, with yellow, orange, or reddish streaks and mottling that 

form distinct, light vertical bars on the pleural scutes. The skin is olive to black with yellow to 

light orange stripes. The Alabama red-bellied turtle seems to feed almost entirely on aquatic plants. 

They can be found in varied ecosystems, including brackish marshes, cypress swamps, oxbows, 

lakes, ponds, bayous, rivers, cattail swamps, and tidally influenced streams and channels. The 

primary requirement for the species appears to be the existence of suitable foraging habitat, which 

is typically associated with submergent and emergent vegetation such as watermilfoil 

(Myriophyllum spp.), pondweed (J'otamogeton spp.), or eelgrass (Vallisneria spp.) bordering the 

waterbodies. When it was designated the state reptile, the Alabama red-bellied turtle was thought 

to be endemic, meaning found nowhere else in the world. In recent years, however, a population 

was discovered in the Pascagoula River of southeastern Mississippi. 

Females lay eggs between May 14 and August I on land bordering coastal rivers and marshes, 

typically in loamy sand and heavier siltier substrate typically within 600 feet of the shoreline or 

marsh. Nesting habitat includes open, patchy forest of maritime live oak or longleaf pine, usually 

within the dripline of large trees, and sometimes at the base of the tree trunk. Most nest sites appear 

to receive less than 50 percent sunlight. 

The Alabama red-bellied turtle was placed on the USFWS Endangered Species List in 1987 and 

is of the highest conservation concern. It is also protected under the Nongame Species Regulation 

by the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 

Potential measures to protect the ARBT include; 

1. Avoid placing "hard" structures (bulkheads, etc.) at the water's edge that may prevent turtle 

migration to nesting sites. Applicants may also consider natural/nature-based features, 

when appropriate, that do not prevent turtle migration to nesting sites ( e.g. living 

shorelines). 

2. Land disturbing activities within 600 feet of the shoreline (potential nesting habitat) should 

occur during the non-nesting season (November I st - April 30th). 

3. Impacts to turtle nests may be minimized during nesting season (May 1st-October 31st) 

by conducting construction activities from the water (e.g. docks, piers, and other similar 

structures). 

4. Removal of in-stream woody debris (basking material) and submerged and emergent 

vegetation should be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. 

5. Avoid dredging projects that contribute to salt water intrusion into turtle habitat(< 5ppt 

salinity). 

The Proposed Project area does include marsh vegetation including black needle rush and saw 

grass. The proposed rail will be constructed over the marsh on elevated pilings and will only 

impact marsh at the pilings and abutments. There will be minimal impediments to foraging, 

swimming and sunning caused by the elevated rail. In addition, the turtles may avoid the area 

during construction which will be constructed either from land or from existing rail. A portion of 

the rail will be constructed on uplands and on a small area of marsh that will be filled. This impact 

will be offset by creation of suitable marsh habitat. A Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan is 
being prepared for the Project. A draft copy of the PRM Plan will be provided under separate 

cover. Therefore, it does not appear, that the project will have an adverse effect on the Alabama 

Red Bellied Turtle. 

Other Species - Based on review of the IPaC Official Species list, other species on the list do not 

appear to have the potential to be affected bv the proiect. Information regarding these additional 

species is provided below. 

Wood Stork- (from https://www.fws.gov/northtlorida/Spec ies-Accounts/Wood-stork-2005.htm) 

Wood storks are large, long-legged wading birds, about 45 inches tall, with a wingspan of 60 to 

65 inches. The plumage is white except for black primaries and secondaries and a short black tail. 

The head and neck are largely unfeathered and dark gray in color. The bill is black, thick at the 

base, and slightly decurved. Immature birds have dingy gray feathers on their head and a yellowish 

bill. The wood stork is a highly colonial species usually nesting in large rookeries and feeding in 

flocks. Nesting has been restricted to Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina but storks move 

northward after breeding. Birds from the southeastern United States population moving as far north 

as North Carolina on the Atlantic coast and into Alabama and eastern Mississippi along the Gulf 

coast. There have been occasional sightings in all States along and east of the Mississippi River, 

and sporadic sightings in some States west of the Mississippi and in Ontario. 

The current population of adult birds is difficult to estimate, since not all nest each year. Presently, 

the wood stork breeding population is believed to be greater than 8,000 nesting pairs (16,000 

breeding adults). 

Storks are birds of freshwater and estuarine wetlands, primarily nesting in cypress or mangrove 

swamps. They feed in freshwater marshes, narrow tidal creeks, or flooded tidal pools. Particularly 

attractive feeding sites are depressions in marshes or swamps where fish become concentrated 

during periods of falling water levels. Since the project area is not nesting habitat for the wood 

stork, and may only be used for foraging, the wood stork is likely to avoid the area during 

construction and may return after construction activities are complete. Therefore, it does not 

appear that the proposed Project will have an adverse effect on the wood stork. 

Sea Turtles 

Sea turtles including the Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas), the Hawksbill Sea Turtle 

(Erectmochelys imbricata), the Kemp's Ridley Sea Tmtle (Lepidochelys kempii), the Leatherback 

Sea Turtle (Dermochelyls coriacea}, and the Loggerhead Sea Turtle (Caretta caretta) are listed as 

potentially within the Project area. Review of the preferred habitat for these species, indicate that 

it is not likely that they are present. The Project area is located approximately 10 miles upstream 

from the confluence of the Pascagoula River and the Mississippi Sound. They are not known to 

be present in the Escatawpa River and would not be present in the shallow marsh habitat in the 

project area. 

Black Rail 

The Eastern Black Rail is not known to be in the project area and would not nest in the marsh 

habitat due to the tidal range that would flood nests in the marsh. Adults could avoid the area 

during construction activities. 
Mississippi Sand Hill Crane 

The Mississippi Sandhill Crane may forage in the shallow marsh but could avoid the area during 

construction. The area does not provide suitable nesting habitat for the Mississippi Sandhill Crane. 

Dusky Gopher Frog 

The Dusky Gopher Frog makes its home in several isolated ponds and would not be present in the 

project area. 

Louisiana Quill Wort 

The project area does not provide habitat for the Louisiana Quillwort that prefers shallow, slow 

moving, meandering streams. 

Yellow-blotched Map Turtle 

The Yellow -blotched Map Turtle prefers riverine habitat with open canopy allowing for several 

hours of sunshine per day. They prefer a moderate current, a sand or clay substrate, sand bars and 

beaches for nesting. 

Findings 

Since the Proposed Project is located within the same marsh area and similar uplands to the 

previously reviewed project (Attachment 2), it appears that the conclusions concerning the impacts 

would be similar. In addition, JCPA has reduced the proposed impacts by revising the rail layout 

and will mitigate for unavoidable impacts through the measures mentioned in this letter and by 

preparation and implementation of permittee responsible mitigation. 

FRA requests USFWS concurrence on our finding of not likely to adversely affect the Alabama 

Red BelliedTurtle and no potential to affect for the other species for the Proposed Project within 

30 days from the date on this letter. If you need any additional information, please contact Amanda 

Murphy, FRA Environmental Protection Specialist at Amanda.murphy2@dot.gov. Thank you for 

your cooperation on this impo11ant project. 

Sincerely, 

MICHAELM Digitally signed by MICHAEL M 

\ JOHNSEN 

JOHNSEN Date: 2021.02.23 15:52:00 -05'00' 

Michael Johnsen 

Supervisory Environmental Protection Specialist 

Federal Railroad Administration 

cc. Mark McAndrews, Jackson County Port Authority 

Amanda Murphy, FRA 
Figures 

Figure I - Topographic Map 

Figure 2 - Habitat Map/Wetland Map 

Attachments 

Attachment I - Preliminary Site Plans (C2.0- C2.3) 

Attachment 2 - Correspondence for Previous Footprint 

Attachment 3 - IPaC Species List 
0 140 280 560 840 

Feet 

I inch - 450 feel 

1,120 

-- Rail Center Line - 0.9 mile 

- Wetlands - 3.5 ac 

L..,._,. Uplands - 3.0 ac 

Wildlife Solutions, Inc, 

Phone: 251-59 1-2682 

-88.5 12122 30.414181 Decimal Degrees 
Wildlife Solutions, Inc. 250 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 Phone: 25 1-59 1-2682 

30.414 I 8 1 Decimal Degrees 
United States Department of the Interior 

FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office 

6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Suite A 

Jackson, MS 39213-7856 

Phone: (601) 965-4900 Fax: (601) 965-4340 

In Reply Refer To: February 15, 2021 

Consultation Code: 04EM1000-2021-SLI-0498 

Event Code: 04EM1000-2021-E-01125 

Project Name: North Rail Connector 

Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project 

location or may be affected by your proposed project 

To Whom It May Concern: 

The enclosed species list identifies threatened, endangered, proposed and candidate species, as 

well as proposed and final designated critical habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your 

proposed project and/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the 

requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the 

Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). 

New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of 

species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to 

contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to 

federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical 

habitat. Please note that under 50 CPR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the 

Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be 

completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be 

completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and 

implementation for updates to species lists and information. An updated list may be requested 

through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. 

The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the 

ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(l) and 7(a)(2) of the 

Act and its implementing regulations (50 CPR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to 

utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered 

species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or 

designated critical habitat. 
02/15/2021 Event Code: 04EM1000-2021-E-01125 2 

A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects ( or other undertakings having 

similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) 

( c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological 

evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may 

affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended 

contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. 

If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that 

listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the 

agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service 

recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed 

within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 

consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered 

Species Consultation Handbook" at: 

http://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/TOC-GLOS.PDF 

Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require 

development of an eagle conservation plan 

(http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/eagle_guidance.html). Additionally, wind energy projects 

should follow the wind energy guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing 

impacts to migratory birds and bats. 

Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications 

towers ( e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; 

http://www.towerkill.com; and http:// 

www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdissues/Hazards/towers/comtow.html. 

We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages 

Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project 

planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in 

the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project 

that you submit to our office. Submit consultation requests electronically to the following email: 

msfosection7consultation@fws.gov 

Attachment(s): 

• Official Species List 

• USFWS National Wildlife Refuges and Fish Hatcheries 

• Migratory Birds 

• Wetlands 
02/15/2021 Event Code: 04EM1000-2021-E-01125 1 

Official Species List 

This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the 

requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether 

any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed 

action". 

This species list is provided by: 

Mississippi Ecological Services Field Office 

6578 Dogwood View Parkway, Suite A 

Jackson, MS 39213-7856 

(601) 965-4900 
02/15/2021 Event Code: 04EM1000-2021-E-01125 2 

Project Summary 

Consultation Code: 04EM1000-2021-SLI-0498 

Event Code: 04EM1000-2021-E-01125 

Project Name: North Rail Connector 

Project Type: Federal Grant/ Loan Related 

Project Description: Construct an elevated rail line over estuarine marsh (brackish) with fill at 

pile abutments and a short length of rail on fill through wetlands. Total 

marsh impacts are 0.90 acres. Total length of elevated rail is 2,852 feet 

and rail on fill is 807 feet for total length of 3,659 linear feet. There will 

be approximately 2,549 cubic yards of fill. 

Project Location: 

Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// 

www.google.com/maps/@30.41555605,-88.51355341480986,l4z 

,, 

I 

I 

I 

Counties: Jackson County, Mississippi 
02/15/2021 Event Code: 04EM1000-2021-E-01125 3 

Endangered Species Act Species 

There is a total of 13 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list. 

Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include 

species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species 

list because a project could affect downstream species. 

IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA 

Fisheriesl , as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the 

Department of Commerce. 

See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially 

within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office 

if you have questions. 

1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an 

office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of 

Commerce. 

Birds 

NAME STATUS 

Eastern Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis ssp. jamaicensis Threatened 

No critical habitat has been designated for this species. 

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10477 

Mississippi Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis pulla Endangered 

There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. 

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1222 

Wood Stork Mycteria americana Threatened 

Population: AL, FL, GA, MS, NC, SC 

No critical habitat has been designated for this species. 

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8477 
02/15/2021 Event Code: 04EM1000-2021-E-01125 4 

Reptiles 

NAME STATUS 

Alabama Red-bellied Turtle Pseudemys alabamensis Endangered 

No critical habitat has been designated for this species. 

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1494 

Gopher Tortoise Gopherus polyphemus Threatened 

Population: West of Mobile and Tombigbee Rivers 

No critical habitat has been designated for this species. 

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6994 

Green Sea Turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened 

Population: North Atlantic DPS 

There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. 

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6199 

Hawksbill Sea Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered 

There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. 

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3656 

Kemp's Ridley Sea Turtle Lepidochelys kempii Endangered 

There is proposed critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not 

available. 

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5523 

Leatherback Sea Turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered 

There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. 

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1493 

Loggerhead Sea Turtle Coretta caretta Threatened 

Population: Northwest Atlantic Ocean DPS 

There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. 

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1110 

Yellow-blotched Map Turtle Graptemys flavimaculata Threatened 

No critical habitat has been designated for this species. 

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7730 

Amphibians 

NAME STATUS 

Dusky Gopher Frog Rana sevosa Endangered 

There is final critical habitat for this species. The location of the critical habitat is not available. 

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5600 

Ferns and Allies 

NAME STATUS 

Louisiana Quillwort Isoetes louisianensis Endangered 

No critical habitat has been designated for this species. 

Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7756 
02/15/2021 Event Code: 04EM1000-2021-E-01125 5 

Critical habitats 

THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S 

JURISDICTION. 
02/15/2021 Event Code: 04EM1000-2021-E-01125 1 

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge Lands And Fish 

Hatcheries 

Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 

'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to 

discuss any questions or concerns. 

THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS OR FISH HATCHERIES WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA. 
02/15/2021 Event Code: 04EM1000-2021-E-01125 1 

Migratory Birds 

Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act1 and the Bald and Golden Eagle 

Protection Act2. 

Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to 

migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider 

implementing appropriate conservation measures, as described below. 

1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918. 

2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940. 

3. SO C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a) 

The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS 

Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. 

To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see 

the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that 

every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders 

and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data 

mapping tool (Tip: enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For 

projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative 

occurrence and abundance of bird species on your list are available. Links to additional 

information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory 

bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found 

below. 

For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures 

to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE 

SUMMARY at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and 

breeding in your project area. 

BREEDING 

NAME SEASON 

American Kestrel Falco sparverius paulus Breeds Apr 1 to 

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions Aug31 

(BCRs) in the continental USA 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Breeds Sep 1 to 

This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention Jul 31 

because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types 

of development or activities. 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 
02/15/2021 Event Code: 04EM1000-2021-E-01125 2 

BREEDING 

NAME SEASON 

Black Skimmer Rynchops niger Breeds May 20 

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Sep 15 

and Alaska. 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ec;p/spec;ies/5234 

Clapper Rail Rallus crepitans Breeds Apr 10 

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions to Oct 31 

(BCRs) in the continental USA 

Least Tern Sterna antillarum Breeds Apr 20 

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions to Sep 10 

(BCRs) in the continental USA 

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes Breeds 

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA elsewhere 

and Alaska. 

https://ec;os.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679 

Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor Breeds May 1 to 

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA Jul 31 

and Alaska. 

Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea Breeds Apr 1 to 

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA Jul 31 

and Alaska. 

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Breeds May 10 

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Sep 10 

and Alaska. 

Seaside Sparrow Ammodramus maritimus Breeds May 10 

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Aug 20 

and Alaska. 

Swallow-tailed Kite Elanoides forficatus Breeds Mar 10 

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Jun 30 

and Alaska. 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/8938 

Willet Tringa semipalmata Breeds Apr 20 

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Aug 5 

and Alaska. 

Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina Breeds May 10 

This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA to Aug 31 

and Alaska. 

Probability Of Presence Summary 

The graphs below provide our best understanding of when birds of concern are most likely to be 

present in your project area. This information can be used to tailor and schedule your project 
02/15/2021 Event Code: 04EM1000-2021-E-01125 3 

activities to avoid or minimize impacts to birds. Please make sure you read and understand the 

FAQ "Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report" before using or attempting 

to interpret this report. 

Probability of Presence 

Each green bar represents the bird's relative probability of presence in the 10km grid cell(s) your 

project overlaps during a particular week of the year. (A year is represented as 12 4-week 

months.) A taller bar indicates a higher probability of species presence. The survey effort (see 

below) can be used to establish a level of confidence in the presence score. One can have higher 

confidence in the presence score if the corresponding survey effort is also high. 

How is the probability of presence score calculated? The calculation is done in three steps: 

1. The probability of presence for each week is calculated as the number of survey events in 

the week where the species was detected divided by the total number of survey events for 

that week. For example, if in week 12 there were 20 survey events and the Spotted Towhee 

was found in 5 of them, the probability of presence of the Spotted Towhee in week 12 is 

0.25. 

2. To properly present the pattern of presence across the year, the relative probability of 

presence is calculated. This is the probability of presence divided by the maximum 

probability of presence across all weeks. For example, imagine the probability of presence 

in week 20 for the Spotted Towhee is 0.05, and that the probability of presence at week 12 

(0.25) is the maximum of any week of the year. The relative probability of presence on 

week 12 is 0.25/0.25 = 1; at week 20 it is 0.05/0.25 = 0.2. 

3. The relative probability of presence calculated in the previous step undergoes a statistical 

conversion so that all possible values fall between O and 10, inclusive. This is the 

probability of presence score. 

Breeding Season ( 

Yellow bars denote a very liberal estimate of the time-frame inside which the bird breeds across 

its entire range. If there are no yellow bars shown for a bird, it does not breed in your project 

area. 

Survey Effort (I) 

Vertical black lines superimposed on probability of presence bars indicate the number of surveys 

performed for that species in the 10km grid cell(s) your project area overlaps. The number of 

surveys is expressed as a range, for example, 33 to 64 surveys. 

No Data(-) 

A week is marked as having no data if there were no survey events for that week. 

Survey Timeframe 

Surveys from only the last 10 years are used in order to ensure delivery of currently relevant 

information. The exception to this is areas off the Atlantic coast, where bird returns are based on 

all years of available data, since data in these areas is currently much more sparse. 
SPECIES 

American Kestrel 

BCC-BCR 

Bald Eagle 

Non--BCC 

Vulnerable 

Black Skimmer 

BCC Rangewide 

(CON) 

Clapper Rail 

BCC--BCR 

Least Tern 

BCC-BCR 

probabilily of presence breeding season I survey effort - no data 

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

mm 

Lesser Yellowlegs fi1 

BCC Rangewide +--1--1--1- -1--H+ -1--1--1---1-- +[U--1-+ +-•-++ +-1-++ +--H-+ ++--•-+ ++++ +ili-1--1- [1)-1---1--1- -1--1--1--1-

(CON) 

Prairie Warbler 

BCC Rangewide +-1--1--1- -1---1-++ -1--1--1---1-+-H-+ ++·•-+ +-1--1-+ ++++ --!--+++ --1--1·--I-+ 

(CON) 

Prothonotary 

Warbler 

BCC Rangewide 

(CON) 

Red-headed 

Woodpecker 

BCC Rangewide 

(CON) 

Seaside Sparrow 

BCC Rangewide 

(CON) 

Willet 

BCC Rangewide 

(CON) 

SPECIES 

Wood Thrush 

BCC Rangewide 

(CON) 

1 + 1--1, +[!,J-1-+ +H-- --1- ++++ -l--+--1----1-

JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 

--t--+++ ++--!-+ ++--1---1- +--1--1-+ -+ •I •I + ·I ' I +-1--1-+ ++--1-+ ++++ +--1-++ 

02/15/2021 Event Code: 04EM1000--2021--E--01125 4 
02/15/2021 Event Code: 04EM1000-2021-E-01125 5 

Additional information can be found using the following links: 

• Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/ 

birds-of-conservation-concern. php 

• Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/ 

management/project -assessment -tools-and-guidance/ 

conservation-measures.php 

Nationwide conservation measures for birds http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/ 

management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf 

Migratory Birds FAQ 

Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts 

to migratory birds. 

Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize 

impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly 

important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in 

the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding their destruction is a very 

helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding 

in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures or permits 

may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of 

infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. 

What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified 

location? 

The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern 

(BCC) and other species that may warrant special attention in your project location. 

The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian 

Knowledge Network (AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey. banding. 

and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as 

occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identified as 

warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act 

requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or 

development. 

Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your 

project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list 

of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool. 

What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds 

potentially occurring in my specified location? 

The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data 

provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing 

collection of survey. banding. and citizen science datasets . 

t 
02/15/2021 Event Code: 04EM1000-2021-E-01125 6 

Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information 

becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and 

how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me 

about these graphs" link. 

How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my 

project area? 

To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, 

wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab 

of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of 

interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your 

migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your 

project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds 

elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. 

What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? 

Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern: 

1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern 

throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, 

Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands); 

2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation 

Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and 

3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on 

your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) 

potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities 

( e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing). 

Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, 

in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC 

species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can 

implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, 

please see the FAQs for these topics. 

Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects 

For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species 

and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast, please visit the 

Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides 

birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird 

model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical 

Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic 

Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. 

Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use 

throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this 

information. For additional information on marine bird tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study 

and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring. 
02/15/2021 Event Code: 04EM1000-2021-E-01125 7 

What if I have eagles on my list? 

If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid 

violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. 

Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report 

The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of 

birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for 

identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC 

use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be 

aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that 

overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look 

carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no 

data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey 

effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In 

contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of 

certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for 

identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might 

be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you 

know what to look for to confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement 

conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, 

should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell 

me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory 

birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page. 
02/15/2021 Event Code: 04EM1000-2021-E-01125 1 

Wetlands 

Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. 

For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers District. 

Please note that the NWI data being shown may be out of date. We are currently working to 

update our NWI data set. We recommend you verify these results with a site visit to determine 

the actual extent of wetlands on site. 

ESTUARINE AND MARINE DEEPWATER 

• E1UBLx

• ElUBL 

ESTUARINE AND MARINE WETLAND 

• E2EM1Nd 

• E2EM1P 

• E2EM1Pd 

FRESHWATER EMERGENT WETLAND 

• PEMlF 

FRESHWATER FORESTED/SHRUB WETLAND 

• PFO1/4Bd 

• PFO1/4R 

• PFO1/SS4B 

• PFO4B 

• PSS3/1Rd 

FRESHWATER POND 

• PUBHx 

RIVERINE 

• R2UBH 
t> 

l 

t> 

t> 

f---+---1-----+ ·-·~ 

Ej \ \ 

.. '~<'c'<i~s;;,_, __ _, 

, 

, 

, 

, 

, 

: 

, 

, 

~---IB-- , -f---+----f--- -~+---+------, ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ------------, 

' 

, ' 

, 

, 

' i!'7 

------ -- - t· 

I 

' ' +-+---+---+-•• ~·'-1 f-------f--7 

' ' , ' 

, ' _, iH~~{- +- ----+-+--+--- - -- --/--+---+---1 , 

, 

, 

, l=l-=+:=::::::J--/ ··---

, 

, 

! 

, 

, 

I 

, 

, 

, 

/ -~ / f<l 

, ,· / ;! --Hi- -- -* -·1--_ .. _ .. _____ / .. .,. ·$~ 

j / E 

, 

.,, i. 

' ' ' i :J:- --+--+---, \--

' ' ' -1--------------- _I __ 

--- '---------------

0 ·~'" AS NOTED PORT OF PASCAGOULA RESTORE PROJECT iNii COMPTON ENGINEERING, INC. () ''""""'--" iosrm.: 21s-os1 NORTH RAIL CONNECTOR PLANNING ASSISTANCE N i-::~t;%~ DATE: lliGlliEE:<IW, S'J~VE'(lliG &. E/,V[RO~,l-:U,flllSERVKES ;_,. g~,~~-~Y:-\~~&~~L- NORTH RAIL CONNECTOR - PLAN & PROFILE ;1,~~~~\1 ; 3 6;:!:/;,~~s 1 _ _,,_ __ ~~~•~~~-•----; , ____ s_r_A_:_1_1_0_+_0_0_-_s_r_A_:_12_1_+_0_0 ___ ; , ___ -_"_·"_'_"_"_"_~~-•M_,_,_-"_' __